Excuse Me... But In Many Ways... This ENTIRE SITE Was Founded Over A STOLEN ELECTION

[WillyT]

Now 2012 was not stolen, in part because thousands of people voted early, by mail, and those that did not, refused to budge from the lines they were in.

To me... the ONLY elections that can be stolen, are ones that are razor thin. But... because of increased awareness, because of 2000, 2004, and the obvious attempt to disenfranchise DEMOCRATS in several states this time around... people got pissed, came out in droves, and stood their ground.

AND... made it unstealable.

I really have no idea what the reality of the Rove/Anonymous story is. But I am enjoying the fallout never the less.



But for some posters who've just arrived, and are hectoring the rest of us...

We who survived Bev Harris, and Black Box Voting, and loved Andy Stephenson, and on, and on, and on...

It is more than a tad insulting to be told to shut up.

We discuss things on this here discussion board... and I for one do not normally care if my petty-coat is showing.

I have this nasty habit... I tend to think for myself.

And I leave symbols... to the symbol minded. (Thank you George Carlin!)

[Fumesucker]

1. Let me be the first to K&R

[rhett o rick]

148. And let me be the 185th. Great post. I see the posse of deniers are here trying to get you to shut

up. LOL. I guess they follow Rahmbo. They claim they are saying "shut up". Not in those words. But they are not afraid to ridicule. They are not interested in discussing.

It's not about Anon. It's about our weak-assed electoral system.

[calimary]

157. Let me be the 200th! That's what led me to DU, back then.

I felt so isolated - nobody else felt about Selection 2000 as I did. And then I went online and started wandering around. And I found this place - with lots of support, sympathy, and solidarity, and tons of people who felt EXACTLY as I did! And I stopped wandering!

[rhett o rick]

167. I didnt figure it out until after the 2004 debacle. Gland to find Air America and DU. nm

[Rockyj]

221. Thom explains what happened in 2004 & what could have happened 2012:

[rwsanders]

273. Well you have to remember, that they may not be "deniers" at all...

It would appear to me that this site has a large following and a bit of a voice. Its not that I am still looking for news sites, but I haven't encountered many others that are equivalent.
Therefore you can be sure that there will be more clever trolls who will try to be "reasonable" and only disagree if you "go too far".
You also have to remember that now the CIA and other intelligence agencies are monitoring and we have to assume are participating in these forums also.
So stand up, shout, expose...
The more whining you hear the closer you may be to the truth.

[pacalo]

2. WillyT, you are a gem.

[WillyT]

149. Shh...

[pacalo]

180. Too late...

everybody already knows how awesome you are.

[Greybnk48]

3. Excellent point.

I'm here because of what happened election night 2004. I joined shortly thereafter when Andy over at Black Box voting started sending people "over to DU" for more info. That was the first I had ever heard of this site. I was so thankful for DU and everyone here.

[sandyshoes17]

21. +1

Same here. I remember that well

[Awknid]

83. Me too!

I've been just lurking for a long time and finally started posting. I love DU and it has helped me through some emotional times.

[FogerRox]

139. I have an Andy Stephenson for Secratary of State button.

We used to have a daily thread

[Greybnk48]

147. I remember your name. You used to post quite often.

Was it in the forum Election Reform? I don't really remember that clearly. I know there were changes over time and some forums merged. I do remember the Keith Olbermann estrogen brigade, consisting of a bunch of us ladies who were grateful that he made an issue of what happened with that election. I see some of the old timers/regulars posting here now and then, but I don't see names like yours often on GD. I'm glad you're still here.

[FogerRox]

159. HELLO ! ! Yeah, heady days, I lived voting machines for 3 years

Then I went to Kos, and last year started making the Rec list quite often, after sharpening my writing skills for years at DU and then DK.

I still have ERD headers on photobucket







And then there is the obligatory Impeach Bush sign



Or two



Ahhhh, this is an original, one of my oldest

[reusrename]

150. I remember you too.

Great discussions over the years.

Woot!

[Melissa G]

234. Hi Foger,

Ah, the ERD Forum days! That was a crew!

[FogerRox]

253. Hey, MG, yeah like a family :~)

[WillyT]

305. Hey Foger !!! - Thanks For Coming Back For This...

I remember those days, and I definitely remember you.

Are you using the same name on DK ???

[reusrename]

4. It's offensive as hell.

I say we stop feeding them, especially when all they contribute is thread spam.

[aaaaaa5a]

5. When was this site founded?

I discovered it during the historic 2008 Democratic primary. I've been a member and contributor ever since. I wish I had known about DU earlier.

[steve2470]

11. 2001 after SCOTUS awarded race to Bush basically nt

[SomeGuyInEagan]

133. I found the Top Ten Conservative Idiots early on in '01 ...

... and sent the link out each week to friends who lived all over the country:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/

Some great writing there - helped deal with what was going on.

[kimmylavin]

231. Me, too!

Found Top Ten Conservative Idiots in 2003.
Lurked, joined, donated.

I miss those lists...

[lark]

243. Me too.

DU was like a light for me in the midst of heavy darkness. My family said I was crazy and to get over it, I was so glad to come to DU and find people with similar thought patterns, who didn't just "get over it" and who realized our democrazy had just been highjacked and who were outranged by this theft. This site helped me through that very difficult time.

[Autumn]

15. When Bush was appointed. At his inauguration I saw a banner for this site

lurked from work for a time and finally joined . The rest is history, this site became a lifeline and a link to sanity for a lot of people.

[aaaaaa5a]

30. Thanks guys!

I consider this the # 1 progressive site on the web. I like it better than DK. Although I'm glad we have both.

I find it interesting that there is nothing like it that I am aware of on the GOP side. Freeperville isn't close. Its not even set up the same way. I guess when you don't have a lot of thoughts, there's no reason to have a forum to exchange ideas in.

[catbyte]

102. I found it late in 2001, joined in 2002. Mainly a lurker for many years

time freed up so I've become more active but this the first site I've visited every day for a decade.

[cyberpj]

222. Ditto. Discovered DU in 2001 after Supremes AMBushed U.S. Lurked a bit then joined after '04 Ohio!

It was the only place to let loose the rage where so many people would actually understand what I was talking about.

Been here ever since. Always checking the front page but also checking in all the time on Latest Breaking News -- it's better and more up to date, faster, than any other supposedly legitimate news site I can find. And pretty much the only place to find real World News outside of BBC news.

So. just added this post to add a little LOVE FOR DU --AND it's ELECTION FRAUD discussions!

[orpupilofnature57]

34. True American watchdog group, they should be proud .

[Coyotl]

50. We were live blogging the oversight hearings minute by minute

and no one got away with anything. Information was in great supply as research interfaced with hearings. It was a great time for skeptics challenging Bush weasels.

[orpupilofnature57]

55. +1000

[SoCalDem]

232. I saw one of the founders being interviewed on Washington Journal

and joined immediately.. It was in June 2001, and Brian Lamb was oh-so-dismissive when he wondered aloud at how odd it was to be so "upset" after "all that time".. and asked why we had not "gotten over it yet"..

he used to routinely dump calls from people who questioned GW's legitimacy..accepted calls from republicans 3-to-1

I quit watching WJ ages ago even after Brian Lamb stepped back

[glinda]

127. I think many new people arrive around election times for many reasons...

For myself, two elections ago did it for me. I had to find some people to help calm me down. I was a mess.

[HereSince1628]

6. I understand. I do. n/t

[rucky]

7. but this is different

coming in 5...4...3...

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Wait, 2000 actually happened?

On a serious note that is the problem, very short memories.

[OldDem2012]

9. Thank you! Well said! This board is for the DISCUSSION of all political topics. nt.

[aletier_v]

10. Bravo! The DU way is not telling people to shut up!

It's to hit alert and ban, aonymously and behind their backs!

[bestobdii]

169. Spam deleted by gkhouston (MIR Team)

[MuseRider]

12. Right ON!

We survived all of that crap and watching poor Andy do everything he did and then what happened to him. I worked a few things for Bev, what a mess. Shut up? I think not.

WillyT

[bahrbearian]

13. But they need proof , proof I tell ya. I wonder how many are of faith? Do they talk to God?

[randome]

23. Not proof. Evidence. There is none.

[bigmonkey]

47. False

You may not find the evidence convincing, but you have no warrant to say there is none. You can say whatever you want, but that's mere assertion.

[randome]

49. Fine. You say you have evidence. Now what?

What are your next steps?

[bigmonkey]

61. Mitt, is that you?

[randome]

67. What I thought. You have not through this through at all.

That makes posts like yours vanity posts.

[byronius]

112. That is a silly thing to say. Self-revelant. Really.

C'mon, there's plenty of evidence, reams of it.

The voice in your post -- the subtext -- it says more about this thread than any other comment.

Agree with me on the following statements: Some people just think They're Right. Democracy is secondary to that fact in their minds. Electronic voting is a tempting pathway to power, especially in these early stages, when states contract with private firms to provide these services. Any SOS that believes that He's Right, especially one under pressure from a lobbyist for forty billionaires, might just cave in to the temptation to Just Let It Happen. In its current form, electronic voting state-to-state is an abysmally dangerous way to conduct an election, on its face. It is a practice that cannot be defended.

Canada counts all their paper ballots in a day.

A Bad Cop can damage an entire town. A bad teacher can damage an entire generation. A bad election can destroy the world.

Why not make sure?

[randome]

119. Why are you trying to argue that fraud is possible? We know it is!

Despite the OP's claims, this post is not about that. No one has told anyone to shut up about the possibility of fraudulent voting.

It's about the anonymous email. So I ask this: if you believe that an anonymous email is evidence, what are you going to do about it?

[byronius]

152. Uhhhh, push for federally-regulated paper ballots and an absolutely public election process?

Of course? Any other questions?

What's your point? Is it all over this thread? Is it factual? What do you really mean?

Why does this thread bother you so, that you must pepper it with questions like that?

What's going on?

[randome]

155. "Questions like that"? It's a simple question.

And it's a lot more pertinent question than arguing about an anonymous email. Because an anonymous email -whether believed in or not- adds nothing to the conversation about voting integrity.

So the OP claiming that DUers are being told to shut up about voter fraud is bullshit. No one has done that. We have had disagreements about that one anonymous email.

I maintain it's irrelevant to the need to ensure voting integrity so let's talk about that, instead.

We have talked about having electronic systems AND a paper ballot as checks on both sides. Good idea or not?

[byronius]

192. Your thought process seems disjointed.

1) 'arguing about an anonymous email' -- the OP clearly states he doesn't know whether or not Anonymous prevented Karl Rove from hacking the election, but is enjoying the fallout. That is not 'arguing', and you are definitely not the correct arbiter for what adds to this conversation, since you aren't clearly conversing at all.

2) No, I'm not a fan of electronic systems, pretty much, period, certainly not if they're going to be manufactured and programmed by ideologues.

3) You are not really responding to my points at all. I don't think you're helping anyone here.

[suffragette]

174. The issue is about election fraud, not voter fraud or as you write it "fraudulent voting"

Election fraud is the fraud committed to steal elections.

Voter fraud is the scare tactic waved around by Republicans to deflect from the genuine issue of election fraud and to shut down organizations like Acorn which assisted people in exercising their rights, particularly the right to vote.

You might want to give more thought to those terms.

[bahrbearian]

79. You really have to wonder what their agenda is all about?

[bigmonkey]

90. Who are "they"?

Are you trying to teach "them" something? My point is that there's an enormous defference between "There's no evidence, none." and a statement like "I don't find that evidence convincing." If you see no difference btween the two, well I think there's the crux of the problem in these threads.

[bahrbearian]

118. They are the ones who say "there is no evidence"

I don't find any evidence but I don't conclude that it didn't happen. I appreciate that it calls into question on how our votes a processed through machines, and I don't understand why that is so abhorrent to "them".

[randome]

122. Can fraudulent voting occur? Yes.

Now you have something that you consider to be evidence. What do you intend to do next? Anything?

[bahrbearian]

132. Not enought to change an election.

[sabrina 1]

289. It isn't about voting. It isn't about voters. It is called ELECTION not voter fraud.

Right wingers try to make it about VOTERS. Because they do not want anyone to talk about the actual problem which is ELECTION fraud.

Do you believe that Bush won the elections of 2000 and 2004?

[randome]

291. Oh, please, stop with the baiting.

Obviously I meant election fraud instead of vote fraud. And yes, in case you were not around, Bush did win the elections. He did not win them fairly.

All of which has nothing, again, to do with the OP, which stipulates that someone is being told to shut up on DU.

This OP is really about one anonymous email, which is irrelevant to the problem of election fraud.

[sabrina 1]

299. Please stop with mis characterizing the issue. You've done it multiple times

now. Bush did not win those elections, they were stolen, by a combination of Election Fraud, using voting machines, voter suppression, and in 2000 when all else failed, and Gore won, the SC's treasonous intervention.

The word isn't 'fair' the word is 'fraud'.

The letter is apparently relevant to Election Fraud Deniers since Anon issues statements and videos on a fairly regular basis which no one notices. But THIS ONE has exposed all the deniers of Election Fraud, which may or may not have been its intention. But it sure got the issue the attention it needs and will continue to need until we have elections like Venezuela eg, where there is no doubt in the minds of the people, that their votes actually are counted.

[glinda]

128. good one

[sabrina 1]

181. Lol, and there you are again!

Btw, do you believe that Bush was legitimately elected in 2000 and 2004?

[truedelphi]

189. i am rather ignorant of the whole discussion

In terms of Anonymous and preventing Karl Rove from stealing the election and all that.

I am not saying that it is not a valid subject to be concerned with - just want you to understand that in entering the discussion, I am not taking sides (Other than of course, to agree with any and all that know Karl Rove to be a total pig.)

But I want to point out that the whole problem with modern day elections, and given the fact that over 70% of all ballots are processed on hackable election machinery, is that an election can be stolen, without any "proof" of that happening. The election can be stolen in a mere split second, especially if it concerns a local office. (Harder to pull off are the theft of Presidential elections, and then that of state-wide elections.)

[malaise]

14. K & R

Go DUers!!

[DakotaLady]

43. Questions

I have lurked on this site for many years only recently came on-board.

Can 'malaise' or someone else get back to me with what K & R means/stands for?

Also see n/t a lot and wonder about that as well.

Thanking you all in advance for answering my questions here.

[randome]

45. K&R = Kicked and Recommended. n/t = No Text, meaning nothing more than the subject line.

I don't care for either abbreviation, actually.

[DakotaLady]

69. Thank you ...

Another question ... what do I click on to 'post' my avatar or a signature?

[randome]

70. It's in the My Profile link at the top of each page.

[WillyT]

110. Damn... You're Actually A Nice Person...

I'm kidding... well, no I'm not... you ARE ACTUALLY a nice person...

But... But...

Aw fuckit...

[randome]

120. Time for bed, WillyT.

[Maynar]

73. very tippy top of page

slightly to the right of center, marked "My Profile."

[DakotaLady]

84. Off to the tippy top ...

... of 'my profile'. thanks guys ...

[Change has come]

106. Welcome DakotaLady!

K&R stands for Kick and Recommend. This means you agree with the original post (OP) and want to recommend it and kick it back to the top of the forum. N/T stands for No Thread or Topic. This means your response is only in the reply title.

[MNBrewer]

16. Hear hear!

[ProSense]

17. Remember when we

demanded an investigation?

Now, some are rejecting the need for evidence.

You posted why this is important:

<...>

In an era of internet lulz and digital false flags, we must demand proof for these sort of claims made by Anonymous. But given Karl Rove’s history with elections in Ohio and the known vulnerabilities with our corporate owned electronic voting machines, there may be both smoke and fire with these election night allegations.

That’s why it’s vitally important for Anonymous to release any information or evidence it has about this plot to not just Julian Assange, but to law enforcement authorities as well. Otherwise, the alleged democracy-saving actions of the hacktivist group will instead be regarded as useless internet antics, relegated to the dustbins of history.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/12845-anonymous-karl-rove-and-2012-election-fix

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1853363

[WillyT]

24. Of Course... But I Definitely Do Not Mind The Discussion And The Various Good Points On Either Side

We won the election... let's discuss.

[ProSense]

29. If that's the case, what's with the "shut up" straw man?

I mean, I'm having a discussion.

[WillyT]

31. I'd Have To Name Names... And That Ain't Cool Here At DU...

Correct?

[ProSense]

38. If you have to name names, then

why didn't you just confront them? The OP gives the impression there are a lot of people ganging up on those who believe the claim and telling the to shut up. Right now, there are at least three highly rec'd threads, including yours, supporting the notion that the claim could be true.

Doesn't seem like anyone is shutting anyone up.

[WillyT]

78. Ok... Fair Enough... Why Are YOU So DRIVEN To Confront/Weigh-In On These Discussions...

Seems to me you would prefer we shut up.

Though not in such words.

[ProSense]

216. Why are you so intent of playing the victim?

"Seems to me you would prefer we shut up. "

No one is telling you to shut up. I don't believe anyone is telling me to shut up.

You expressed an opinion, and so did I.

Asking for evidence is not a call to shut up, it's asking for evidence.

Why is that so objectionable?

[starroute]

36. You're not the one posting "end of story"

But surely you've noticed that there are those who are?

[randome]

37. 'End of story' is another way of saying 'Not enough for me'.

How can we have a 'discussion' about something when there is no evidence to discuss?

Or, to put it another way, if 1 anonymous email is enough to convince you that Nov. 6th was 'saved' by some agency, what next? Where do you go from there?

[reusrename]

109. We prefer to confront the reality that we live in, not hide from it.

As a small boy, when I watched the Zapruder film for the first time, having just lived through the nightmare of a national tragedy, my mind was screaming "WHO WAS DRIVING THAT CAR?"

Since then I've lived through many more national tragedies, and I've learned that the man driving the car was specially trained for that job, which makes perfect sense because it is really difficult to not react at all when you are being shot at for eight seconds.

But this is merely my description of the world we live in. To me it is a scrupulously accurate description. I don't try to run and hide from the facts.

Choosing not to confront the reality that Anonymous has made an extremely plausible claim is a way of denying the reality that we are all facing.

This is not a drill.

[randome]

113. What are the next steps, then?

You can believe in elves for all I care. It's none of my concern. But if you want to believe in an anonymous email and post that on DU, it becomes something I'm interested in.

So I ask again: if you believe this, what are you going to do about it?

[reusrename]

135. I'm hoping that I won't have to do a whole lot, other than join the discussion.

If a peer review journal does not publish an expose on the 2012 primaries pretty soon, like before this lame duck session ends, then I will probably start writing to academia myself. I have been thinking about how to go about this on my own, but better ideas usually involve discussion amongst a group.

This thread is about those who are either intentionally, or through ignorance, impeding this discussion.

Then there's this.

[randome]

143. Disagreeing on an anonymous email is hardly 'impeding'.

It's part of the discussion. Now if you want to claim that email as evidence, that's your right but I don't see the value in it if you can't use it for any good purpose.

What are you going to write the President about? Tell him to investigate an anonymous email? That's pretty thin 'evidence' to get the gears of national security involved. But, again, your right to do so.

The OP is wrong. No one is trying to impede a discussion about fraudulent voting. But there is much disagreement about one anonymous email. Those are two different things.

On edit: I misread your link. You proposed writing to the President about a Democracy Council. Sounds like a good idea.

[reusrename]

156. Fine it's not intentional, it's ignorance. I won't argue the point. I don't really care.

But it is not someone merely disagreeing.

That's complete bullshit and you know it.

It's mockery and ridicule, and I don't fucking like it. Sure, the first time it's a real hoot. The second time it's annoying. The third time it's nothing but disruptive, and you fucking know it is. And when folks here are pleading with them to stop and they just continue to spam thread after thread with their pointless insults, some people, like me, are going to start taking it personally.

And there is absolutely no need for it at all, is there? Other than to disrupt the discussion?

And, thank you, I'm gonna write the letter tonight. I'll keep it very short.

[sabrina 1]

262. It sure has raised the issue of election fraud, hasn't it? And if that was all

they intended, then they succeeded.

So first, everyone with a brain cell working knows that those machines are hackable, AND that when there is a suspicion they were hacked, 'end of story', we can't check, we can't prove it, we can't disprove it because in one of the most insane decisions ever made in a democracy, those machines' software is proprietary, iow, we as a nation put the 'concerns' of Big Corps ahead of Democracy.

So, what is the solution to those facts? Or probably best to confirm that you understand, those ARE facts?

[FogerRox]

142. The Anon claim is stupid, and probably not made by anon.

The voting machines and IIRC the county tabulators in Ohio are not connected to the net in any fashion.

[reusrename]

171. Ohio electronically flipped 65,777 primary votes to Romney.

Santorum would have won Ohio, but 65,777 votes were electronically flipped from Santorum and Paul to Romney.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1857208

[AtheistCrusader]

182. By what mechanism that existed in both elections, and could be connected to by

Anonymous or anyone else?

[reusrename]

186. It was only one election, the March 6 Ohio primary.

I don't think Anonymous had any involvement.

Click on the link.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1857208

[AtheistCrusader]

257. They are claiming (or someone claiming to be anonymous is claiming) to have connected to and

altered the system you are referring to (used in the primary election and the general) and locked Rove out. (Presumably, Rove is the actor that would have allegedly flipped votes in the primary as well)

What is that system, and how did allegedly anonymous allegedly block it? What mechanism?

[reusrename]

280. My brother suspects they hacked the passwords so nobody could log in.

All I've heard about it is it was a Microsoft product.

[AtheistCrusader]

284. The machines were not.

I have seen the claim that some password reset was done.
Easily proven. Why not prove it?

[jeff47]

18. If you're referring to the Anonymus hacking claims, being asked for evidence is not

being told to shut up.

But you're doing a great job grandstanding in an attempt to distract from that whole "no evidence" problem.

[ProSense]

22. "being told to shut up" is

another way of saying: stop poking holes in my arguments.

[sabrina 1]

264. You would have a point if anyone was arguing that there was evidence.

For most people this was a minor, though fun, attack on Rove, something I personally have zero problem with. When ever Anonymous has evidence of their activities they have produced it.

This would have disappeared from the internet though if it wasn't for the out of proportion outrage including by the likes of Kos, whose policies on his so-called 'liberal' blog from way back were to instantly ban anyone who even mentioned election fraud. Thousands of people were banned from that blog as a result, thousands more left in disgust.

He is an election fraud denier, always was, and the question is what is he trying to protect? He has never explained his reasons for attempting to silence any discussion of election fraud.

So you are incorrect to say there is no effort to silence people. Kos is attempting to do so as he always has.

Thankfully election fraud deniers like Kos were ignored by those who care enough about this democracy that they never gave up working to prevent it. And it is mostly due to their efforts that all the attempts to prevent people from voting during the last several elections, that stealing elections has become far more difficult, not that they haven't tried as we know.

People like kos are an impediment to getting something done about our electoral system, where each election we have to go to extraordinary means to ensure that our elections are NOT tampered with.

That is ridiculous in a democracy, that people have to fight off fraud and voter suppression to be able to exercise that most basic right.

So seeing Kos weigh in once again, attempting once again, to silence people, raised the question 'why is this minor, amusing side show becoming such a huge issue to some people'? And that remains the question.

But if Anon's intention was to make election fraud and Rove an issue, had it not been for the likes of Kos et al, they would have failed. So I guess we should thank them for their desperate attempts to make it go away which only resulted in keeping it alive.

Kos never was very good at this, though, so no surprise there.

[allrevvedup]

281. Anonymous makes it easier for Kos to dismiss the issue.

Election manipulation is a serious crime, and Anonymous is a random collection of pranksters at best, but now they're one and the same in the blogosphere and that gives Kos the ammunition he needs to dismiss the election fraud issue as a kooky conspiracy theory. What kind of serious person would risk credibility defending a video of a plastic head?

What I don't understand is why Anonymous gets a free pass here. Why not give it the same scrutiny Kos gets? I frankly think they're cut from the same cloth as I have yet to see Anonymous do anything serious except defend criminally negligent pharma giants against claims that their vaccines are neurologically poisonous, which the evidence shows they've long been.

So I don't get the Anonymous love because it seems pretty obvious that they're lying: they promised in the video to turn over any evidence they found to authorities, but there's no indication that they've done that.

[sabrina 1]

282. If this was Anonymous, they have a record to prove that when they say

they've done something or intend to do something, they do it. Ask HB Gary eg, who didn't believe them either.

You apparently have no knowledge of their history. However many times people pretend to be them. This may or may not have been them.

I totally disagree with you that this little stunt will have a negative effect on Election Fraud. Quite the contrary in fact. It has raised the issue of election fraud which as we can see is becoming a topic that both parties would like people to remain silent about. And if that was their goal, then they succeeded.

It certainly brought out Election Fraud deniers like Kos so clearly he, who has long denied the issue, doesn't agree with you either.

Kos gets very little scrutiny here or anywhere for that matter, he pretty much made himself irrelevant after people realized he was not what he had claimed to be. But if he ever runs for office, which he once indicated he might do, then he will absolutely be scrutinized and from what we know he would never get the support of actual Democrats. Which may be, since a lot has been learned and made public, why he has dropped that idea.

[allrevvedup]

283. Video: "We will turn over all this data

to the appropriate officials in the hopes that you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

&

That's what they promise to do in the "Anon2Rove" video, but in the statement, they make no mention of any of this, yet they claim to have caught Rove red-handed in a very serious crime. Instead they hint that they might turn over their evidence to Assange of all people, a right-wing Romney supporter, as if that would accomplish a damn thing:



So they lied. So why give them carte blanche credibility? They don't deserve it anymore than Kos and he definitely doesn't. HB Gary was the smallest of small potatoes and relevant only to a handful of true believers, and it was never clear to me that the whole thing wasn't at best a takedown of an inconvenient or irrelevant insider.

Election fraud, however, is the big enchilada, a federal crime with international consequences, so comparing this to HB Gary is apples and oranges. I haven't yet to see evidence that Anonymous is anything but an intel stunt of the kind seen all too often here and overseas, and I think it will permanently damage the credibility of the election fraud issue for another two or four years or until the next outrageous theft occurs.

So my basic question is, why not give Anonymous the same due diligence as we give Kos? Because they frankly have even less credibility.

[sabrina 1]

286. Lol, you lost me at Assange is a Romney lover' or whatever that was. He hates

Republicans and has made no secret of it. It was REPUBLICAN War Crimes he exposed. Which is why Republicans wanted him put to death! He exposed Bush's lies and his illegal war acts. That was the best laugh I had all day.

Please learn facts before posting BS like this.

Anonymous has never lied and have always delivered what they have promised. There are lots of very sad people around who would verify that, such as HB Gary to name one Corp, no longer operating as a result of promises made and kept by Anon. Thankfully.

I could well understand why they would choose Wikileaks to provide information. They know Wikileaks will not hide it, they will make it public. The MSM otoh, as we know all too well, has sat on information when told to do so.

We also know they would not trust the US Govt. Whistle Blowers are no longer protected in this country.

Wikileaks is an excellent choice to deliver information to as their track record shows.

Thanks for reminding me, I need to make a donation to Assange and Wikileaks to help them fight the political persecution they have been subjected to for TELLING THE TRUTH. Amazing to see people object to truth and facts being provided to the people.

[allrevvedup]

287. Assange: “It’s better to have a sheep in wolf’s clothing [ROMNEY]

than a wolf in sheep’s clothing (OBAMA)." That was on Nov. 7. Read all about it: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/07/julian-assange-says-victorious-obama-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/

Do you ever read LBN? If you did you'd know that Assange is a pro-big business libertarian who has repeatedly mocked Obama and Mrs Clinton and called for their resignations. Furthermore he leaked the Climatic Research Unit e-mails in 2009, sabotaging the December 2009 Copenhagen climate conference and causing it to fail before taking action on Obama's efforts to launch an international climate-change initiative. From Obama's plenary address to the Copenhagen conference:

I just want to say to this plenary session that we are running short on time. And at this point, the question is whether we will move forward together or split apart, whether we prefer posturing to action. http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/12/obama_tells_copenhagan_climate.html

Thanks to Assange and his uber-wealthy sugar daddies, the Copenhagen accords failed, and very little has been done internationally since then to address global warming. Watch hero Julien take credit for swiftboating the Climate Research Unit:

Yeah, Julien, he's a real truth-teller. Any more fairy tales you'd like to share with us?

[Lucinda]

19. KNR

[louslobbs]

20. K&R WillyT

Lou

[Punkingal]

25. Thank you!

K&R

[Raster]

26. Halle-fucking-luja!

I've been here FOR 10 YEARS. I will think what I like. And I think 2012 was a dirty election in many ways, it just happened to work our way... but others have not.

And I will say what I like.

Thanks, WillyT!

[Squinch]

104. I'm relatively new, but still, I'm with you!

The efforts to shut down any discussion of dirty election issues with the "we want proof about Anonymous" and the "if you believe Anonymous you are stupid" thing is getting repetitive, inane, and annoying.

[liberalmuse]

27. I made a "joke" about Anonymous and the Hacking, BUT...

Part of me isn't going to completely dismiss that this *might* have occurred. And all of me is loving it. I was around when FL was called for Gore, and I clearly remember watching in surprise and dismay when CBS retracted it, followed by the Bush family going live and stating there had been a mistake. I also think there was something "fishy" about 9/11, so I guess I won't be welcome at Daily Kos. When people tell others to hush, it gets my rebellious streak going. So carry on.

[annabanana]

28. What YOU said.. And anyone who's curious, and would like

to delve into the archives can watch the truth unfold in real-time. And share in the horror and sadness of Dear Andy's plight.

[WillyT]

32. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - And Thank You !!!

[Hyper_Eye]

33. I was here through the 2004 election and I remember Bev Harris + Black Box Voting very well.

I think there are valid concerns when it comes to voting machine fraud. I also think it is feasible that someone could have intended to tinker with the machines in this election cycle. I strongly believe that voting machine software should be open-source, transparent, and thoroughly reviewed by independent software analysts. As a software developer myself I would be more than happy to dig into it.

I also think Anonymous is a group of anarchists and generally unsavory people. I think that of almost anything born out of that rat hole 4chan. I don't think they start movements. They co-opt them and lessen the relevancy of such movements. I also think they are full of shit. When they make these claims about the election I find them to be far fetched, dubious, and conspiratorial. I am open to hearing about the flaws in the voting process and voting machines. I'm much more skeptical about claims of Anonymous coming in on an invisible white horse to save the electoral process for the people. Sorry.

[Coyotl]

54. Well reasoned. Thank you.

2004 was very interesting, the mix of misinformation and investigation, moles and trolls.

I'm thinking preposterous claims require preposterous evidence, and reindeer don't fly.

[riverSdawn]

75. Exactly

I have had the same gut feeling about anonymous too. I really dig your description Thanks for that.

.....and yes, for the life of me, I can't understand why there hasn't been more of a movement to focus on transparent election process. I don't trust the system but I agree with Willy T too that the people turned out and that made a difference.
peace

[freshwest]

162. Thanks for that. I don't believe in the rapture, no matter what it's called.

This election was won by many months of hard work, no one could come and rescue the people of this country from those who were determined to take it.

I object to the invisible hand of the market, faith based economics and the belief being pushed that someone is going to ride in and save us from our problems. It seems lazy.

[yellerpup]

35. We are rich in fallout, WillyT

Enjoy the clash of the symbols.

[bleever]

39. Thank you.

[denese]

111. gosh it's good to see you still here bleever

Your "we bleeve" thread was the first I ever felt compelled to respond to.DU is getting old.

[bleever]

267. Hard to believe that it was eight years ago!

denese

[CatWoman]

40. this was the one true place I could find sanity

and see images such as this. seems like there was a complete media blackout as to what really happened. They actually egged the presidential limo. A sampling:










and to those who say it wasn't stolen, or this one was prevented from being stolen? I can't fucking find the words.

[WillyT]

42. Me Too...

Lately we are being accused of BEING insane.

Ironically... I'm actually OK with that.







Call me crazy, but...





Great pix BTW..

[Carolina]

93. WOW!

These images take me back to those dark days when I was still in shock about the SCOTUS decision and resultant Coup 2000. The inauguration was the final straw. My sister lived in DC then and told me about the droves of protestors lining the parade route... but the MSM avoided showing them. That was the beginning of 1st amendment zones and an 8 year nightmare...

That's also when I joined DU which has been my lifeline

[myrna minx]

116. Oh those dark days...DU gave me safe haven.

The "watch what you say and watch what you do" administration is too soon for us to forget.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

121. yes. refuge from madness. even when lurking.

[FogerRox]

146. heres a couple of oldies

[MelissaB]

238. Election Reform is where I picked up most of my posts. It's great

to see you again, FogerRox.

[Window]

153. Excellent post CatWoman! Couldn't have said it better.

The pics are great!

[Coyotl]

41. The only elections that can be stolen are the ones with opportunity to steal them

That is why security is employed to guard against such opportunity.

They don't have to be razor thin. You just need good polling to know how many votes you need to pick up, and then the opportunity to do so.

You notion of razor thin is very frail if your premise is that the election can be hacked. If you can change the numbers, what does it matter how razor thin the race is?

Florida was stolen because it was razor thin. Ohio because it was too easy. Because of what we activists did, it isn't easy any more. In fact, this year we caught them in the act, not by watching rove but by watching the ballots, watching the opportunity be seized by an election worker. This they don't want in the news, that the people with the opportunities are the people taking care of your ballots. Maybe that is why this giant smokescreen is going on, a major skewing of understanding of election integrity into the twilight zone, because we have stolen the opportunity.

And, we are NOT anonymous, we are the real People.

[riverSdawn]

82. Spot on Coyotl

The people showed up and voted early.

......power to the people.....power to the peaceful.

[heaven05]

103. where

was the security in 2000-2004? Security????? The only reason we won this election is people stood in line for 8-9 hrs. Said it wasn't going to happen again and possibly anonymous. All of you calling foul, who cares. You're entitled. And you have no right to deny my entitlement to my belief. I hope there are many like anonymous out there, it is a start to let the PTB know people are not going to just roll over and say 'yes master' anything you feed us master is okay, just let me watch miami swat.

[starroute]

44. Not having proof does not mean not being able to discuss

For example, there was a story earlier that the Curiosity rover may have come up with something big -- but the scientists can't talk about it without further verification. The natural implication is that they've got evidence of life on Mars. We can't prove that they do, but there's nothing to stop us from discussing the matter. We can go over earlier hints of Martian life, wonder whether it would make the Fundies' heads explode, or toss in jokes about John Carter and Dejah Thoris.

This is no different. We don't have proof and can't come up with proof on our own -- which is why the people saying, in effect, "proof or shut up" are misguided. There may or may not be proof in the future, depending on what Anonymous reveals or what a third party can determine by studying the system. But we can sure as hell discuss its likelihood, talk about the possible implications, and even make jokes about it.

And no one has the right to try to tell us we can't.

[WillyT]

48. THANK YOU !!!

Exactly...

This is a discussion board... after all.

[randome]

51. And no one is. It's a straw man argument.

Or, if one or two posters said something comparable, that is no cause to say paint the rest of us this way.

[ProSense]

56. Here's the flaw in that logic:

Anonymous isn't Curiosity. The group stated definitively that they did something. They can provide evidence of their actions.

If they do not, how do we know it happened? We can say it did, but there is no proof. If it didn't happen, then the incident is fiction, meaning there was no problem with the election as described by Anonymous. See, that's the thing we need to know. Did it happen. That's the thing to satisfy curiosity.

No one needs evidence from Anonymous to support verifiable voting. In addition to satifying curiosity, the evidence would also support the claim that Rove tampered with the election, which is a crime.

This isn't rocket science.

[heaven05]

108. you

two think that your opinion is the only logical, correct opinion based on your, I guess, awesome intellect and intelligence. Other people can be right and, oh no!!!! You can be wrong and no one, not anonymous or anyone else needs to prove anything to you. You cannot disprove anonymous or stop people from liking the thought of some person or organization like anonymous. Go Willy T and Anonymous. Keep up the good fight, I'm right there with you.

[randome]

115. "Keep up the good fight"? What are you fighting for?

If you believe in an anonymous email, what are your next steps?

[heaven05]

125. I

have said what was necessary for you and the other awesome intellects on this site. Go Anonymous. Stay in touch.

[randome]

131. But you'd rather I did a search instead of answering my question.

Thanks.

[Ineeda]

217. Not to quibble, but

you keep saying 'an anonymous email', when in actuality the organization or entity known as Anonymous (capitalized) released a video, not an email, warning Rove that they would prevent the theft of this election. It doesn't help your position if you can't get the basics right.

[ProSense]

211. Two names: Keith Olbermann and Bev Harris

"Her kooky non-evidence producing ass destroyed the credibility of every well-intentioned election fraud advocate who followed her down the rabbit hole.

"you two think that your opinion is the only logical, correct opinion based on your, I guess, awesome intellect and intelligence."

I think for myself.

I value evidence because it keeps one grounded in reality, which is why the RW hates it:

If you perceive reality as the enemy, you're doing it wrong
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021861002

"You cannot disprove anonymous or stop people from liking the thought of some person or organization like anonymous."

Yeah, have fun, and remember Bev Harris, she was a blast!

[heaven05]

214. ohhh

didn't I tell you, I'm having fun....with the likes of you

[ProSense]

215. But did you know

that I'm lmao at you?

[heaven05]

220. that's it?

[starroute]

218. Are you really comparing Bev Harris to Anonymous?

Bev was able to pass as a credible voting activist, which is why she was able to mislead people and tar the entire subject.

Anonymous passes as a bunch of unidentifiable wacko anarchist tricksters.

The debate here is about whether Anonymous could possibly be telling the truth -- or something close to the truth -- and what it would mean if they were.

When you find somebody stating as a fact that Anonymous kept Karl Rove to steal the election -- as I saw someone doing on another thread this morning -- you have every right to smack them down.

But that I see as the core question here -- whether a number of peculiar statements and behavior on the part of the GOP before and during the voting can be seen as the result of a plan to steal the election -- isn't even affected by whether the Anonymous claim is true.

That question does need to be discussed. But what I see going on now is an attempt to head off any such discussion by labeling it conspiracy theory. And I suspect that same attempt would be happening even if the Anonymous letter had never entered into the picture.

[ProSense]

223. No, I'm comparing

Bev was able to pass as a credible voting activist, which is why she was able to mislead people and tar the entire subject.

Anonymous passes as a bunch of unidentifiable wacko anarchist tricksters.

... lack of evidence to lack of evidence.

[NorthCarolina]

226. Anonymous are "Wacko" ?

Since you can neither prove nor disprove their claims, what is your "evidence" that they are "Wacko"?

[ProSense]

246. That was

a quote: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1861422

I still believe the claim is bullshit. If they ever do present evidence, I would have egg all over my face.

[Bennyboy]

46. K and R'd to the nth degree...

Why I came here in the first place.

[Plucketeer]

58. Mee TOO!

I sorta wandered in here in '07. For me, there's NO better place to hang out. Since it's Thanksgiving, let me state uncatagorically... Democratic Underground gives me hope, and I'm ever so Thankful for that!!!

[RomneyLies]

52. The 2000 election was "stolen" by tens of thousands of legitimate voters being purged from the rolls

They tried the same shit in 2012. It failed.

Illegal electronic intrusion methods never entered into either equation.

[Coyotl]

60. Indeed, pay attention to where there are real opportunities to steal elections

like abuse of power by election officials purging voters, voter ID laws, limiting voting hours, creating long lines. Sound familiar to anyone in Ohio?

[glinda]

138. I am doubtful that the Rebubs limit their methods to just a handful.....

they threw the book at this election and if nothing is done will be more screwed up next time.

[WillyT]

65. Interesting... Could You Expand On That ???

To me... Gore's mistake was not to have the entire state of Florida recounted.

Instead he had counties he figured favorable to him recounted, and gave the SCOTUS an in to the decision.

Many news organizations later found that if Gore had recounted the entire state... he would have won it... and therefore The Presidency.

But really... this is just... old news.

[RomneyLies]

87. Had the voter rolls not been purged, mostly of African Americans

Bush would never have gotten close enough to be barely over the top and allow the SCOTUS to stop the counting.

I agree, Gore should have gone for the statewide recount. His biggest problem was time and the Bush legal team made sure that no matter what, the clock would run out.

[reusrename]

177. That's not quite what happened.

Although I've heard your version before. It's probably what most people believe.

An automatic recount was done because it was so close. Actually, it wasn't that close, so 50,000 balots were spoiled in Duval, Broward, and one other county I can't remember, and the spoilage was blamed on the butterfly ballots. This and old trick: double-punch a bunch of balots and then claim "the po' Black folk is jus' too ignerant to vote," which is why the butterfly balots were banned under the Voting Rights Act.

In one precinct in Duval, one-in-five ballots were double-punched, which should raise a few eyebrows, except they also, like Brevard used the butterfly balots. By the way, VNS knew where all the missing votes were on election night, and their guy was on the local news explaining why they "uncalled" the election. That's how I know about this, and it turned out VNS called it to the penny, because I checked for spoiled balots when the returns came in.

The automatic recount triggered another condition in FL law where a hand count could be requested in any county that had a different result after the hand count. Gore requested a hand count in all of those counties which the law allowed. Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade. He was accused by the Bush people of cherry-picking, which was a lie.

Bush made the case that this was unfair since these were blue counties, and sued for relief. The FL Supreme Court ruled in his favor and granted the relief he asked for. We were going to hand count the whole state. Then Bush decided this wasn't fair either, and got the SCOTUS to just make shit up.. which they did.

[Coyotl]

195. You are conflating two issues

Butterfly ballot refers to the position of the candidates in the order, how then names displayed on both sides while you read down one side. the third-party candidate to the right of the fold was ignored and when the second hole was punched for Gore on that side, the vote went to the second candidate on both sides, the third-party candidate instead.

The ballots were actually "punch card ballots" and a lot of those ballots were "spoiled" as you note. In areas with 98% Dem voters, the rate was particularly over the top. This repeats in Ohio 2004 with punch cards in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland).

[reusrename]

213. You're correct, the two issues are intentionally conflated.

That's the purpose of the butterfly ballot, to conflate and obviscate.

It would look pretty nefarious for 20% of the people to vote twice for the presidential race using a normal ballot, even though this is just as unlikely to happen with a butterfly ballot. The added complexity is used as a ruse to provide cover for those who are committing election fraud.

It's one of the most infamous methods that was used to steal elections in the South. The groups that were being disenfrachised, mostly African Americans, were blamed for their illiteracy and lack of sophistication while the local Sheriff Bubba was double-punching a whole box of valid ballots in a backroom somewhere. This practice was specifically banned by the Voting Rights Act.

[TomClash]

53. K&R

You bet. Keep talkin' brother.

[msanthrope]

57. I don't want you to shut up--I want you to talk more, and show us the evidence. nt

[TroglodyteScholar]

59. Maybe I've been asleep, but I haven't seen anyone say to shut up about it.

I, and others, though, have been calling for ANYONE to present a single SHRED of evidence.

Instead we (in the reality-based community) get nothing but conjecture, innuendo, and accusations of trolling from people who have NO facts but desperately WANT to believe that Karl had the fix in and Anonymous somehow swooped in to save the day.

It's the very stuff we all constantly mock the right wingers for. We're supposed to be better than that.

PS - Anyone who has actually seen the Anonymous letter should recognize that a) there's no substance in it, b) it completely mischaracterizes Project ORCA, which was actually nothing but a fatally flawed campaign tool created by the right wing circle jerk echo chamber, and c) it reads like it was written by a moderately creative 12-year-old who intended it to be a joke.

[randome]

63. Apparently insisting on evidence is the same thing as being told to shut up.

It's tiresome.

For those who DO believe that an anonymous email is proof of election salvation, I still want to know what they intend to do with this 'knowledge'. What are their next steps?

[Matariki]

62. Thank you WillyT. Well said. K&R'd

[Divine Discontent]

183. +1

[liberal N proud]

64. Thanks for reminding everyone

And informing our newer members.

I recall joining in 2004 to be more informed and hoping to prevent it from happening again.

I had lurked for a long time before that.

[juajen]

66. Hear, hear! You tell em Willy T.

Ah, Andy. I think of him so often lately. He would be cheering like crazy with us. Yeah, DU is still ours. Thank you Skinner for loving us as we love all of you and our precious DU.

[WillyT]

68. :hug:

[morningglory]

71. Heah, heah, good sire! nt

[EmeraldCityGrl]

72. Wish I knew about you all back then...

those were politically lonely, desperate years.
Been here since 2008 and still a newcomer.
Better late than never.

[suffragette]

175. I didn't find DU until after the 2004 election

and feel the same way about the years before that - wish I had found it sooner, but very glad I found it when I did.

[DevonRex]

74. It's a lovely petticoat. Never be ashamed

of it.

[byronius]

76. That's exactly why I came here.

[notadmblnd]

77. + 200 brazillion!

[femrap]

80. Well said...

Some folks need to read up on the history of 2000 and 2004.

[proud patriot]

81. right on

[WillyT]

85. Shhh...

Love ya too !!!

[OhZone]

86. Can I steal this thread? nt

[WillyT]

97. Be My Guest...

[NRaleighLiberal]

88. Bravo. well said. K and R.

[heaven05]

89. shut up just pisses me off

I second everything posted on 'this here board'.

[felix_numinous]

91. I love your post

--many of us have been here or lurking since the * years, and we have long memories.

[sabrina 1]

92. And to see Kos weighing in was just the icing on the cake. Did you know

that Kos never believed in election fraud, and that DK hated DU and considered us 'less intellectual' than they are and if you quoted DU over there, a swarm of Kos operatives would descend upon you like flies to let you know that 'DU was not a credible source'??

DU was out front about the issue of election fraud, Daily Kos silenced every voice that tried to raise the issue.

Great OP Willy, thank you. I discovered DU on the night of the 2004 election when I thought I was going crazy having assumed we won and then watched the numbers changing on CNN. It was like an oasis in the desert.

[Egalitarian Thug]

166. And did you also notice that Markos has become a multimillionaire, while poor Dave hasn't

been invited to speak on any TV shows?

Think about that one for awhile...

[sabrina 1]

176. Oh people have thought about it. Especially since when he began

in 2002, he roped people in to a very boring blog apparently we now know, with some pretty impressive assistance (I always wondered how he got the attention he got considering how bad a writer he was and he was the only one writing that blog at the time. Especially since there were some great and very popular actual real Democrats writing at the time, who never made a dime nor did they want to)

If you ever saw some of his initial writings, wow, was he different then. He was so humble, so POOR, just a 'guy with a blog' he claimed. Living in a cramped apartment pounding away on his computer, he said with few prospects other than being a computer tech.

And then all of a sudden he was rich. After he roped in all the Liberals who were online at the time, he began purging his blog. Smearing Liberals, slamming progressives. Many people were not fooled by the literal army of 'operatives' who arrived to keep Liberals especially, under control. They posed as ordinary posters, but they were obviously not. And when people questioned them, they were instantly banned.

It's quite a story and amazing that people ever believed this guy was a Liberal. He was and probably still is, anti-abortion, anti-gays in the military (its an education to read his writings on some of this stuff which was dug up by a guy who was banned from DK but who didn't just go away. He was an African American attorney living in SA and was so outraged, he spent a lot of time looking to find out just who this 'kos' really was.

His 'supporters' will insist he 'saw the light' after a lifetime of being a Repub, working for Henry Hyde, being one of those obnoxious righties during the Clinton years. But money talks and he was able to adapt to Clinton after his sudden rise to fame. Lol, Progressives were punked, they were reigned in and kept under control at a time when the Internet was looking like a huge threat to the status quo. A place to organize, to maybe have a say which they could not have on the MSM. DK IS the online version of the MSM. Very controlled as far as the FP.

There's so much more, but his outburst today was probably his job for the day. You don't become a millionaire without working for it. The mystery is why the terror of what was probably nothing more than a stunt? Is the mere mention of Election Fraud so frightening that they send out the big guns to silence people about it? He always banned it on his blog, btw.

Anyhow, it has had the opposite effect. This would have been forgotten had they not gone wild over it. Authoritarians, they always make the same mistakes.

[Autumn]

256. Did you know this sabrina?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1860893

That link completely blew me away.

[sabrina 1]

266. I know, it blew a lot of us away when we found that out also Autumn.

However it did help to explain his behavior which I had found to be extraordinarily anti Progressive Dems. I personally witnessed him go into the threads of some very popular progressive writers after they were attacked by what always seemed to us to be Right Wing trolls and take the side of the trolls (we later found out that many of them were political operatives posing as ordinary people) and as if that was not enough, launch insulting attacks on them, using language that up to then I had only seen coming from Right Wingers against Liberals. We knew then that Progressives were at a distinct disadvantage on that board.

He has pretty much purged all of the great Liberal writers who initially attracted Progressives to DK. It certainly wasn't the FP since that was basically status quo, boring online MSM quality.

But that revelation you just linked to, plus so much more that came out over time, and his sudden jump from 'poor guy with a blog living in a tiny apartment' to millionaire, well, put it this way, I would take nothing he said too seriously. He had plenty of operatives going the board trying to explain those revelations. They worked hard to slap down any questions or criticisms of him.

Military/CIA/Republican/Henry Hyde 'liberal blogger'. Lol, it just didn't compute!

[Autumn]

270. That sure does explain a lot.

And it does seem like some are here.

[Octafish]

204. Kos answers to a higher authority...

...at Langley.

http://truth-about-kos.blogspot.com/2011/08/31-things-you-should-know-about-owner.html?m=1

They have strict message control.

[Autumn]

240. Well I'll be damned. How about that.

It sure makes one scratch their head and say What The Fuck.

[MelissaB]

241. Wow!

I'm just about speechless.

[Autumn]

245. Is that verified???? That should be a stand alone OP since

so many people here like that site. I am appalled.

[Octafish]

248. The page has at least one error...George Walker Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut.

Other than that slight detraction, I'm going with the 31 as the author has links to original articles and sources.

A bit more:

Daily Kos - CIA Engineered Controlled Opposition?

and...

More on the Daily Kos-CIA Connection

Without waterboarding the guy, it's pretty clear his family came from the right side of the tracks in El Salvador. Here in the USA as a liberal, he may be helping them by helping the, eh, political opponents of the landowner class.

[sabrina 1]

269. Yes they do. They are also the inventors, or at least the promoters of

'talking points' or 'anti-progressive language' such as 'purity troll' 'concern troll' used to slap down any progressive raising any question that is inconvenient, such as about election fraud, which was a bannable offense on DK for as long as I can remember.

Another phrase thrown at progressives was 'we are a reality based community' and YOU, dear Liberal, are a 'Conspiracy Theorist'.


Another one you saw there all the time was 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' in response to anyone even wondering about certain policies of our government.

They emulated the right with these tactics, complete with a prepared language to be used like a weapon against anyone who dared to ask inconvenient questions, including against respected publicly known progressives.

Seeing some of it here, (it never really caught on outside of DK) gives me the creeps frankly. Bad enough that DK was not what it seemed and btw, they hated DU where people were way more free to ask the questions not allowed on DU, such as about Election Fraud eg but is a reminder of the deception over there which I hate to see here. A lot of people of course thought this 'language' was so clever and began to talk in 'talking points'. I never trust people who do that.

Thanks for the link, that guy did some great research and backed it all up mostly. Kos was CIA connected according to his own words. He has refused to answer any questions asked about his background which is far different than the one he claimed when he started his blog.

[Octafish]

285. That he gets away with it shows whose side he's on.

Correspondence and collusion between the New York Times and the CIA

Mark Mazzetti's emails with the CIA expose the degradation of journalism that has lost the imperative to be a check to power

Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 29 August 2012 14.58 EDT

EXCERPT...

But what is news in this disclosure are the newly released emails between Mark Mazzetti, the New York Times's national security and intelligence reporter, and CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf. The CIA had evidently heard that Maureen Dowd was planning to write a column on the CIA's role in pumping the film-makers with information about the Bin Laden raid in order to boost Obama's re-election chances, and was apparently worried about how Dowd's column would reflect on them. On 5 August 2011 (a Friday night), Harf wrote an email to Mazzetti with the subject line: "Any word??", suggesting, obviously, that she and Mazzetti had already discussed Dowd's impending column and she was expecting an update from the NYT reporter.

SNIP...

Even more amazing is the reaction of the newspaper's managing editor, Dean Baquet, to these revelations, as reported by Politico's Dylan Byers:

"New York Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet called POLITICO to explain the situation, but provided little clarity, saying he could not go into detail on the issue because it was an intelligence matter.

CONTINUED with LINKS...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia

[enough]

94. Right on. Thanks. (nt)

[AzDar]

95. K & R

[Hotler]

96. Thank you Willy T. Kicking. n/t

[Kingofalldems]

98. Amazing that newbies are trying to dictate this board.

It's almost as if they have been here before.

[99Forever]

207. It's not just 'newbies" my friend.

Some of the rudest people trying to force this silence have 10s of thousands of posts, a history of dissing Anonymous and OWS, and a cadre of "team members" that hang on their every word.

[sabrina 1]

298. True, but they are still in the minority, so there is that!

[blackspade]

99. Approve!

[HuckleB]

100. One additional "oddity" -- Some conspiratorial Repugs now push the false meme ...

... that Romney won the popular vote.

In an age where fewer and fewer people bother to check, and sources are increasingly unreliable, these sorts of myths can push back against the reality that we have had to fight.

It's frustrating.

That is all.

[villager]

101. *Exactly* so. And it fancies itself an "Underground" still, too.

Yet that doesn't stop many here from dutifully internalizing the talking points of the 1%ers.

[TahitiNut]

105. As a charter (and founding) member of the Grassy Knoll Society ,,,

LIHOP then, LIHOP now, LIHOP forever.

[byronius]

107. Ah, good old LIHOP.

Haven't heard that in awhile.

Still powerful.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

114. Rock On, WillyT!

[Iwillnevergiveup]

117. Agree...enough with the hectoring

Has-beens like Condaleeza, McCain, Lindsay Graham, who keep coming out of the woodwork on the Sunday shows, the entire Republican House and Senate trogladytes, "news" people like David Brooks, Friedman, most of CNN, ALL of Faux, rethug radio.....CRIPES...we've had enough hectoring. And can I just say if I see a picture or clip of Sandra Day O'Connor, I feel physically sick.

[emsimon33]

123. Well said! If for nothing else than for Andy...we can not forget and we must be vigilant

Every election day I say a prayer to Andy and his great spirit.

[leanforward]

124. new to DU

I'm new to this blog. But, whatever happens don't shut up. But vote rigging and riggers need to be prosecuted and persecuted. I found this site just before the elections and happened to surf to faux. Then followed online.

Inclosing, I have a saying I've picked up over the years, "god will get'em for that".

[randome]

129. No one is telling anyone to shut up about fraudulent voting.

The OP has conflated fraudulent voting with the anonymous email claiming to have saved us from Rove.

We can talk about fraudulent voting any time and no one will tell anyone to shut up about it.

If someone wants to put their belief in an anonymous email, that's their right. But I have to ask what they intend to do after that because from where I'm sitting, belief or non-belief in an anonymous email offers nothing substantial to the conversation.

[Caretha]

209. Curiouser & Curiouser

I notice you continuously use the phrase "fraudulent voting". I was wondering why. To be sure that I understood what you were trying to convey by using that phrase, I used my handy dandy google feature to find the true & official meaning of those two words.

Here is what I found.

fraudulent: marked by, based on, or done by the use of dishonest methods to acquire something of value
Synonyms crooked, deceitful, defrauding, dishonest, double-dealing, false

voting: A formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue. b. A means by which such a preference is made known.

My conclusion is that by repeatedly using the words "fraudulent voting" in your posts, you are saying that there are voters that cast their votes illegitimately and that you are willing to discuss that. Below is your quote.

We can talk about fraudulent voting any time and no one will tell anyone to shut up about it.

Now truly and really that is a horse of a different color, and not at all what the "Anonymous - Rove" threads are about. Just to make it clear, these threads are about election fraud, not voter fraud.

With all due respect, I suggest you start your own thread about voter fraud if that's what you want to talk about and quit hijacking the threads about election fraud.

[randome]

224. You are correct. I had my terms wrong.

[truedelphi]

190. And a hearty welcome to DU! n/t

[bluestate10]

126. Where in the hell is Mad Hound? The Hound has been quiet of late. Wil, you're right, no one should

be told to shut up. If a person disagrees with a point, that person should go toe to toe in an intellectual battle with their adversary.

[ailsagirl]

130. You really nailed it, WillyT... BRAVO!!

[FailureToCommunicate]

134. You tell 'em

[LukeFL]

136. Agree. I have been here since 04 although

With new user name because lost my old one. But 04 to us was Horrible and depressing and to come here and tell us to shit up is pretty much insulting. To me, Karl rive did try to steal ThIS election AGAIN and not only OH, but also VA and FL.

U can't wait for the day someone with integrity and kahunas decide to bring honesty to our democracy and bring rove to justice.

[NYC Liberal]

137. Those who make claims should evidence.

"I really have no idea what the reality of the Rove/Anonymous story is."

Sounds just like what I hear from another group..."I really have no idea what the reality of the Obama/Kenya story is. But..."
Or another "I really have no idea what the reality of the Earth/orbiting-the-sun story is. But..."
Or "I really have no idea what the reality of the Apollo 11/moon-landing story is. But..."

Now you may not be making the claim here but others have. And some have been adament that their claims don't require pesky evidence. We should be better than that. Asking for evidence is not being told to shut up.

[garthranzz]

140. I'm with you!

Thanks for speaking up and speaking out.

[madrchsod]

141. well here`s my....

to you for saying how a lot of us feel....

and why we are still here

[spanone]

144. k&r...

[davidthegnome]

145. Agreed. K & R

While I personally have no clue about Anonymous or anything they have done or haven't done... I find the current debate interesting. It's an interesting story and an intriguing possibility, but I think it is unlikely. Frankly I just don't think that Rove is intelligent enough (or competent enough) to put together such a grand scheme.

I agree though, that everything is open for debate and discussion. The facts of today can become the myths of tomorrow.

[Cobalt Violet]

151. But if you can't prove it, you aren't even allowed to think it.

Pay no mind to the thought police.

[byronius]

154. You can't prove that.

Stop thinking about the thought police.

[OnyxCollie]

158. But IT'S NADER'S FAULT!!!

I'd like to see a cross tabulation between those who hold Nader responsible for 2000 and those who are telling everyone to shut up now.

[farmbo]

160. Darn right...if you can't abide discussions of potential election fraud...

Then go post on KOS: the site where prior restraint reigns.

And where everybody--EVERYBODY-- must eat their vegetables or Father KOS will make you go far, far away.

[Drunken Irishman]

161. meh

It's insulting to push a narrative that takes immense credit away from the Obama team and puts it solely with Anonymous. Yes, had Anonymous not existed, Obama would've lost! Their keeping the election honest is the only reason he didn't lose! Bull. Sorry, but I've been hearing people try to excuse away Obama's win ever since he won - from Romney saying he gave away gifts to his victory solely being one of demographic shifts and nothing more. I don't need to hear now that Obama's team would have been mush without Anonymous. Not without evidence that is hard to dismiss and sorry, I see no evidence that's hard to dismiss.

You know what's hard to dismiss? The numbers. Obama's turn out team. The facts that are available to every single person.

[bettyellen]

179. We didn't need Ohio, so it's not an either / or situation

I don't think it takes anything away from Obama at all.

I have no idea the physical process in the ballot counting, but from what I understand, there are data transfers, and computer crashes etc.

I do believe if there's an opportunity to fuck with the system people will try. I don't think anyone here really knows what's possible at all. Just people who believe its possible and people who seem to do nothing but badger and belittle people who think its impossible.
When it comes down to it. All these people have us their own beliefs- plus a nasty superior attitude and desire to badger others. I don't have to ask them what they're "next step" is. Because they've been doing the same fucking things for days. As if being a naysayer and insulting people is somehow useful. It's tiresome.

[Drunken Irishman]

184. And that's another major flaw...

Everyone knew Obama could win the election without Ohio. So, if they were going to steal it, why focus entirely on Ohio? You said it yourself - the state wasn't the deciding factor. This whole thing smells like bunk.

[bettyellen]

185. I believe they were talking about three states but Ohio

Appeared to be the tipping point that everyone wanted to see where it landed before calling it. And many pollsters have underestimating the Dem votes by a few percent consistently in key states to promote the meme that the race was close. I was pretty shocked at how many people believed it would be a close race.
I don't know, I've seen shocking blatant vote stealing and tampering in my day, and the FBI watched and did nothing. So, I'm pretty darned cynical about it.

If by some odd chance Anon played a part, I think they'd avoid offering proof until after the president was seated. Who needs to cause a constitutional crises, LOL

[beyurslf]

163. I think this site was actually heree during the 2000 election season.

Or am I remembering that wrong?

[Egalitarian Thug]

164. What an inconvenient observation. n/t

[Tribetime]

165. Hear Hear k/r thank you

[Fearless]

168. Leave symbols to the SIMPLE minded.

[Lugnut]

170. K&R!

I was in a major funk over the 2000 election. A friend directed me here in early 2001 and I've been here ever since. Thanks for the memories, Willy!

[laundry_queen]

172. K&R

This place was a lifeline for me in '04, and I remember all of what you mentioned. It's a shame there's far less discussion now about the possibility of fraud without some who feel the need to interject, constantly, in every single thread. They may not be saying the exact words 'shut up' but they might as well, because that's what their antics imply.

[Zorra]

173. WillyT?

You are amazing darlin'.

[suffragette]

178. Well said, WillyT, well said.

[Sirveri]

187. 2012 WAS stolen, by GOP gerrymandering of congressional districts.

We should have a 52:48 split in the house, not what we ended up with. Why, gerrymandering.

[truedelphi]

191. Very good point. After all, there was more than one election

Taking place -there were all the House of Rep offices, and Senate offices, plus many local offices as well.

And the effects of this gerrymandering could remain in place for decades, right?

[Sirveri]

197. that's generally how it works. Rig it so you always win, then keep rigging it.

Only real hope is a judicial pushback or changing populations. GOP holds the highest court by the balls right now, so I guess the end result is that we have to wait.

[Hekate]

188. 254th KnR. Yeah, those were the days

For awhile there (the whole Bush administration) DU was my lifeline to sanity. We survived all the angst, we got very very busy, and now we have a Democratic president in his second term, and an African American at that.



Hekate

[Hekate]

193. If anyone can get into the early2003 Archives,there's a long thread on voting system integrity flaws

Judging from some of the replies in this thread, I think this bit of history would really help to explain where those of us are coming from who believe the electronic voting machines have been hacked and will be hacked again.

It took me quite awhile to find part of my old material on my hard drive, and naturally none of the DU links I embedded in it work any more. At DU, after kicking the subject around for some time, on February 5 and 6, 2003 there was quite a long discussion that was so compelling that I copied it and sent it to computer programmer relatives of mine asking if this was possible or if all these folks were wearing tinfoil hats. The answer was yes, it certainly is possible. No tinfoil needed.

Try this (the links don't work for me, but this was the info I copied to file)
/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=34046&forum=DCForumID60
Original Message - "Greg Palast meet Bev Harris..she has a Bold story to Die for...."
Posted by TruthIsAll on Feb-05-03 at 11:57 PM
also
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=26162&forum=DCForumID60&archive=yes

Maybe someone else will have better luck.

Bev Harris fell out of favor at DU for very good reasons, but she did some important work in the beginning, so on that basis I recommend this early link.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0302/S00036.htm

At this point I realize it's 2 a.m. here and I have to sign off. Sorry my post is not as complete as I had hoped it would be -- but I am hoping that some of the old-timers can take it up so that the current population can learn what's behind our outright hatred of electronic vote-counting. I think it was Stalin who pointed out that it doesn't matter who gets the votes -- it matters who counts the votes.

Hekate

[antigone382]

274. It would be wonderful if you made this an OP (if you haven't already).

People need to know why the Anonymous claims, while not really backed up by a lot of evidence in themselves, are consistent with what many DUers believe, with good reason, to be possible. The fact that there is even room to make the claim is a cause for concern.

[markpkessinger]

194. Thank you, well said! Here's the thing I don't get . . .

Like you, I really have no idea whether the Rove/Anonymous story is true or not. But also like you, having seen what happened in 2000 and 2004, I certainly can't dismiss out of hand the possibility that it might be true. But here's what I haven't been able to understand about those who seek to quell a discussion of the story: why is it that the folks who shout loudest trying to tell others to shut up about it seem to think the significance of President Obama's victory is somehow lessened by any consideration of the possible truth of the story?

I've seen comments to the effect of, "President Obama kicked ass," and "anything to give credit to someone other than the President." Huh? Look folks, nobody is saying the President didn't kick ass, nor does it take anything away from the President's victory if an attempt was made to steal the election and that attempt was thwarted. Why are people so threatened by a mere discussion of the topic?

[gkhouston]

237. Here's the thing that I don't get.

The Republicans have gerrymandered districts, introduced all sorts of laws clearly intended to suppress Dem voters, played games with ballots and early voting, blown so many racial dog whistles that whoever manufactures dog whistles is now set for life (let me guess... it's a division of Halliburton), and regularly lied in the media... but oh, my, never would they attempt election fraud?

[onethatcares]

196. and that's how and why I found it.

I knew there had to be other kindred spirits out there.

I'm glad there were.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

198. I actually think we should push this meme

Maybe then some in congress might be more inclined to fix the electronic voting problems
by moving towards paper ballets.

[JVS]

199. Du was a very different place back then.

[Ganja Ninja]

200. I think it's more likely than not Rove had something up his sleeve.

He's Karl Rove after all. Dirty tricks are his middle name.

[Berlum]

201. Thanks, Willie

...and let me also cast a vote for letting 9/11 threads back into GD. It's a serious subject. People say whacko things about it, sure. But it's still a serious and important topic.

[leveymg]

202. Even if I don't agree, you have the right to say it here. That's what makes DU worth keeping!

And different from most of those other boards.

[TheUnspeakable]

203. HUGE k&r Willy!

[Tutonic]

205. Tell it!

n/t

[CRH]

206. Thank You, n/t

[Augiedog]

208. The real massive threat

The greatest threat to repucklian hope is critical thinking, no amount of theft can overcome an intelligent thoughtful electorate.

[Demonaut]

210. unanimous response to a stupid alert

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
At Wed Nov 21, 2012, 07:19 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Excuse Me... But In Many Ways... This ENTIRE SITE Was Founded Over A STOLEN ELECTION
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021858845

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This is definitely pro-"crazy talk." We discuss things here, but not crap about WTC conspiracies, chem-trails, etc.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Nov 21, 2012, 07:26 AM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't consider this crazy talk. It's valid fodder for discussion and debate.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This thread may be more appropriate for Meta, but don't see a reason to hide it
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Apparent right-wing alerter, or third way Democrat. Thinks the government always tells the truth, does he?
WillyT's post is factual and in no way "over the top". There is no "crazy talk" here, except for the alerter's comments.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: he's very much correct in the formation of this site, I came here ONLY after bush won

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[WillyT]

294. Thanks For The Heads-Up, Demonaut !!!

Kinda proves the point, no ???

[Demonaut]

297. you're welcome, I thought you should know only after I saw it was unanimous

I was juror 6

[99Forever]

212. K&R x a million.

[lonestarnot]

219. K & R Willy T

[nashville_brook]

225. love you WillyT!!

spon on, as usual

[JustAnotherGen]

227. Rec # 325

I read DU for many many years before I ever signed up and posted. This place reminded me - You Are Sane. You aren't the only one shocked by what happened here.

[Octafish]

228. 5 to 4

Spelled Florida.

It's no conspiracy theory. It's conspiracy fact.

PS: Thank you for putting in words, WillyT. Amazing how much energy certain quarters put into pointing out the unnecessary and in telling DUers to shut up.

[stopbush]

229. That's not a good reason to imagine that the Rs have tried to steal

all subsequent elections.

Let's agree to go where the facts take us, rather than speculating, and speculating wildly in many cases.

[whatchamacallit]

230. WillyT!

[gcomeau]

233. Can we please differentiate...

...between people supposedly saying "anyone who says any election, ever, has been stolen is automatically a conspiracy theorist" and people saying "this one specific theory I'm addressing here in this post is ridiculous nonsense, please knock it off"?


Because I've seen a lot of the latter recently. I've personally seen NONE of the former. (Not to say the former may not be happening somewhere and I haven't noticed)

And for the record, people absolutely should be doing the latter. Critical thinking and critical feedback are good things. We don't like reality denying bubbles here... RIGHT? That's something we would be against?

[ProSense]

236. No,

Can we please differentiate...

...between people supposedly saying "anyone who says any election, ever, has been stolen is automatically a conspiracy theorist" and people saying "this one specific theory I'm addressing here in this post is ridiculous nonsense, please knock it off"?


Because I've seen a lot of the latter recently. I've personally seen NONE of the former. (Not to say the former may not be happening somewhere and I haven't noticed)

...because that would require acknowledging that it's reasonable to doubt the claim.

[gcomeau]

249. Ah, silly me. -eom

[sabrina 1]

288. It isn't the claim that is what has people scratching their heads. That would

Last edited Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:51 AM - Edit history (1)

hardly have been noticed after a day or so. It is the intense reaction to it, similar to other campaigns to totally destroy any effort to even question certain things, THAT is what people are seeing and wondering 'why, what is so dangerous about that relatively insignificant letter in the scheme of things'. Even people who did not believe it, are now thinking that maybe there is more to it than what they originally thought.

Especially observing WHO is the most upset. Same old players. And the goal is to influence people's thinking. But it has had the opposite effect. It HAS influenced people's thinking, but not in the way they had hoped.

[Major Hogwash]

290. What do you mean when you say, "but in the way they had hoped."

That confused me.

[sabrina 1]

301. Sorry, I meant 'NOT in the way they had hoped'!

[randome]

292. Yes, of course, the conspiracy of DUers to deny you your optimism.

The 'intense reaction' of 15 threads started on the same subject by those who should have better sense than to believe a super-secret cyber agency had anything whatsoever to do with Nov. 6th.

You want to believe some secret agency watches over us, go right ahead. It contributes nothing to the conversation about election fraud any more than your possible belief in elves.

So why do you want so badly for everyone else in DU to believe in your fantasy? Usually when someone wants to convince someone of something else, they point out facts or evidence.

There is none about this email concerning Nov. 6th. It contributes nothing.

[sabrina 1]

296. I want to BELIEVE nothing. I want to KNOW why

this particular letter from Anon has aroused this intense reaction and why it is the same people generally speaking, kos eg and his 'believers' who can be counted on to attack any questioning 'official stories' by any group that appears to be thinking independently of the propaganda machine that told us Saddam had WMDs, that Mushroom clouds were headed our way etc etc.

Especially considering that Anonymous puts out messages on video, in statements on a regular basis, which are mostly ignored by the same contingency.

So why this one? Election Fraud deniers, like kos nearly lost his reason trying to silence any discussion of this relatively innocuous letter. And we wonder why. Maybe it isn't so innocuous after all.

Don't tell me what I 'want to believe'. I am perfectly capable of stating my opinions without anyone having the audacity to try to speak for me.

Like others who try to use that tactic, and why would an honest person even want to engage in such tactics btw, you are not good at putting words and thoughts in the mouths of those of us who are more than capable of speaking for ourselves.

It is however, interesting that you would even want to try to do that. Which raises even more questions, which you can be sure I will ask.

[Zorra]

295. +1 "Especially observing WHO is the most upset. Same old players.

Last edited Thu Nov 22, 2012, 04:14 PM - Edit history (2)

And the goal is to influence people's thinking."

Exactly. Thank you for clearly illustrating the obvious once again, sabrina1.

A realistic, logical examination of their actions here, and the possible rewards and motivations for these repeated behaviors, can only lead us to the distressing conclusion that there are motivations behind their actions that are contrary to the interests of the overwhelming majority of people on this planet.

Their constant, illogical, ludicrous, disingenuous, sometimes even hysterical, doublespeak arguments defending the status quo, and often, arguments defending tangible corrupt practices of the status quo, are very disturbing.

They appear to be a group of of internet "Gatekeepers", people whose function it is to use any and all manner of propaganda to counter the arguments and information put forth by those of us who support democracy, democratic action, and the well being of human beings, over serving desires specific to wealthy private interests.

It appears that their goal here is to influence the most gullible, conservative thinkers among us, in order to persuade them to blindly trust and support the corporatist status quo.

They have many concerns, and their current, apparently overwhelming concern, is that we supporters of transparent democracy are advocating against and wish to see the use of electronic voting systems made illegal nationwide. These systems are proprietary, and are easily and eminently manipulable by the wealthy private interests that own and control them.

Their intention here in the current discussion is clear:

They wish to influence folks to believe that a collective with democratic intentions, to wit: Anonymous, cannot, would not, and did not, locate, identify, and hack into, electronic voting systems that have been deliberately compromised by wealthy private interests, in order to correct these aforementioned compromisations, and ensure that the machines function as accurate reflectors of ballots cast and ballots counted.

They don't want people to know that any individual, or collection of individuals, with the specific knowledge required to do so, can manipulate these machines in order to alter the results of elections, at will, under certain conditions. They fear that if enough people truly understand this, public pressure to eliminate electronic voting systems would result in their actual elimination, negating the great deal of time and effort undertaken by the wealthy private interests that forced these untrustworthy systems on us during the Bush era. Forced.

We gave no consent to this abomination.

Electronic voting systems are a travesty of democracy that wealthy private interests have forced upon us, so that they may manipulate these systems in order to help ensure that they can circumvent electoral democracy whenever they deem that it is in their interests to do so.

So, the question arises ~ Why in the world would any genuinely democracy supporting person who wishes to have transparent accurate, fair vote counts defend the use of electronic voting systems so adamantly and illogically, and even go as far as to derisively label anyone questioning the possible malicious electronic manipulation of vote counts as a conspiracy theorist?

Answer: They absolutely would not, unless, of course, they were, um, extremely limited in perception and/or powers of deduction. Because no reasonable person would advocate for, nor defend, the usage of these machines. The simple fact is that there is no way to ensure the security and accuracy of these machines to any degree even remotely acceptable to sincere, reasonable persons desirous of a genuinely democratic electoral process.

Those of us who advocate for transparent processes clearly have no ulterior intentions or motives, particularly and specifically, no profit motives, behind our advocacy for a clear and clean democratic process.

Those who advocate for electronic voting systems that can easily be manipulated by wealthy private interests, on the other hand, can make no such claim. So what reward are they getting out of defending the use of, and continued use of, electronic voting systems? This reward can take form in the tangible, or satisfy ideological concerns, or both.

So do the math. Either way, the answer to the equation adds up to "Why the fuck are they constantly feeding this anti-democratic corporatist bullshit to us on a progressive website?".

It totally stinks.

Houston...we have a problem...

Gatekeeping

Gatekeeping is the process through which information is filtered for dissemination, whether for publication, broadcasting, the Internet, or some other mode of communication. The academic theory of gatekeeping is found in multiple fields of study, including communication studies, journalism, political science, and sociology.[1] It was originally focused on the mass media with its few-to-many dynamic but now gatekeeping theory also addresses face-to-face communication and the many-to-many dynamic inherent in the Internet. The theory was first instituted by social psychologist Kurt Lewin in 1943.[2] Gatekeeping occurs at all levels of the media structure - from a reporter deciding which sources are chosen to include in a story to editors deciding which stories are printed or covered, and includes media outlet owners and even advertisers. Individuals can also act as gatekeepers, deciding what information to include in an email or in a blog, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeping_%28communication%29

[sabrina 1]

300. Excellent, excellent post Zorra.

This, I and so many others concluded about five years ago and I am now more convinced than ever:

They appear to be a group of of internet "Gatekeepers", people whose function it is to use any and all manner of propaganda to counter the arguments and information put forth by those of us who support democracy, democratic action, and the well being of human beings, over serving desires specific to wealthy private interests.

It appears that their goal here is to influence the most gullible, conservative thinkers among us, in order to persuade them to blindly trust and support the corporatist status quo.

Absolutely. Take this latest 'outrage' they have latched on to. It's funny because Anon issues videos and statements on a regular basis that no one seems to notice, but the minute they made this claim about Electronic Voting Machines, Wow did that bring out the heavy artillery. You are absolutely correct that there are special interests who are attempting to control the message online which became really apparent starting on that 'gatekeeper blog' Daily Kos, around 2004.

Not everyone needs to be 'on the payroll' as it were, but when the operatives spread the propaganda and as you said, gullible, conservative leaning people will latch on and inadvertently work for them for free. I watched it happen sadly.

When we began online in 2000 it was incredible, free and open discussions, I learned so much. But I guess it was inevitable that they would not allow such freedom of thought and expression to go unchecked for long. There was so little nastiness then, now they foster that kind of dialogue. Read some threads on DK eg over the years and the vitriol is simply disgusting and so exhausting. They thrived on it.

Their style is always the same. And honest people try to respond in a normal way, but it's the equivalent of trying to hold a conversation with a robot. Phrases like 'reality based community' or 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' repeated over and over again, and of course the BIG ONE, Conspiracy Theorist. They are under instructions to throw that at anyone who dares to question.

Maybe it's time to develop counter tactics instead of trying to reason with that kind of bought and paid for language control.

So, the question arises ~ Why in the world would any genuinely democracy supporting person who wishes to have transparent accurate, fair vote counts defend the use of electronic voting systems so adamantly and illogically, and even go as far as to derisively label anyone questioning the possible malicious electronic manipulation of vote counts as a conspiracy theorist?

I know, I keep asking myself that question and you are correct, they would NOT support such an abomination.

They wish to influence folks to believe that a collective with democratic intentions, to wit: Anonymous, cannot, would not, and did not, locate, identify, and hack into, electronic voting systems that have been deliberately compromised by wealthy private interests, in order to correct these aforementioned compromisations, and ensure that the machines function as accurate reflectors of ballots cast and ballots counted.

Oh yes, that was incredible, the reaction and the anger. See kos, gatekeeper supreme. I knew as soon as they brought him out screaming and yelling over CTs etc that someone got very upset for some reason. And that made ME pay waaaay more attention to something I would have forgotten by now. Authoritarians, they always make that mistake. They can't just 'wait and see what happens, they have to CONTROL.

So do the math. Either way, the answer to the equation adds up to "Why the fuck are they constantly feeding this anti-democratic corporatist bullshit to us on a progressive website?".

It totally stinks.

Good question. And yes, it does stink. I used to love coming here and seeing all the real progressive discussions going on and I learned so much from them. Now, I sometimes think I'm back on the old board I started on arguing with Right Wingers and against much of the same talking points.

I guess what it means is that the Third Way has succeeded in infiltrating the Dem Party enough with their right wing policies and views, that they have become acceptable on 'left wing' boards now whereas they would not have lasted several years ago.

We have a big fight on our hands for this Party, THEN we have to fight the other Party! Too bad we have to waste so much time but I guess it's necessary or they will win.

[Zorra]

304. "I guess what it means is that the Third Way has succeeded in infiltrating

the Dem Party enough with their right wing policies and views, that they have become acceptable on 'left wing' boards now whereas they would not have lasted several years ago."

I believe that, back in 2001 - 2003, they would have been hunted down and burned at the stake if they tried to tell DUers that Bush won the 2000 election fair and square, and that there was no covert foul play on the part of the GOP that resulted in Bush to residing in the WH.

It seems that consistent pressure by progressives has made them hold back their RW opinions on the "Grand Bargain", cut Social Security/Medicare issue for now, and that's a real good sign.

"Entitlement Reform"?

[great white snark]

235. I received an anonymous email saying a small number of DUers need to be suppressed victims.

Should I believe it?

[woo me with science]

239. K&R. Of course it was.

Such utterly transparent thread-filling, from the same utterly transparent group.

[arthritisR_US]

242. I dearly appreciate this OP!

Poignant and eloquently stated

[BlueCollar]

244. amen...from an old-time evilduer...n/t

[warrprayer]

250. WILLYT ROCKS!!!!

This is a side of D.U. I have never seen before. I found it quite moving to read about every ones memories from the "old" days. Not to mention the courage. I do not take bering told to "shut up" at all well, and at various times in my life I have paid the price for it - gladly.

THIS IS THE REAL DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND!

This is something the administrators of this site should be very proud of, and I hope it makes them feel it is all worth it.

As for Kos - all I can say is Anonymous is the very last group of people I would want to piss off...

"Down on the corner, out in the street
WillyT and the D.U.ers are playin',
Bring your nickles, stamp your feet"!

BTW Recc 359!

[midnight]

251. No. 361 K&R!

[graham4anything]

252. Ralph Nader perpetuated the single greatest lie on America. NO Gore & Bush were NOT the same

Had Nader not perpetuated the single greatest fraud on Americans (telling people Gore and Bush were the same) none of 2000 would have happened

Gore would have won NH and the election without Florida coming into play

Had Gore picked Paul Wellstone or Bob Graham, Florida would not have mattered.

But remember, 1960 as a warning. Who stole 1960? The world will never know.

As Harry Chapin said about writing songs "Good artists borrow, great artists steal. And I (HC) want to be a great artist) Smile." It was a cute throwaway laugh before Harry sang another song (and he was the single greatest live act ever), but it rings true.

A line from the old Clint Eastwood movie" A winner does what a loser won't."

I'll take another 2 doses of Chicago in 2016 and 2020.Chicago won 1960, 1964, 2008, 2012

Let's not forget, President Obama just won a stunning landslide reelection because HIS voters voted for HIM.
The loser sucked and lost. I can't even recall his name.

Let's hope history repeats in 2016 and a Clinton slaughters a Bush.

And remember- NEVER vote for a 3rd party except in the rare instances where the democrat cannot win but the 3rd party will caucus with the democrat like Sen. Angus King and like Charlie Crist would have.

and let's leave losing to the other side

and remember- YES Virginia, democratic demographic change does exist.And we MUST cater to the ones that bought us to the dance, if we want the dance to continue.

IMHO of course.

BTW-want to make sure a corrupt court does not throw another election? Make sure you keep electing the side that wouldn't have put Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia on the court in the first place
and never listen to Ralph Nader again. He was the single direct cause to 2000 turning out the way he did. Then he had the audacity to do again in 2004, and still spew his hatred in 2008 and 2012.
Hey Ralph, how did that Bush thing work out for the environment? You screwed Al Gore out of his Presidency, the single biggest Green candidate ever.

Remember, without nader, Gore won. Everything else came after that.

Did anyone ever look into who prompted Nader up in 2000? Who sent him cards and letters?
Who sent in dollars?

[Scootaloo]

254. Who's telling you to shut up?

I thought it was mostly eye-rolling over Anonymous' claims.

[warrprayer]

260. gotta read the thread, Scooty!

you'll get it then.

[Scootaloo]

261. Jesus christ.

There are only so many hours in the day!

[warrprayer]

263. It will be worth it

there are some memories shared... I confess that I was crying about halfway down.

[Bill USA]

255. great post! & let's not forget MIchael Connell, Rep IT specialist about to give testimony, who died

in a plane crash http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/22/republican_it_specialist_dies_in_plane

AMY GOODMAN: A top Republican internet strategist who was set to testify in a case alleging election tampering in 2004 in Ohio has died in a plane crash. Mike Connell was the chief IT consultant to Karl Rove and created websites for the Bush and McCain electoral campaigns. He also set up the official Ohio state election website reporting the 2004 presidential election returns.

Connell was reportedly an experienced pilot. He died instantly Friday night when his private plane crashed in a residential neighborhood near Akron, Ohio.

Michael Connell was deposed one day before the election this year by attorneys Cliff Arnebeck and Bob Fitrakis about his actions during the 2004 vote count and his access to Karl Rove’s email files and how they went missing.

Velvet Revolution, a non-profit investigating Connell’s activities, revealed this weekend that Connell had recently said he was afraid George Bush and Dick Cheney would “throw [him] under the bus.” Cliff Arnebeck had also previously alerted Attorney General Michael Mukasey to alleged threats from Karl Rove to Connell if he refused to “take the fall.”
(more)

[sellitman]

258. RIP Andy!

Great post! k&r

[warrprayer]

259. Many of us Johnny Come Latelys

... Do not know Andys' story. Perhaps you can give us the story so we arte not in the dark? I know he was a D.U.er who passed away and is held in high regard, but would like to know more...

[Hekate]

268. Andy's story is wrapped up in our hatred for electronic voting machines and is an important one

He's practically been canonized here (for good reason). He was betrayed, in a sense, by someone he worked for on the issue, and when he was dying of cancer, DUers collected money for his care, but it was too late. That part is bitter.

However, it probably is time for some of the old-timers to put together a bit of the history of the ownership and performance of Diebold, Sequoia, et al. -- I tried to express that in my post #193 above, but I couldn't find everything I needed. I do hope someone else will see fit to start a complete new thread on the topic.

As Stalin himself said: "The people who count the votes decide everything."

Hekate

[sellitman]

293. Here is a good start

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_elizabet_050714_the_stalking_of_andy.htm

[warrprayer]

302. I'm very sorry

I had no idea. Torn between anger and sadness.

[redqueen]

265. K&R!

[Doctor_J]

271. Election theft deniers are similar to Climate Change deniers

they are impervious to evidence and rational thought.

[sabrina 1]

277. Exactly! Kos is an election fraud denier who banned any discussion of it

on his blog and instantly banned anyone who even asked a question about it.

Climate deniers and election fraud deniers are threats to our lives and to our democracy.

I wonder why this little Anon side show has elicited such an angry response from Election Fraud Deniers like Kos eg?

[Doctor_J]

279. You have to believe that 8-10 swing state Repuke governors independently

decided to insist on photo ids, shorten polling hours, close polling places in Dem-leaning areas, hire poll-watchers, and generally make it difficult for young people and minorities to vote, while other Repuke governors just decided not to.

[RedCloud]

272. And lettuce not forget the previous site was founded over a stolen erection.

[Duval]

275. Hugs and <3 to you, Willy T! n/t

[Marrah_G]

276. Thank you for saying this.

[jberryhill]

278. And I was conceived as a result of a late night drunk bender

So?

[HopeHoops]

303. K&R