David Carr-NY Times "For One Night at Fox, News tops Agenda"- article & MY RANT against CTers.

[graham4anything]

This article lower down from Nov. 12, 2012, I read Thanksgiving morning 11/22/12.

Due to hurricane Sandy and the aftermath where I live, a pile of newspapers piled up unread. Yesterday(Thanksgiving) in between the breakfast and the big family dinner my wife was cooking, I jumped into our Whirlpool tub in the bathroom for about an hour, with this big stack of newspapers from the last few weeks that have beem piling up.

First, if I may, my personal rant on the single greatest most satisfying victory WE the democrats and Barack Obama achieved a few short weeks ago.

This board has had about 100 different threads about the election aftermath and that President Obama only won because some hacker stopped Karl Rove from stealing the election.
These threads IMHO make interesting fodder for conspiracies, HOWEVER, they are without the good posters realizing it IMHO delegitimizing all the hard work, the single greatest community activist campaign in history to Get out the Vote and reelect Barack Obama (who is the single greatest President in 50 years past, and maybe 50 years forward).

President Obama (imho) won fair and square this election, in fact, an election IMHO again never in doubt, never close, never one he was going to lose. To me the only question was HOW BIG (SOOOOOOOOO BIG) (picture a parent with their little baby extending the babies arms)

This crap that Rove was going to steal it is really irritating me personally, and I am sure alot of hard working COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS IN CHICAGO AND NATIONWIDE.
YES- it was the awipes on the right who for four years have derided President Obama as nothing but a "community activist".

Well, suckers, it was BECAUSE OF THE GREAT COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS that helped the great GET OUT THE VOTE like never seen before, carefully for four years planning on who to poll, who to prod, which tactic to use for what voter, sign voters up, make sure they vote and secure the most satisfying victory any of us will ever see.

So this is my rant. WE WON FAIR AND SQUARE and nobody could have or would have stolen it because WE WON. WE GOT THE VOTES. and the other side is history.

IF the democrats stay united, use the same techniques in 2016 and 2020 and beyond, and remember CHICAGO and Axelrod and Plouffe and President Barack Obama and each and every one of HIS voters and those that believed in him and voted FOR him, we will find our kids and grandkids etc. will never see a republican/tea/libertarian elected president ever again.

Anyhow, I found this article from Monday, November 12, 2012 in the Business Day section B of that days New York Times (the actual in my hands copy.) I have located it online and am printing a little bit here (due to the copywrite rules of this board and in general, I am only selecting a couple of paragraphs, but urge everyone to read the whole article, especially those trying so hard to say Rove and that anony. hacker are the reason we won.)

NO, victory was so great, the "reporters", the "broadcast team" for one night, let the truth come out and not the propaganda rightwing lies.
(Much like that one day in the aftermath of Katrina, when Anderson Cooper was on TV crying, yelling, pleading for help to come into New Orleans, that NO help was there, that there were NO riots, only dying people (all Black) without food or water just wanting someone to help them. That single day in 2004, Rove was I think in minor surgery in a hospital, Condie was buying shoes in NY, Bush was secluded in Crawford with the single protester camped outside his compound for weeks and a bunch of supporters of her, and Fox that day somehow let the unfiltered truth slip through.)

anyhow-here is the article

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/business/media/fox-newss-election-coverage-followed-journalistic-instincts.html?ref=mediaequation
David Carr-the media equation "For One Night at Fox, News tops Agenda

(see post #2 immediately below this one, by me in this thread for a couple of paragraphs)

[graham4anything]

1. David Carr-the media equation "For One Night at Fox, News tops Agenda"-

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/business/media/fox-newss-election-coverage-followed-journalistic-instincts.html?ref=mediaequation
David Carr-the media equation "For One Night at Fox, News tops Agenda

(see post #2 immediately below this one, by me in this thread for a couple of paragraphs)

It has been suggested, here and elsewhere, that Fox News effectively became part of the Republican propaganda apparatus during the presidential campaign by giving pundit slots to many of the Republican candidates and relentlessly advocating for Mitt Romney once he won the nomination.

Over many months, Fox lulled its conservative base with agitprop: that President Obama was a clear failure, that a majority of Americans saw Mr. Romney as a good alternative in hard times, and that polls showing otherwise were politically motivated and not to be believed.

But on Tuesday night, the people in charge of Fox News were confronted with a stark choice after it became clear that Mr. Romney had fallen short: was Fox, first and foremost, a place for advocacy or a place for news?

In this moment, at least, Fox chose news

(snip...read link for entire article)

[malaise]

3. Good read n/t

[JHB]

10. Fox's part in the apparatus began long before the election

Even in this cycle, how many of the Clown Car Club had contract with Fox as commentators even before they threw their hats in the ring? Plus a few potentials who ultimately did not (more money to be made grifting, I guess).

[Tigress DEM]

58. News my as* --- they just didn't want to be permanently associated with THE LOSER!! nt

[OKNancy]

2. Thank you

Obama won because he was the superior candidate, had a superior campaign staff and outreach, and his agenda was what the people preferred.

[glowing]

4. I don't think there are any people who would

try to discredit the hard work of electing Pres Obama... Anyone with half a brain and able to access Nate Silver's blog would have realized that the election was favorable for the Dems.

What has been iffy is what the Pukes would try to do to steal the election for themselves; and let's face it, we have had stolen elections in the past (FL and OH). And both states are run with pukes in legislation positions, SOE positions, and Gov's who did try to suppress the voter turn out.

If for some reason ANON stepped in and made sure that the voting wasn't stollen, then that's really great... It helped to show a truer vote and a mandate. Mitt landed at 47% of the popular vote. That's how many people were mislead and lied to and motivates by the constant fear and hate rhetoric from Fox and right wing media. It's wonderful to see people wanting to vote and participating and taking the time to organize.

I also think that Occupy had a great "wake up" initiative to the populace. And the OUR Walmart organizing forces are really incredible to see taking place... It will take time for the facts and info to wash over people, but I think it will happen; especially when their are facts supporting how much a Walmart steals out of a community. It costs the American tax payers more money to have big box stores and it is a mode of unsustainability for our planet.

I don't think the "conspiracy theories" are discrediting any of the work; just making sure that the results were tabulated accurately and fairly. And that's how our elections should operate. And over the next 2 yrs, we need to remain vigilant to turn out the vote and get people into positions where they do the people's work and not the most wealthy donors.

[DeeDeeNY]

6. +1

Yes.
The fact that Obama won the election fair and square is totally separate from whether there was an attempt to steal it and what ANON did or didn't do.
Time for Change's post is well worth reading if anyone hasn't seen it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021835756

[bahrbearian]

21. +2

[fasttense]

5. Without all that hard work by the Obama team, Obama would never have won but....

We have seen RepubliCONS over and over again, lie, cheat and commit treason to win the presidency. Nixon and his treasonous dealing with Vietnam during the war. Raygun and his treasonous dealing with the hostage terrorist in Iran. Bush and his bringing in his daddy's Supreme Court to vote him in even if the votes said otherwise. Then again, the bushes rigging the Ohio numbers in 2004. Todays RepubliCONS are some of the dirtiest criminals in the history of politics and to claim they would NOT attempt to rig an election is to claim the earth is flat. It's NOT a theory that Nixon and Raygun committed treason. It is NOT a theory that W did NOT have enough votes in Florida to win which is why he took it to the supremes. It's NOT a theory that the voting computers went dark in Ohio in 2004 then magically came back with different numbers showing the bushes in the lead. These are NOT conspiracy theories. They are facts.

To suspect the RepubliCONS of trying the same thing in 2012 is to merely be aware of the truth.

Yes, Obama won because he deserved it. But Rove would have stolen it if he could have.

[barbtries]

7. i think so too

i find it believable that the fix was in in Ohio and that it was thwarted, which isn't to say that i believe it happened but that i believe it may indeed have happened.

but Obama was going to win anyway, and yes, it was because of the great GOTV efforts of the campaign. i was a part of those efforts and feel very good about it.

it was also because, thankfully, most of the american people recognized that he was and is the best choice. democrats had to fight hard every fucking day to get that message out i.e. fight the media. day after day after day i listened to NPRR try to give it to romney. it was maddening.

i don't know if it signals a sea change in the public discourse but i am hugely encouraged that the big pac money went to waste and the PEOPLE chose the right candidate.

[Jim Lane]

8. I must disagree with you about 2016 and 2020.

You praise the Democrats' hard organizing work to GOTV, which is certainly correct, but then you write:

IF the democrats stay united, use the same techniques in 2016 and 2020 and beyond, and remember CHICAGO and Axelrod and Plouffe and President Barack Obama and each and every one of HIS voters and those that believed in him and voted FOR him, we will find our kids and grandkids etc. will never see a republican/tea/libertarian elected president ever again.

The 2012 election was dismayingly close. A few hundred thousand more votes in swing states would have put Romney in the White House (and Ryan a heartbeat away). You can bet that the Republicans will learn from their organizational problems in 2012 and that their 2016 GOTV will be vastly improved. It's likely that, in at least one of those elections, the Republican candidate will do better than Romney did this year -- and might well even win.

Lest anyone be complacent, I invite you to consider 1964 and 1972. In each case, a challenger to an incumbent President suffered a resounding defeat, doing far worse than Mitt Romney did this year. In each case, however, the challenger's party bounced back and won the very next election.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Those who forget history

Thread winner.

[randome]

12. Those who are confined by history are trapped into repeating it.

The past is often not a good indicator of the future.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Well, barring little things like, say

The Vietnam War and Watergate, your analogy is a good one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. SO you think the GOP is done

May I remind you of Karl Rove making that exact bet about the Democratic Party not too long ago, and there was no watergate or vietnam war to speak off. Or perhaps there was and I missed it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. No, I think using 1964 and 1972 is just plain silly

Sure, they were both historic blowouts, and the blown out party won the next election, but they were also remarkably singular in that the President elected in both was essentially forced from the office as a result of rather severe circumstances, named above.

The analogy is silly.

[Jim Lane]

40. It's not a silly analogy because it's not an analogy. It's just a warning against complacency.

I'm certainly not saying that every re-election of an incumbent President foretells a loss by his party four years later. (Reagan was re-elected in 1984 and the Republicans won again in 1988.) All I'm saying is that such a reversal can happen. Not since 1988 has one party won three presidential races in a row. (Before that, 1948 was the last time such a streak was continued.)

In particular, if anyone says that we've found the secret to winning and if we just keep repeating the same method we'll keep winning, I get nervous. The Republicans have more money, fewer scruples, superior access to the media, control of more state governments (for purposes of gerrymandering or voter suppression), and a working majority on the Supreme Court on most issues. We cannot rest on our laurels.

[graham4anything]

16. 1968 was the democrats fault for tossing the 3rd greatest president ever in the river

Had LBJ ran in 1968,both before and after Bobby died, he would have creamed Nixon. LBJ was much stronger than HHH and
It was 100% infighting that caused 1968 to be a lose. Nothing sinister on their side, but it was our side that caused our own defeat. Vietnam was a stupid wedge issue distraction and ousted the single greatest social achiever of any president since FDR
And LBJ would have won both before and after Kennedy.
Shame is, had LBJ ran, Bobby woud not have, and could have been President and alive in 1976 and 1980. (or should LBJ have died in office after HHH finished his terms.)

and 1976 was Watergate aftermath and people didn't like that Ford was not elected for either VP or President.
Didn't sit right (unlike a normal succession after a President dies.)
Ford is really just an asterick in the record books.

and Hillary is by far the single most knowledgeable experienced candidate either side has to offer in 2016.
And positioned well. (Not too far left or right). And well liked by OUR base
By the time she leaves office, the court will be 8 to 1 or 9 to 0.

and there will be no thefts, just politics as usual. Unless the democrats fight and cause their own defeat like they did in 1968 and 1980.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. "Vietnam was a stupid wedge issue distraction..."

I'm now convinced that what you're doing here is at best performance art.

[sabrina 1]

24. That stood out to me also and gave me a sort of nasty feeling in the pit

of my stomach.

Over 50,000 Americans killed, untold more numbers whose lives were destroyed not to mention the Vietnamese slaughter.

I wonder if this is how those who direct our elections think? Totally cold and calculating, outraged when citizens dare to get involved?

If this is representative of the 'Political Class', I think that is something else we need to put on the agenda. Rid our system of cold, calculating political operatives who care nothing about people. They are a threat to this country.

It has all the elements of what we accuse war mongers on the right of, viewing the men and women who are sent to fight these wars as nothing more than fodder. I guess it always disturbs them when the people resist their draconian view of the lives and deaths of the very people they claim to represent.

And no, Hilary will never get my support. She voted for war, she approved of torture 'under certain conditions'. I could never support that which is why I supported Obama. I am looking for higher standards regarding the lives of people everywhere.

Uber partisanship is a blinding and dangerous thing for any democracy. The dismissal of millions of lives, the rejection of the will of the people who forced the end of that slaughter, that scares me.

[graham4anything]

28. I see your strategy but I am not biting.

almost did. but I caught it in time.

If a drone kills Adolf Hitler (and some collateral innocents), before Hitler kills 6 million Jews and 10 million others, I most enthusiastically call for more drones.

simple numbers.

(and I fully believe though it is irrelant to this thread, that anyone would have done what happened in Vietnam, once EISENHOWER started the whole shebang.
Kennedy, McGovern, Nixon, whomever.
Lord knows I couldn't tell you why we were over there in Vietnam. And neither could anyone.
Neither could JFK or anyone else. But they were.

and the stupid Dems that did not want LBJ running for a pipe dream instead, got Nixon.
Instead of the #1 social issue President.

BTW, the Lincoln movie makes this specific point in it. For the better good alot of crap needs to take place

I don't know about you, but I would rather had LBJ win in 1968, than Nixon.
Those would have been the two choices.
And Bobby would possibly still be alive today had that happened.

[graham4anything]

38. Isn't life itself performance art? (referencing the response above)

(referencing the response above)

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. Life is indeed a work of art

Even for troll losers taking ridiculous positions as part of some weird amusement.

Keep on, my dude.

[graham4anything]

70. add my 80,000 plus posts at CGCS with the 3000s more Kerry board,& 1000s more on Gore boards

and I will see your posts and multiply it by 5

How can one be a troll on a thread they started in the first place?
that would be une con troll able.

[bluestate10]

19. We must stay aggressive. Obama's OFA is still active, just go to it's website. The organization

must stay active past the ongoing fiscal fight and morph into an organization that registers and inform voters in Blue and Red states. We must keep our Blue states and add Red states like Texas, Arizona, get North Carolina back and add Louisiana, yes Louisiana - although only 19% of Whites voted for President Obama in that state, he still garnered more than 40% of the vote - we must educate Whites that can be brought over to sanity and we must get more Blacks, Hispanic and Asian citizens registered to vote and discuss issues with them constantly to keep them informed.

We can help by continuing to donate whatever money we can afford to pay for staff, materials and logistics. 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020 and beyond are bright for us if we work and organize smartly. We will one day see the majority of Whites that vote instinctively republican recognize that they have been badly misled and used by that party.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Yes President Obama won fair and square

and this CT as you like to call it is quite feasible and does not take away from that victory.

You know why? The history, so far, in this millennium.

The servers going dark in 2004 in OH did happen, the voter suppression in 2000 did happen (and the supreme court, not Nader, decided that election, as I told you in another thread the MEDIA did find out that GORE WON FLORIDA, they released that report on Sept 11. I forgive you if you have no idea that happened.

Do not worry, every partisan, on both sides actually, has this penchant for we did it alone no help needed, no siree, and nothing could be in place that could be in the shadows.

This is a reality, we have an easily hackable electoral system... that needs to be fixed, as well as systematic voter suppression.

[bluestate10]

20. Nader and the 97,000 people that voted for him in Florida put Bush in office. The sooner that

is admitted by those people, the better off we will be. Until that admission happens, I will continuously bring up the truth: The Supreme Court DID NOT elect Bush, Nader and Nader voters in Florida 2000 did.

[bahrbearian]

22. Wrong , Nader was right.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Problem is, and this is puzzling, well not really...

You are ignoring the elephant in the room, the United States Supreme Court, issuing such a controversial ruling that it is not supposed to be precedent, even when US law IS PRECEDENT.

I am sorry for you. That hate must be hard to live with.

[graham4anything]

29. THE SUPREME COURT- you mean the one that Nader lied and said Bush/Gore were the same?

IF Nader were NOT in the race, there would NOT have been an after election day problem.

end of story.

timeline.

12/12/2000 only occured because of Nader in the first place.

Otherwise 2000 would have been decided election day

And the court showed Nader to be a liar. GORE WOULD NOT HAVE PICKED SCALIA, THOMAS, ALITO OR ROBERTS.

Had Gore picked the justices the rightwing presidents picked, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THE CASE AND LET FLORIDA DECIDE...


Do you remember there were 2 rulings on 12/12/2000?
the first 5 to 4 said go back to florida for the final decision

the controversial one was 7 to 2- saying fuck you America, time is up. Go to hell.

But that would have been irrelevant HAD RALPH NADER NOT BEEN IN THE RACE AND CAUSE AL GORE TO LOSE NEW HAMPSHIRE AND FLORIDA.

It's the timeline you are forgetting about.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Escuse me, but NADER had nothing to do with taht decision

NONE of the lawyers present were counsel for Mr. Nader.

What you are asking is something that will require a change of monumental size in US Law, only permitting TWO PARTIES running candidates for national election. That ain't gonna happen... even if most folks realize that voting for a third party candidate is a fools errand.

As I said, I am so sorry you hate so much. So much in fact, that the facts on the ground matter little to you, I am glad historians have to be loyal to the facts, and the fact is Mr. Nader did not have any lawyer before the United States Supreme Court and the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT over ruled the Florida Supreme Court... which again, did not have Buchanan, or Nader representation present before them.

I mention Buchanan due to the number of folks who accidentally voted for him due to a badly designed ballot as well. Or suddenly Jews had a come to Jesus moment.

[graham4anything]

31. Again, if Gore won NH, the US Supreme Court would never have been called in. Election over in NH

what part of that do you not understand???

It was NH that caused Gore not to get to 270.With NH, Gore had 270.
Florida wasn't needed.

you are putting strawmen and red herrings into the conversation in your defense of Nader.

and you are concentrating on Florida.

Had Gore won NH, and their 4 electoral votes, race over. Gore wins.

I do think there should be a 50% requirement, and if neither candidate gets 50, then a runoff question should be allowed. Thereby getting rid of outside parties.
Neither Gore nor Bush got 50%.

Meanwhile Obama won fair and square. Because no one intheir right mind would waste a vote for 3rd party knowing any democrat vote not for Obama was a vote for the loser.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. What I do not understand is your hate for the democratic system

that is what is so puzzling, It is ok only as long as my candidate wins?

And my dear, there was nobody on the left to run against Obama. On the right we were hoping that a certain Libertarian candidate did better. He did well enough for the party to still remain on ballot in many a state though.

You know your issue is with democracy. So if we have a third party candidate someday win, against all odds, will you want to line all democrats and shoot them? I mean that is what you do with traitors right? You know how much you are sounding like our "friends" on the other side? This is pure, unrelenting authoritarian thought.

I am disgusted by it by the way.

On the bright side, you will have to line me first. I am an independent voter... good luck, I will fight you back.

[sabrina 1]

35. So sad to see you trying so hard to make a crime out of something

that was far from a crime, it was a legal enterprise which every US citizen has a right to engage in if they abide by all the rules. While denying the treasonous crime committed by the USSC when they unconstitutionally interfered in an election and gave it to their choice which clearly was not the people's choice.

Nader did nothing wrong. The USSC violated the Constitution.

It boggles the mind to see so little outrage over an actual crime and so much outrage over a perfectly legal endeavor fully in line with our democratic principles.

Not to mention you are contradicting your own claims re Obama and Anonymous. You claim that Obama was so brilliant in his campaign he needed no assistance to help to him the election.

The campaign WAS very well run and that is why they won.

How come the campaign in 2000 was unable to overcome all the cheating and all the other candidates then? Maybe because one factor in that loss was that the campaign was not well run.

But then they didn't know back then how Republicans steal elections. By contrast, Obama had the advantage of all the activists over the past number of years who DID know and worked hard to prevent it.

Whose fault would it have been had Obama lost? Here's the answer, absent the USSC interfering, it would have been the fault of his campaign because it would have meant that they were ignoring all the attempts to steal this election. To their credit they did not. We learned from the theft of the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Nader had nothing to do with the loss of the 2000 election. That election was successfully stolen with the help of the USSC.

[graham4anything]

37. You lost your own point. Gore/Kerry did not have the community organization Obama did.

Al Gore foolishly ran from the Clintons.(same Clinton's that named him VP).
Whereas Obama embraced them and will 100% back Hillary.

Obama was smart enough to know that Hillary wasn't some failed candidate who needed to be shunned, but put her in an important post in her cabinet, and welcomed Bill's help.

And Hillary winning in 2016 and 2020 will solidify Clinton's standing as President.

Again, you seem to equate Obama with Gore and Kerry.

No, Obama is better than either of them. He is a two term president. And #4 of all time in my book.

Great as the others were, they are not on the placemats of the presidents, and 100 years from now, only the Presidents/VPs will be remembered (so Gore will be remembered as he is immortal from being VP.)
But specifics like the names of who Lincoln beat are lost to history.

Remember when Obama said that business weren't built by themselves.

Obama is smart enough to know a winner does not get seated by themselves.
It takes many people and doing things needed to secure the seat.

To whine about those not seated misses the point.

Obama won fair and square and it was the community organization that won and secured victory.

So you see, you lost your own argument.
Obama won because he is the single best community organizer who became President.

Obama won because while you could say he was the second term of Jimmy, he was a better politician than Jimmy.

and that is why he both defeated Hillary in 2008, but will 100% back her and she will win in 2016.
Because to keep attaining what he wants, it will be done.

In retrospect- what harm would it have caused PRESIDENT GORE to have had him campaign wholeheartedly with him? After all, voters liked the ticket in 1996.

In retrospect-it would have given Al Gore quite possibly Arkansas, and in Florida.
Bill was loved in Florida in 1996. or did you forget that?

(btw- placements on ballots is a normal perk of the sitting governor. It is the community organizations that is suppose to tell voters exactly how to vote. It is not theft if they vote the wrong way, nor is it unusual.
As we have private voting(instead of on camera with each voter saying allowed, on camera whom they voted for), somebody has to go first, second, third.
Are you, who is supporting Nader and 3rd parties, now saying 3rd parties should not be in the same part as dems/repubs?

[sabrina 1]

25. Wrong, but keep on thinking that. Thankfully a majority of Dems

knew the truth about that election and the 2004 election and took steps to prevent what caused both of them to be stolen once they acknowledged the facts.

Imagine of this 'nader' nonsense had been accepted in 2006, 2008 and in this last election? They would have done it again and we would still be wondering how?

Sometimes I think this is the reason for pushing the Nader myth, to distract from what really happened so they could do it again and again.

Fortunately most people can think and are way too intelligent to fall for that stunt.

[graham4anything]

27. Blaming Nader stops Democrats from wasting their vote again in any new election

Last edited Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:11 PM - Edit history (1)

so 2000 and 2004 when Nader ran, or 1976 when John Anderson ran, etc. will never happen again.

3rd party votes in a Presidential are for all time repudiated.
(now, if one of the 3rd parties replace the republicans and are then one of two parties, that would be different).

Everyone who voted for Nader DIRECTLY made the pool of available voters for Gore and Kerry that much smaller.

I will give you and example in a lower on the ballot election
Say there are 3 candidates for freeholder and the top 2 candidates will be elected.
Total of 1000 voters in our example here. That means 2000 total spaces available.

Candidate A gets 800 votes out of 2000 total. (so 200 voters did not vote for candidate A as either of their choices and there are 1200 available votes left.)
Candidate B gets 500 votes and that means to get elected,
Candidate C needs to pick up 501 of the remaining 700 votes, meaning they would need a larger % of the total then candidate A or B theoretically would have.

To be sure of the victory to win, Candidate C needs to make sure their voters DO NOT vote for a second candidate.(even though everyone can vote for 2 different people out of 3).
It is in candidate c's self-interest that the available pool of 2000 is whittled down to say only 1500 and have their 500 votes come from people who do not vote for the other and leave that blank.

So every vote for Ralph Nader made the Al Gore votes that much harder to attain.It is inconceivable that Gore would not have won NH had Nader not been on the ballot.
Making florida irrelevant to 2000 at all.

It is why we always need to have and then keep the different minorities who together are the majority.And to not split the vote or be angry at a candidate for not giving them their wedge issue as quick as possible.

Now to answer direct what you said about Nader- by 2008, almost NO ONE wasted their vote
and Nader got next to nothing. Same in 2012 with the democrat 3rd parties.
People now know not to waste their vote.
Something they didn't in 2008.

so you have the reasons about Nader wrong or backward or attempting to fit your meme.
When it's nothing sinister at all.
And in 2012, people know for sure BOTH SIDES ARE NOT THE SAME.
Which was the #1 lie of both Nader and Paul.

(Ross Perot is a special case as he had a personal grudge and the money to waste. I am convinced though he never wanted to win, but might have. He just wanted to make sure 41 didn't win because of that personal grudge (and you know it was a 41-Perot grudge, because later on he backed W against Gore.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Are you that ingnorant of history?

In fact, Nader did not outperform anybody. If anybody in recent history did, he had funny ears, and spoke with a Texas accent, and may very well have guaranteed Clinton's victory. That was the closest ever to the Bull Moose performance in recent history.

Jaysus, you really do not like democracy. What if voters decide, please do follow this bouncy ball, one of these years, to VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE in such high numbers, across all 52 state elections, that NEITHER of the two major party candidates wins the election? Would you consider that a fraud? I suspect you would... MY GOD MY PREFERRED PARTY LOST!

Is it possible? Yes, likely, not presently, and some of that has to do with how the system is designed and how the two parties have futzed with laws.

But damn it, you really are a hard core partisan...

So what happens to those good democrats who voted for I don't know the bull moose II candidate? Are they to be lined up and shot?

[graham4anything]

36. I have nothing against that. 50% should be required though. with a runoff.

Then if the 3rd party won, they would be one of 2.

We don't have the luxury with the electoral college because if no one gets 270, the house decides it.

You seem to miss the big picture.

If Perot won, he won. But Clinton did not win 50% and it would be nice if majority over 50 ruled.

Florida 2000 did not have that luxury due to Nader stealing Gore's votes.
It would not surprise me if Nader was financed by the republicans anyhow. Even if he didn't know it.

And I was rooting for Charlie Crist in the 3 man race, because the dem could not win, but Charlie could have. Same situation.
Rubio won because Meeks took the votes Crist needed.
Crist would have caucusedd with the dems. WE LOST and FLORIDA lost because of that.

[zappaman]

81. We have 52 states?

You once posted we had 51 states...so which is it?
We need a real reporter, no serious as a heart attack to investigate where these extra states are coming from!!!

[sabrina 1]

39. I don't know what to say to you if you think that blaming Nader

stops anyone from voting as they please. He is not a factor in how people vote. This obsession with Nader is confined to a very tiny minority in this country. And because of their obsession with him they refuse to acknowledge that he remains a very highly regarded public figure in this country. Attacking him constantly therefore is more likely to have the opposite effect.

Republicans attacking him is expected. But when people see Dems doing it also, then all that happens is they start believing that he might have been right, 'there is no difference between the two parties'. I hope you are not a strategist for the Dem Party. If you want to win votes from Independents eg, you would need to show respect for Nader, as he is far more highly respected than many of our elected officials among Independents and left wing Democrats.

You are in a bubble when it comes to the Real World on issues like Nader. Seriously I don't know a single Dem or Independent who blames Nader for 2000 or who doesn't view him very favorably. They would look at you with great suspicion if you tried to push this Nader Hate in the real world. And it doesn't work here either, as you should know by now. We all know what happened in 2000.

And btw, Americans are not children. They don't need people trying to 'teach' them lessons by using, incorrectly at that, a fabrication about Nader to ensure they know the right way to vote. That is so insulting frankly.

[graham4anything]

42. Before you call people names, let me ask you-were you on the street protesting in 2000 in Fl or DC?

You also have no sense of timeline- had Gore won NH, he won the election.
I wonder if you think Al Gore said he invented the internetS?
Or blame Gore for being good looking and with Tommy Lee Jones, the inspiration for Love Story.

I don't recall seeing you there, but where you on the street protesting in 2000?
I was both in Florida and DC.

I wonder too if you watch Breaking Bad and actually think it's a serious drama instead of the dark humor comedy it really is.

Sorry, I do not consider a hacker a person to idolize.I call that person a criminal terrorist.
Same with Ralph Nader. His ego bested him.

[One of the 99]

54. They will never admit it.

I have no problem with anyone voting for whom ever they want to. That is their right. But they should admit to the consequences of their vote.

[bvar22]

15. The persistent claim that Anonymous somehow...

... "delegitimizing all the hard work" is as much of a reach as the Right Wing's claim that Gay Marriage "de-legitimizes"
other marriages.

Nonsense.
Those dots do not connect.

[Snarkoleptic]

26. "WE WON FAIR AND SQUARE and nobody could have or would have stolen it because WE WON..."

is something Al Gore and John Kerry don't have the luxury of saying about their own Presidential electoral experience.

This is not some sort of binary equation that states "We either worked hard and had a better candidate OR Anonymous prevent Rovian mischief."
I believe both are true and believing either does not somehow degrade or undermine the reality of the other.

[graham4anything]

32. Al Gore didn't get to say it because of Ralph Nader.

Had Gore been seated when he won NH in 2000, he would have won reelection in 2004.
Meaning Kerry would not have run against an incumbent democratic president.

[Snarkoleptic]

41. Nader was a factor, but if all votes had been counted we'd never had to suffer Bewsh.

A statistical analysis conducted for The Times determined that if all counties had followed state law in reviewing the absentee ballots, Mr. Gore would have picked up as many as 290 additional votes, enough to tip the election in Mr. Gore's favor in some of the situations studied in the statewide ballot review.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?pagewanted=2

Add to that the Katherine Harris voter purge and we got what SCOTUS decided we should get.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. SHh, already mentioned that, but

hey, it was just released on Sept 11...

[graham4anything]

44. If one believes Nader, then one agrees Bush and Gore were the same & Bush&Kerry the same

and McCain and Obama and Mitt and Obama the same.

If one believes Nader, then they find Bush, McCain and Mitt acceptable to them.

Because Nader's whole mantra was based on stealing the votes of Democrats by saying the other guy was the same as the democrat

And you forget that if that is true, you are also saying Gore would have nominated Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas.

and that Thomas is just as good as Thurgood Marshall.

Sorry, but I don't think Thomas could shine Thurgood Marshall's beautiful shoes, or is even worthy to kiss Justice Marshall's beautiful toes. But then Ralph Nader must, because that is the equation Ralph Nader uses.

Why would someone idolize Nader? just a mega size ego. That is all.
who caused Al Gore not to be seated. (and by proxy allowed 9-11 to happen.)

Any Al Gore fan will tell you, yes it is Ralph Nader's fault. DIRECTLY because of the electoral college system we have.

[RobertEarl]

45. I'm a Gore fan

And here to tell you you don't know what you are blabbering about.

See here... Gore won the popular vote and the electoral college, but the electoral college was stolen from Gore by the SCOTUS.

That is all there is to know. This blaming Nader bullshit is just that.

What your presence here on your thread reminds me of is someone who uses a few tidbits of history to make a trail that tracks away from the real criminals Bush/Cheney/Rove.

Is that really how you wish to be seen? Then why not spend just part of your life here going after the real crooks?

[graham4anything]

46. as President Obama says FORWARD. Gore won NH without Nader.

If you are a Gore fan, you know he won NH without Nader.
What part of 270 don't you get?

and the rules in DU say it is for people who vote for democrats and only vote 3rd party in the rare instances where there is either no democrat running, or the 3rd party can win while a fringe dem on the ticket can't (like supporting Angus King or Charlie Crist as examples).

this is not a site for Ralph Nader or Ross Perot or Ron Paul or John Anderson(who if you give Jimmy Carter those 7%, would have beaten Reagan in 1980).

the shuffling of votes into the belly of Shamu in Florida would not have mattered if NH had been called for Gore. There was no theft in Florida, had NH been Gore's.
Which happened PRIOR election night to Florida being decided.

NH gave gore 270 and victory. Nader stole it away.

You Nader groupies seem to forget the timeline.
SCOTUS only ruled 12/12/2000 and the first ruling anyhow said Florida, it was the controversial second ruling buried within that said time ran out.

If not mistaken David Souter quit the court first chance he got when Obama took office, because he could not take that decision.

[RobertEarl]

48. Go to bed

You are making zero sense.

Bush stole the 2000 election. Everyone but you knows that. Why are you protecting Bush and his cronies?

[graham4anything]

50. This thread is about how President Obama won with no help from a hacker

Those proporting the terrorist criminal hacker (who might just be Karl Rove himself for all we know) are delegitimizing President Obama's historic victory.

Why are you protecting Ralph Nader?

Anyone knows Gore would have won NH without Nader in the race. Which would have given Gore 270 electoral votes. Florida would not have mattered.
Why hide that fact?
Who are you benefiting?

By professing this love for Nader, you are now saying he was correct and that Gore and Bush were the same.
Is that what you want people to believe?

Are you hijacking the thread to obscure the message of this thread, which is that no anonymous hacker helped OUR President Obama win.
His campaign organization was the reason.

And those like Ted Kennedy who was an early backer of Obama saw that President Obama would not have happen to him what Gore and Kerry had happened to them (that is neither of the other two resided at the White House). Obama does.

get over it and move FORWARD.

And lets hope they never abolish the electoral vote now.

[sabrina 1]

78. I've always wondered if this 'blame Nader' was meant

as cover for the treasonous actions of the USSC in 2000.

It's interesting how Scalia eg, reacts when anyone asks him about that decision. He practically goes ballistic, he insists 'everyone is over that' etc. etc. I'm waiting for HIM to 'blame Nader' in a fit of temper one day himself.

The utter ridiculousness of that claim probably has the opposite effect, it makes it all the more imperative to keep reminding people of what they did to this country.

My first online encounter with Bush supporters was in the summer of 2000. When raised the issue of the stolen election, they reacted by stating that 'it's over, no one even remembers that now so move on, lieberals'. That incensed me and for the next two years on that board I continued to bring it up, and in fact that was when I actually learned much about what happened at that time.

I did that to show them that 'we will never forget that crime' and that it would go down in history with Bush's legitimacy always in question.

[RobertEarl]

80. I see Nader blamers as authoritarians

Nader had no authority so he is easy to blame.

SCOTUS is an authority so the authoritarians can't go there. Unhuh.

I disagreed with Nader calling the two parties the same. But with the advent of what we call the Money Party, his pronouncement seems to have some basis.

Bush lovers and those who make excuses for Bushies are authoritarians. People who question the leaders are not. This world needs 99.9% less authoritarians and 99% more doubters, or what some on DU call CTers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. While you prattle on Nader

Those of us who did pay attention will concentrate our attention on the five justices of the United Supreme Court and the ruling in Bush v Gore.

[graham4anything]

47. This thread is being hijacked by Ralph Nader fans. A terrorist hacker did not help President Obama

which is what this thread is about.

This thread is NOT about Ralph Nader. But about the lies that a terrorist hacker won the election this year (which has been proven false).

[RobertEarl]

49. You have Nader on the brain?

You should get that checked out.

Obama won because there was no or very limited amount of e-vote theft. And Obama knows it. He won't tell you because if he did you wouldn't believe him anyway, would you?

If Obama said thanks for stopping the theft would you believe? No. Of course not. To you it's all Nader this and that! Take of your Nader hat and open your eyes, sport.

[graham4anything]

51. stop with the conspiracy theories. Terrorist hackers belong in jail. Anarchy is not democracy.

[RobertEarl]

52. Right E-vote is anarchy

Just a few companies FUCKING with your vote however they want.

Here we are trying to make sure YOUR vote is counted correctly and what do you do? Shit on everyone trying to help you. GO TO BED.

[graham4anything]

53. So do you believe Nader's line that Bush and Gore were one and the same?

[RobertEarl]

55. Get Nader off your head

How many times do we have to tell you Nader is driving you crazy?

[graham4anything]

57. Funny you and the 2 others do not answer that question. Backing Nader means believing his lies.

Nader is as big a propagandaist as say Rupert Murdoch. Both have egos the same size.

[graham4anything]

56. Vote for Hillary in 2016 and make sure Jeb doesn't win. Then there is no problem.

if you don't like the courts, then one shouldn't have voted for Reagan or Bush41 or Bush43
as they stacked the courts with Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito.

Al Gore would not have picked any of them.

and especially do NOT vote for Jeb in 2016.

Vote for Hillary.
Then there are no problems.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. What if...perish the though, Hillary don't run?

I am not going to predict who is running in 2016, and if you had half a brain...oh wait Nader...you'd know that the next election is in 2014...oh wait, only POTUS matters.

As Earl told you, go to bed...and lord help your party if all your eggs are only in presidential elections...cough is that a Nader stuck in your throat

[graham4anything]

62. Vote for Michelle. And keep Chicago together.Remember, Chicago wins elections and is a good word

and ONLY vote in 2014 for democrats or in the rare instances, those 3rd party candidates who will caucus ONLY with democrats in the case where either the Dems do not put a candidate up, or the dem is a fringe dem who can NOT win (ala Meek in Florida couldn't win, but Charlie I spit in Jebs face 2x Crist would have).

and being that we are conversing-might as well add for good luck.
and if the choice between 2 dems is one that leans toward the NRA and one that leans against the NRA vote for the one against guns, which are WMDs and which are built to kill.

remember, a gun is a rightwing tool and ask yourself,

how many of the great million man marchers in DC a decade or so ago, would have been allowed to march stroking their gun like 3rdparty teaparty/libertarians did in 2008 outside town hall meetings. (the answer is ZERO).

anyhow, good morning.
Rise and shine. It's 3am in the east, a beautiful day begins and its a Saturday.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. And Michelle is running?

Jaysus!!!!

[graham4anything]

69. 2025-2032. Michelle46, followed by Chelsea47 after Hillary45 and President Obama44 retire

and later on, Sasha and Mailia

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. We call that a coronation, not an election

You should read some history on royalty.

[reusrename]

61. What do you mean it's been proven false??

I'm not aware of any such proof.

You don't seem to understand that there are very few people doing real journalism wrt US elections.

Mark Crispen Miller, Mike Collins, Greg Palast, RFK Jr., and I probably missed a couple.

Your fawning over this idea that somehow Fox News is doing real journalism is embarrassing.

The primaries were electronically fipped to Romney in a dozen separate elections. For some reason or another, the general election was not electronically flipped to Romney. Al Gore won in 2000. Try facing the reality.

[graham4anything]

63. It was proven false above on this thread by someone living in Ohio. I trust they would know

and the writers above mostly are way left writers, who's job is in keeping memes alive and making aliving that way.

You do know the far left is while not as bad, almost as bad as the far right.

Why do you all wish to discredit President Obama's predicted by me, landslide election that he attained (and one in which he received more votes(and counting still) than Bush did in 2004.

Had Kerry received the same number of votes as Obama did, indeed, he would have been President, Al Gore too.

Of course Al Gore and Bush did not get 50% thanks to Ralph Nader.

Strange oddity about Al Gore-he was sold down the river by the far left(including many of the above writers) in 2004. He was NOT allowed to run, was told he wouldn't be supported and he opted out early, supporting Howard Dean (who was sold down the river by the democrats too.

But the far left loved to use Al Gore and his name. And later of course sort of came back to him because of the climate change movement, though not for President.

Why wasn't Al Gore given a rematch? Pre-911, it was widely assumed Bush43 would be a failure, one term president. So why wasn't he given a rematch.

And why did the far left never fully back Kerry, who only was the #2 or #3 liberal in congress?
Why was it the far left attempts to ruin any democrat who can win, yet loves Ralph Nader?

if you find the answer, let me know.

BTW-Bobby Jr. did NOT back Obama when the rest of his family did. That was one blight on 2008 to so go against Teddy like that.

OH wait, the far left in 2000 backed BILL I TAKE MY BALL HOME BRADLEY- who lost badley
and whined and told the dems to f-off.
You remember Bill Bradley don't you? He of the 1% rich boy frat who was a star hall of fame basketball player don't you?

Who never supported Gore after Bradley's embarrassing Primary loss

(and the far left backed Russ Whiny took his ball home and became a super lobbyist himself Feingold. When he could have beaten that draconian in his state, but was super soreloser at losing and didn't step up to the plate and went AWOL.)

Yet the far left continue to use Al Gore for their conspiracy theories. Ones in which Al Gore himself did not ask them to do.
But Al was thrown into the river in 2004 for Howard Dean.(who shortly later on was himself tossed in the river.)

my, wasn't that special as the Church Lady might have said.

(and the far left tossed Kerry in the river and whined and whined while some of them were attempting to perpetuate the biggest fraud on the democrats ever, the $400 haircut man John "chuckie" Edwards, who's sole claim to fame was being mega-1% rich, and lying to the public by telling them he was poor, and tell me, how many of his clients got rich as their lawyer did?)Populist?


And remember, you must NOT vote for Andrew Cuomo because of the smear that most people know Andrew was responsible for in Mario Cuomo's race vs. Ed Koch.

WINNING. Which is the only thing of importance.

And Chicago wins. They did in 1960, 1964, 2008 and 2012.

Maybe instead of Joe Lieberman, Al should have rightly picked Rev. Jackson (or Kerry himself too). And then Chicago would have won those two races handily. So a suppposed theft in 2000 would not have happened.
And where is the far left in investigating what is probably the ONE CT that is actually true?
The murder of Paul Wellstone who was Wellstoned not once but twice, the second time being at the celebration of his life.
Where is the investigating that? I always wondered. Had Gore picked Wellstone and not LIeberman if Gore so wanted a Jewish person on his ticket, he would have been better off.
As a Jewish person myself I was proud when Joe was picked, but who the 'ell was Joe Lieberman anyhow? Us NY/NJers never had heard of him prior to that.

and where was the far left when the last real reporter in mainstream news, Dan Rather was also sold down the river?
They abandoned him, even though his info was spot on and it was never proven the memo itself was fake.
Huh?

I will take Ted Kennedy liberalism over the far left any day.At least Ted Kennedy achieved goals for 50 years and didn't dwell on the past tragedies.(and if anyone had a right to say retire privately and get high every day, after the deaths of JFK and RFK and all the other tragedy in that family, it was Teddy.

But Teddy overcame and stood tall, and died a Saint among men.
And with President Obama, the Dream lives on.
Not from a conspiracy theory, but from CHICAGO.

My kind of town, Chicago is (c)Sammy Cahn and Jimmy Van Heusen and sung by Frank Sinatra, the Chairmen of the Board himself.
Chicago, where unions still rule and democrats win the presidency.
I sure wish Hillary would run from that state
(it is like when a baseball player goes into the Hall of Fame who played for more than one team, they got the choice which hat to wear.(recently I believe that was changed).

But Hillary running WITH Chicago 100% support will win 400 electoral votes plus

(and please democrats-now is not the time to give up the electoral votes. Please keep them, and lets make Puerto Rico the 51st state, and how about Mexico the 52nd.
I hear Fox (the president) wants to change the name anyhow.

[reusrename]

66. I agree with everything you say, especially the part about Wellstone.

I don't believe Al Gore would have survived his first term, looking back on it all now. The World Trade Center was too big a deal. Under a Lieberman presidency things would have gone pretty much the same as they did with Dubya, only it would have been far worse to have a Jewish president declare war on Islam than a born-again Christian.

As for the far left reporting, you do understand what an ad hominem argument is, don't you? Look, the fact about the vote count being electronically flipped in 2012 primaries stands on its own. No one has knocked down this fact, nor will they, because the official vote totals have been published. The official vote totals cannot occur without electronic vote flipping.

I can understand someone being skeptical, sure. But putting hands over ears and screaming lalala doesn't cut it. The Wellstone family was assassinated. It is a lie to say that no one could have forseen planes being used as weapons. It is a lie to say that electronic vote flipping did not propel Romney to victory in a dozen states during the primary and therefore the Anonymous claim is silly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. RUUUNNNN. COMIES UNDER MY BED!!!

So if we even think that facts actually happened, like the SCOTUS issuing a decision in Bush v Gore that was supposed not to be precedent...that we are far left commies?

I love red baiting in the morning.

By the way, I am actually, like for real, a reporter. One of my local beats IS City Hall. I deal with actual, well you know...pesky facts. One of those pesky facts is the USSC stopped the count, not Nader. You can jump all you want up and down, it is simply not so. Another is that the NYT did indeed publish on 9/11 a report where Gore actually, I know shocking, won Florida.

In the reality we happen to live the OH servers did indeed go dark both in 2004 and 2012. We know in 2004 Kerry was leading and when they came back up Bush was leading. We know the data stream did go through servers in TN that night. These are facts.

We know that this year the servers went dark at exactly the same time.

We also know there was vote flipping in the spring during the Republican primaries.

If that makes me a commie, that is understanding the facts...are you now doing the McCarthy thing? Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

I can tell you this...nor is this an ad hominen, this s a fact. You really have no clue how the political system works. None, who is a professional observer is willing to say who will run in 2016. We have very early explorations, both Santorum (has a website up already likely more to retire his debt) and Rubio (went to OH already) are thinking about it.

In the dem side none has made any. What SOS Clinton has indicated is tat she needs a long vacation. We will not know for at least two years (2014 hmmm) if she's even thinking about it. Michelle? Now cue the laughtract. Why would any voter cast their vote for POTUS for her? Being FLOYUS hardly qualifies. She might run for office to get both a record and experience. That won't happen before 2018.

So that is how the real world works.

By the way, I guess in your case facts have a commie bent.

I have not been called a far left in a long time...well, thank you. I should feel honored.

(Oh and did not chose to go into the whole screed on Welstone...performance act indeed

Oh and I will go into Mexico. The President is NOT Fox, he hasn't been in 6 years. The current President, Calderon, just wants to change the official name, going to 1824, Estados Unidos Mexicanos, to Mexico.

Get's worst. Looked at a map lately? You want to make a country of over 90 million, with 32 States and one Federal District a single state in the US? You and what army? Oh and unlike DC, that Federal District, otherwise known as Mexico City, now self rules and has full representation in the Mexican Congress and Senate. We could learn a lesson with DC.

[graham4anything]

71. 152 electoral votes. And they would all be Dem votes. Very simple, once you understand

(to quote one of the oddest songs in the early 1970s).

Who is calling you a commie? Or are you calling me one?
And btw, what form of it are you talking about

Personally, PURE communism and Pure socialism, two things never tried, would be wonderful system.
No nation was ever pure in each separate(because one cannot be communist and socialist at the same time.)

The brain freeze is in the timeline.

Had Gore won NH he would have won the 270.

And the fact that no one outed the phony Miami-Dade county rioteers, was the reason the recount stopped. Had it continued, Gore would have won.

But you seem to think an electronic hacker hacked the 2000 Florida votes.
How?
When they clearly were there and never disappeared. They just were not accepted and it was a bad call (much like a baseball umpire calls a homerun foul when it wasn't.

In the history books, there have been odd elections on both sides.

Probably it even outs.

Without the shenanigans in 1960 election, where both sides appeared to have ahem done weird things, we never would have had LBJ signing the civil rights/ voting rights acts, the single greatest event in USA history after FDR.

everything probably serves a purpose
and you cannot single out one specific event, without changing the course of all.

If so, well, no you can't.

Read Stephen King's book 11-22-63 about time travel and the Kennedy day of destiny to see if and how history could be altered.

For everything there is a consequence, and you can not just point to A and reach the B you are looking for.

I agree with the poster above your post- had Gore been seated after the heated race, assuming Florida would have allowed Gore's electors, which was no sure thing, then like IMHO it would have been, had Bush not had 9-11, he would have been a one term possiblity, followed by possibly 16 years of republican rule after that (starting in 2004).

Or, after 16 years of democrats, maybe 2008 would not have led to the transformational presidency of Barack Obama, one of the all time greats.

Altering a single event, might just have upset the whole chain of events and made the USA much worse.

And we might right now still have President Bush as our president, as he might have started 8 years later. (or perhaps Jeb would now be president and W never having run again.)

We just don't know.

But had Nixon actually won in 1960...who knows what would have happened.

You are grasping at straws and using a strawman to further the meme of thefts and this anon. guy.

Makes good reading as all CT's do, Oliver Stone has made a lifetime of it, but he should have stopped at one.

But it's entertainment, and I am sure Greg Palast and the others will sell books and subscriptions to their stuff reporting it as they see it.

(of course none of them were great President Obama fans, making them IMHO unable to judge history whatsoever. Because to not see the greatness in President Obama, means one did not think Lincoln/FDR/LBJ were great either.

history gets in the way of their reporting, again.

(and to be honest- I used to be friendly with a bunch of people that tossed me breadcrumbs seeing things you see...til I realized they were doing what was done to Bob Woodward(but of course NOT Carl Bernstein) in Watergate.
They tossed the breadcrumbs so I would see the exact place they wanted to lead me to.
But that didn't mean they were correct, and neither was Woodward, corporate hack that he is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. No, there is no brain freeze here

And what bread crumbs. Facts are now bread crumbs? Okie dockie.

You called all f us who pointed to facts far left writers...that my dear is...red baiting, with my coffee no less. That is the name of it.

Have a magnificent, insular thinking, day.

[graham4anything]

74. If you believe in an anarchist who cowardly doesn't reveal their name(the hacker) then admit it.

your facts are in dispute, being that the loser in 2012 did NOT steal an election, nor did Rove ever have plans to as there are NO FACTS whatsoever to that effect, aside from the FACT that Rove was flabbergasted that the propaganda LIES on Fox did not continue unabated like normal.

NO hanky panky there. Just Rove being left to look like a fool.

Saying he wanted to steal, is well, there is no fact there.

(and is this Perry Mason? You bring up facts never presented in this thread and just expect people to take your word for it? Where are the truth checkers?

And you say, well Mittens didn't want to concede. Well, Kerry didn't either in 2004 and took a very long time to do so.
The fraud he picked as VP looked like a deer in headlights when Kerry did too.

SO are you saying John Kerry is Karl Rove? As both looked the same way election night in different years.

Sorry, but Barack Obama won. Because he is the one after all.

And the only comment about the far left was to show how looney they are like the far right is.
And how it just makes the he said/ she said that much more easy to do from the right.

So in essence, those whining make it easy for anyone to say another conspiracy theory and let's get on with life.

NO THEFT was done in Nov. 2014. Therefore, amazingly enough- there was NO THEFT.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. Lead a horse to water comes at this point

Have a great day in denial land.

[graham4anything]

76. What you are saying is...(I think) that...

President Obama stole the election he honestly won, only because Rove didn't steal it from him???

amazingly amazing.There are no words to the audacity of that.

I mean, it's well, amazing.

No crime being committed meant a crime was committed by the winner for not losing and allowing the meme to go forth into the history books???

again, it is stunning in its amazing amazement.

I rest my case. (and I am saying this with all the hyperbole let's say a Gerry Spence would muster).(cool vests he used to wear).

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. No, that is what you are saying

What some of us have argued is that there is a history of cyber shenanigans as recent as the Spring primaries. And whether you have a group of black hats prevent the vote flipping or not, Obama still won fair and square and does not take from the GOTV or the effort. If the GOTV was not there, and people did not come out to vote it would not matter, now would it?

What we are also saying is that the system of 52 state elections have to be fixed where this is not feasible. California is a good model, there *IS* a paper trail, which does not exist in OH, or PA for example. In OH and PA the machines and code are privately owned by companies with close ties to the GOP, another inconvenient truth.

You are stuck in the this cannot happen mentality, which actually makes it possible.

As they say, Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

[graham4anything]

79. No, that is what you are saying. If we both are saying it, then we are in agreement.

BTW California, Chicago and NY are always on top of things.

BTW2-wouldn't some company own everything everywhere?

BTW3-aren't most CEOs by nature republican/ and or conservative

It's one of those guilt by association thingys like the faulty bilderberger crap where everyone who is anyone would speak regardless of who they are, yet all are guilty

BTW- PA has never been stolen. EVER. Democrats will always win it now and forever, because it is a blue state.(And Hillary will win it in 2016.)

BTW, just thinking about it- After Barack Hussein Obama had his name made fun of,
wouldn't it really be something if Julian Castro is the VP with Hillary?
Imagine the republicans fuming about his name.

As I am a major big fan of his, please don't accuse me of red baiting. I still don't know how you made the word association you did out of that. (Someone on the gun thread recently said almost the exact same thing, which is odd seeming I would never say that.

BTW-(4) the conspiracy group on the far left has nothing to do with communists/socialists, whatever.
It is just CT world, their own little group, which is like the CTers on the right.
One thing though is they all seem to not really really love President Obama. And the same with other democratic heroes like Wilson, FDR, LBJ, etc.

(of course they all like the Kennedy's Bobby and Jack, but its easy to say they like people who were killed, plays into the meme.)

For the hard work of what happens otherwise, nothing is ever good for those groups

and in the end, isn't that what keeps Rush Limbaugh going? I always marvel how he always whines no matter who is in office, til it dawned on me, that is how he laughs all the way to the bank. It sustains him. It really, really sustains him.

And like Jimmy Carter got a Nobel Peace Prize with Egypt, may Hillary Rodham get one for her mideast work.
To say Hillary will not be a candidate or Jeb will not be a candidate is really denial.

To not back them when they are a candidate is so Naderesque.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. Ah red baiting again

Horses and water again...

Good bye.

There is a limit on how long I will tolerate the red baiting.

Off to the non person list you go.

[graham4anything]

83. the only red I bait is redstates. I love socialists & Communists. Especially REAL ones.

nobody is bashing socialists or communists.

though this board is for DEMOCRATS and Ralph Nader is not a friend here.(at least to me, or by the official rules of this board, where every vote for him or those who like him or like him is a vote against the democratic candidate.
(do I need to do the math again?)

Gore won NH without Nader. Gore wasn't seated because he did not get 270.
With NH Gore got 270. Without NH gore did not get 270.

what in that statement(now said about 30 times here) do you not understand.

Florida not needed had Gore won NH, which because of the total number of votes for a democrat available, were not enough when Nader took the % Gore needed to win.

It really is quite simple.

Everything else is a red herring. (OOPS, I said red herring, now you will accuse me of being a red baiter j'accuse).
(the irony is dripping in that i use this term knowingly and of my own free will).

[sabrina 1]

84. Are you saying the 2000 and 2004 elections were not stolen?

[graham4anything]

87. Dirty tricks changed 2000, yes. But dirty tricks have been part of many an election.

2000 was an oddity- but it proved Nader was a liar.

Being that SCOTUS alone as an issue means Gore and Bush were not the same

And if you are honest, and the decision stopped at the Florida court, and Gore became President, the other side would have claimed Gore stole the election(even though it wasn't true).

But there was no hacking by an anon. mad hacker with a blonde Swedish guy involving themselves in a USA election in 2000.

It was old skool dirty tricks. Same has gone on since day one in America.

both sides. 2000 to the max, sure, but it has happened elsewhere.


In the end, the world is now a better place because we have one of the all time greats in office, President Obama.
As he says, and he is more learned than me- FORWARD

10% forward is better than 0 percent of going back and getting nothing accomplished and someone like Rove will just never be in jail anyhow, so its a waste of time and money.

God will even the score in some decade in the future like happened to Lee Atwater IMHO.
People have their own scorecards when that time comes.
Lee Atwater was sobbing like a baby pleading for forgiveness. Wonder if he is hot where he is?

[sabrina 1]

88. So you don't believe the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. That's all I wanted

to know.

And who cares what the 'other side' has to say? You'd rather let them steal an election than have to listen to them whining?

Did you know they are claiming THIS election was stolen?

And that is the problem right there. Giving any credibility to the country's most extreme factions has made them believe they are relevant.

Interesting.

[sabrina 1]

85. No one mentioned any terrorist hacker. Can you link to that information please?

I have heard nothing about a 'terrorist hacker' in the news. When this happen?

[graham4anything]

86. the guy/woman with no name. Whom you have credited with stopping Karl Rove.

anyone who hacks is a criminal
anyone who says do this or else is a terrorist

anyone who plays games with a federal election is a criminal and terrorist
no matter if they are playing vigillante, anarchist, or whatnot

in essence Mr. Rove and Mr. No-Name are indeed one and the same as both think they are above the world, if you believe Mr. Rove was up to doing a no-no.
There is no good crime. Crime is crime. We don't like in a movie world where rules can be broken by an avenger.

V is only a movie. And anyhow, it had NOTHING to do with America, and V was a terrorist.

(though the actor is one of the world's finest. Comes from Australia I think).

[sabrina 1]

89. You're not making any sense. Maybe you thought you were talking

to someone else.

Did anyone here say they though V was real life? What a strange thing to say.

The fantasies you post sometimes are amusing. But frankly they have no connection to reality if you actually believe them yourself.

Quite a revealing comment though although probably inadvertently.

[joeybee12]

67. It was a great GOTV effort, but it doesn't deny the fact that an election can easily be

stolen, and some people probably would be trying...all the GOTV efforts in 2000 didn't stop the stealing of the election...the message here is to remain vigilant unless we are caught by surprise--again--in the future.