You guys know this, right?

[RaulVB]

That is, you do understand that Senator JOHN F. KERRY KNOWS THAT HE WON ON NOVEMBER 2ND, correct?

Do you also understand that he feels it is his duty to protect what remains of the democratic institutions of this country and, therefore, he needs to be sure that the crisis will be resolved by non-violent means?

I don't know what I would do in his position (I'll never be in that position, in fact) and that is why I deeply respect him and feel he is the right man to face such a huge challenge!

[New Earth]

1. yes i know this

don't try to tell me something i already know!!!!! who do you think you are!?!?!?


JUST KIDDING, :hi: :D

btw, your Kerry posts rule!!

[RaulVB]

4. Hi, Faye!

Keep up the good work!:hi:

[Vincardog]

2. I am waiting to see it happen.

[Brundle_Fly]

130. thats the problem

everyone is waiting, better to do something to move back to democracy, than watch it never happen on your tevee.

[keepthemhonest]

3. Yup

waiting for him to prove that I was right.:bounce:

Did I mention how much I love DU

[LittleClarkie]

5. Agreed. I sometimes wonder if some here do want that revolution

John Kerry was never a revolutionary, not even in 1971. When the VVAW started calling out "Kill the President!" John Kerry said "I'm outta here" and beat feet for the door.

He will not do something that would damage the country. He's always been a "work from within the system" kinda guy. Hence, folks waiting for radical action from him might as well pull up a chair. It's gonna be a while.

[garybeck]

6. face it, we can't get into Kerry's brain

we've been trying to guess how much Kerry knows about election fraud, what he's going to do about it, etc....

it's all speculation. we don't know how much he knows and we don't know what he's going to do. we can hope he knows a lot and is going to do something about it.

[RaulVB]

8. Sure but...I'm not really guessing

Kerry KNOWS what happened.

Let's say that if I LEARNED IT THE SAME NIGHT WHEN THE FRAUD TOOK PLACE, he sure is able to understand that too.

[Joe Chi Minh]

103. Absolutely, Raul.

John will have taken in and processed so much information, sifted it, prioritised it, identified how best to use it in the context of the politics and the Law, Federal and State, the ways in which villains might be able to cirumvent them and how to baulk them, in a way that only an American patrician politico and top criminal prosecutor could.

He is confident because he is on top of it all, and knowing that time is on his side, doesn't have to live for the next news byte, like we saps do. He can see that, in a scenario like this, there can only be one winner; and that is America. A real cleaning out of the Augean stables, and a new start for America and the world. Maybe even, God bless them, for a shriven, new public-spirited Republican party one day.

PS: I hadn't seen your post, furthter down, abbiehoff. You said it more economically.

[Amaryllis]

21. Exactly. I have heard so many theories about what he does and

doesn't know and it's all speculation until or unless I hear it from his mouth or from the mouth of an official spokesperson.

[pacalo]

80. There's one clue we've been overlooking...

his spunky wife Theresa. I can just imagine what their daily conversation is like. Something to consider.

[PaganPreacher]

98. Teresa is the clue, for sure!

She never had a problem speaking her mind.

She has not made one public statement since 11/2, so my conclusion is that she has nothing to say.



The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[pacalo]

108. I think she has PLENTY to say.

And I categorize her silence in with the silence of all Democratic leadership/political pundits: Something substantial is going on behind the scenes & they wouldn't dare utter a word.

Do you think for one moment that Theresa would be satisfied if John Kerry walked away from this obvious below-the-knee election scam? She's a strong woman, with strong convictions like her husband. There won't be any walking away.

[PaganPreacher]

109. Answer to your question: yes.

You are free to think that every Democratic politician and personality knows "something big" is happening, and that they are all keeping mum about it.

I am free to think that the Democratic politicians and personalities have figured out that there is no chance of Kerry's ascendancy to the White House next month, and that they can't prove fraud, so they won't allege fraud. You see, I think it is silly to make allegations that I can't prove, and I suspect most "prominent" Democrats feel the same way.

I think they are trying to assess the damage, and change strategy for next time.

As for Teresa: I don't think she ever wanted to be First Lady. She would have to go from living the life of a billionaire, to "getting by" on the Presidential salary and budget. She would lose the freedom to go wherever in the world she wanted, and to do and say as she pleased (think about the hassle she caught for her intemperate statements on the campaign trail, and multiply by 100).

Being First Lady would be "slumming" for her.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[pacalo]

113. And you're free to think what you want.

I also noticed in another thread that you mentioned "W is re-elected" at the end of one of your posts. I find that interesting, because any Democrat knows that WhatsHisFace was never elected in the first place. So I think I know what perspective you're coming from.

Btw, Teresa, who is a huge philanthropist, was an apartheid activist in South Africa as a college student. I think she would consider her role as First Lady as an opportunity to broaden the scope of her lifelong goodwill efforts.

[PaganPreacher]

122. You know my perspective? Doubt it....

"There is more in heaven and earth, nightmare, than is dreamed of in your philosophy."

You presume much, young Jedi. Until I tell you my perspective, you don't know it.

As to the meat of your post: because the Supreme Court decided as they did, and they had the Constitutional authority to make that decision, Bush won the 2000 election.

"Any Democrat knows that W was never elected" is a statement that is false on its face. The Democratic Party's attorneys certainly know that they lost the election, under the rules of the game. The big money contributors knew that their candidate lost, under the rules of the game. Many good Democratic people who voted in 2000 knew that heir candidate lost, under the rules of the game.

The fact that you, and some other people, choose not to accept that, doesn't require me to use imprecise language.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[pacalo]

124. I'm not presuming. I'm reading what you have to say.

The Supreme Court, which includes Cheney's hunting buddy, AWARDED WhatsHisName the presidency. They halted the recount before all the votes were counted.

There was an excellent, comprehensive Vanity Fair article (October, 2004) which included the perspectives of some law clerks who worked at the SC during the 2000 election debacle. I'm a subscriber so I have the article, but it is no longer online. However, I did locate a Buzzflash article which explains why 2000 was a prelude to 2004, & it includes a lot of excerpts from that excellent article. Here's the link: http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/12/ana04030.html

As for "many good Democratic people who voted in 2000 knowing that their candidate lost, under rules of the game", you can thank the corporate media's lack of investigative journalism & their cheerleading efforts for the one who makes their large salaries possible for that. They want to make sure that "many good...people" are kept in the dark about the corruption of this administration. The "rules of the game" aren't necessarily ethical, as exhibited by this administration's way of operating.

Have you been living under a rock?

[PaganPreacher]

125. Not living under a rock- just looking at it with both eyes open....

not just the left one.

I didn't get my information from a corporate media source, because I don't trust the corporate media. (Hint: Vanity Fair is part of the corporate media.) I also don't trust advocacy media, because they are advocates (advancing their position comes before objective reporting).

I check media reports against primary sources, and withhold having an opinion until I have the facts. I look at both sides of an argument, and use reason (not wishful thinking or emotions) to make my decision.

I live in the reality-based world, after all.

Many Democrats who disagree with you are similarly well-informed, and don't rely on blogsites (advocacy media) and overpriced fashion magazines (corporate media) as primary sources. (Hint: next time, find a better source than Buzzflash to make your point.)

Now, go back and recheck your facts, nightmare. Here is the actual decision in Bush v. Gore (thanks to Cornell University Law School's Legal Information Institute):

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

Under the rules of the game, the court with jurisdiction to decide the question at the heart of Bush v. Gore, SCOTUS, rendered the decision that the Florida State Supreme Court tried to establish new standards for determining the validity of votes after Election Day, which was both 1) unconstitutional, and 2) in violation of Federal law.

SCOTUS noted that the Constitution grants the state legislatures authority over the manner in which Presidential electors are selected; that authority is not subject to judicial override (Rehnquist referred back to an 1892 decision, McPherson v. Blacker, that has special significance in the 2004 election- noting that the state legislature has the exclusive power to determine the manner in which its Presidential electors are appointed.)

SCOTUS' decision was final, and unappealable. It was "ethical," as that word is properly defined (made in accordance with the established rules governing a profession- in this case, the practice of law, and procedures for the bench).

So, under the rules of the game, W was elected president in 2000, which means that he will be re-elected on January 6.

Since I know that particular nugget of truth bothers you, here's something to brighten up your day:


The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[pacalo]

128. Okay, you've found my soft spot. I love that picture.

But you'll never convince me & half of this country that WhatsHisFace isn't an illegitimate president.

When our forefathers wrote that provision in the Constitution, I doubt that they envisioned that our government would get to the point where there was absolutely NO checks & balances to protect the people:

-- We have a Republican "president".

-- Both branches of Congress have Republican majorities (wonder how that happened :eyes:).

-- Our present Supreme Court has a Republican majority & is highly biased toward this administration. (From http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/12/ana04030.html: "...the Bush campaign asked the Court to stay the decision and halt the recount. In a highly unusual move, Scalia urged his colleagues to grant the stay immediately, even before receiving Gore's response. Gore had been narrowing Bush's lead, and his campaign expected that by Monday he would pull ahead. But Scalia was convinced that all the manual recounts were illegitimate. He told his colleagues such recounts would cast "a needless and unjustified cloud" over Bush's legitimacy. It was essential, he said, to shut down the process immediately. The clerks were amazed at how baldly Scalia was pushing what they considered his own partisan agenda."

-- The Fourth Estate is no longer the watchdog of the People. It's now a wag-the-dog tool for an administration serving corporate interests ONLY. It serves as a cheerleader for this corrupt neo-con administration & it provides diversionary "news" stories to distract from the problems this administration creates.

You seem to be happy about this administration manuevering itself into the White House a second time; you certainly defend it as though you are. Like I said before, your slip is showing. You are no Democrat.

[PaganPreacher]

129. Never claimed to be one...

"You are no Democrat". I have not mentioned, nor implied, any kind of political affiliation. Since I never said I was a Democrat, there is no "slip" to show.

Now, you could use that star by your name to go back and learn a bit about me. I have written little bits about myself here and there since I signed on in October; certainly enough to give you a good idea.

But, much like reading the actual case citation on Bush v. Gore, that would take some work on your part. You'll have to decide if you want to go digging around for the "real" Pagan Preacher.

"you'll never convince me...." You know yourself better than anyone, nightmare. Sad, though, that you would "never" reconsider your opinion, even if given evidence that you are mistaken.

"and half this country...." That's my point, nightmare. It's not "half the country." It's not even half of the people who voted in the last election (much less the apathetic folks who don't care about the things we are discussing.) It's "most" people on DU, and "some" Democratic Party members (and that doesn't add up to "half of the country" in anyone's tally book, except maybe yours.)

Many well-informed and intelligent Democrats disagree with your assertion; in fact, more Democratic Party members of my acquaintance (without being too specific on the public forum, I will say that I am in a position to talk to some Democrats who are influential in state and local politics) don't buy your "illegitimate President" line. Lots of "conservative", old-school Democrats out there, and lots of trial attorneys, who understand the system very well (and their money does their talking with the Party).

"the Fourth Estate is no longer the watchdog of the People." It never was, nightmare, it never was. Do the words, "yellow journalism" mean anything to you? How about "William Randolph Hearst" and "Spanish American War?" Maybe "LBJ" and "Tonkin Gulf"? The press has absolutely no responsibility to "the people," and they know it. The Constitution doesn't say a thing about "responsibilities of the press," only that their freedom cannot be abridged.

"you seem to be happy...." Do not confuse precision in speech, and defending an intellectual position with facts, with "happiness." I have not expressed any happiness, sadness, or anger in our discussion (except for the cute puppy photo), so it is a mistake on your part to infer any from my words.

Had a great time trading words with you, nightmare, but it's late and I need to get some sleep.



The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[Laurab]

114. Teresa has nothing to say?

Or has she been asked to say nothing? I'm guessing the latter. I too would guess she has plenty to say. If she was dismissive of election fraud, I think she'd say so. To me, her silence, as well as the silence of many others not known for their shyness, could be saying quite a lot.

John & Elizabeth, JK & Teresa HAVE to have received hundreds of thousands of emails, letters, calls. John & Elizabeth aren't exactly shrinking violets, either. To think they are not aware of the issue would be silly. Why aren't they reassuring us that there was no election fraud, and they have faith in the election system? IF they wanted to reassure us, they would, IMO. If anyone has knowledge of any statements from any of them in the last month, COMPLETELY dismissing any ideas of election fraud, I'd really like to see it. I don't believe it exists, and I think there's a reason for that.

Dumb optimist that I am, I just can't shake the feeling that they are fighting intelligently and quietly, and with facts that we probably aren't even aware of. Facts & evidence - the kind of things you need to have in abundance, particularly when fighting an administration as corrupt as *'s. Teresa "having nothing to say" would actually kind of worry me if I were on the opposing team. It speaks volumes to me.

[mstrsplinter326]

7. After just reading People's History

and pondering Thomas Jeffersons' quote which says something like 'A revolt of the people is necessary every 5 or so years, or the system is unhealthy,' I wouldn't think that a) the masses are naturally violent or b) that stirring the masses is a bad thing, even if they do get carried away.

[Donailin]

60. when the masses are too busy working and trying to achieve

some so-called dream which always seems within grasp but never quite there because they always change the standards of what the dream is, there just is no way fro us to collective rebel on such a scale until we're all really broken. I'm thinking a couple of more years until the middle class feel the pain in a big way.

[Merlot]

9. I know that JK won on Nov. 2nd

But I don't know that JK believes that.

I'd like to believe what you say about him and the choices he is making.

[RaulVB]

10. He knows it

You can count on that.

[politicasista]

13. How can you be so sure?

Why doesen't he take Jesse's advice and take an active role in this and stop thinking Smirky won this? His concession definitely betrayed the trust of voters, therefore, so many have moved on and are unaware of what is going on.

[RaulVB]

14. Because I am (n/t)

[emlev]

115. "Because you are" ....John Kerry Himself?

[s-cubed]

36. have you listened to the video he sent to his supporters?

it's very clear that there are tons of hidden messages there.

[Merlot]

24. A lot of dissapointment...

Valerie Plame indictments...still waiting.

Torture repercussions...still waiting.

Lies about WMD...still waiting.

The truth about 9/11...still waiting.

So this is one more thing I have to wait for...that voter fraud can be proven. Yes, I believe there was voter fraud, and yes, JK probably knows it and may even be working it. But on a personal level it's hard for me to get invested. I need some good news. I watched the build up to the election, watched the debates, and thought there is no realistic way * can win. I was uneasy, but cautiously optimistic.

Ok, I'll pull myself out of my pit of despair now. Don't mean to bring ya'll down here with me, either. Just needing something concrete to believe in instead of taking it on faith.

[Mr.Green93]

44. All things come to those who wait

Hang in there.

[tngledwebb]

96. Not always true- what happened after 2000? To those who ACT, perhaps,

if they act peacefully and purposefully.

[Mr.Green93]

101. Sit on the riverbank quitely,

eventually the bodies of your enemies will float by.

[kerrygoddess]

78. Take it to the bank!

[Darknyte7]

11. I'll put it like this...

John Kerry is certainly smart enough to know that he probably did win this thing on 11/2. But he's also smart enough not to say anything about it until such time as it can be proven.

[politicasista]

16. The longer he remains silent, the more people here will lose patience

in him and the Dems. It is understandable what he is doing though.

[Darknyte7]

20. Just seven days to wait now...

We've waited this long, we can wait for just another week....

[Amaryllis]

25. He needs definitive proof he won before he can step forward and say

anything. So far that isn't there.
There is a whole lot of evidence but no definitive proof, and now we have the "official" results of the (fraudulent) OH recount showing he only gained a few hundred votes.

He can't stand up and say, "I think I won and there is a whole lot of evidence but no hard proof."

[LittleClarkie]

18. Indeed. Those who say he betrayed us by conceeding

are not looking at reality, I don't think. What else could he do?

That said, I'm glad he's involved in Ohio. He didn't have to be. Fraud folk are a vocal minority. Few would have know either way if he'd just stayed the hell away entirely.

[politicasista]

28. So Jesse wasn't right on his assumption?

So many just think he should have waited until all the votes were counted as promised. So many waited in long lines to vote for him only to learned that he caved into Smirky the next day. I heard he blew off the possiblity of fraud, but it's good that he is involved, but another video or a small public sighting will help ease the minds of people here.

[LittleClarkie]

37. I look at it this way

The votes that were left on November 3rd weren't going to give him a win. The only reason not to conceed would be if you think you can still win.

The problems with the voting this year weren't going to be resolved in a day. Some of it was in the rejected votes, some in the suppression, some in possible outright vote switching. None of that was going to be resolved on November 3rd.

And I still believe that the RW would have fought the whole process alot harder if Kerry had withheld his concession.

The proof Kerry needed to not conceed will come too late to help him. It is in the fraud investigation, and in finding hard-core evidence.

I think he could have waited for everyone to finish voting. But no, I don't think he had to wait for the absentee and provisionals to be counted if it were obvious that wasn't going to get him a win. It would have been a gesture that wouldn't have changed much in the end.

I'm not looking for gestures, or grandstanding from folks who loudly proclaim fraud but then don't get much done.

To my mind, Kerry said he would make sure every vote got counted, and every time that process has stalled, he's nudged it. Not flashy, but functionally.

I still want to see election reform happen. But that's not a "add water and mix" proposition. We shall see what happens in the 109th Congress.

[Donailin]

33. look, just two minutes ago on the news it's reported that polls say

that 45% of Americans feel optimistic about the new year and 54% feel pessimistic.


I will bet all I own that those numbers also reflect the real election numbers on November 2, 2004. Bush 45% and Kerry 54%

BEFORE the election, I had this sinking feeling that "THE END IS NEAR! THE END IS NEAR! DING DING DING DING!!!! <---sfx added
This is before the theft, before butchery in Falujah and before the tsunami. Now? I'm fucking certain of it. Recorded history's biggest natural disaster occurs on what? Christmas day 7:58 EST according to the watch of what? Washington DC, the free-est Capital of the world's richest and best country on the planet and we initially respond with what? $15 million???

Oh, God have mercy on us. We are so screwed. What's happening here is so obvious that it's like burglers are in my house and they're saying, "we're robbing you. Blind. In plan view of your security camera. Watcha gonna do about it? We own the weapons, cops, the judsges and the jails"

[blm]

46. I believe the same.

.

[seito]

54. Ahhh

But we the people own the truth, and BTW, we also own the weapons, cops, judges and the jails. * may think that he has control, but he sits in his bubble thrown upon a house of cards. Look now, there seems to be a crack in the foundation.

[Donailin]

59. Oh I hope you're right

I swear to God, I hope you're right.

My record is so stuck. I don't know how many more times I can say, that's it, he's busted, he's goin down the jig is up on the nameless one only to turn around and see the spin work and think, Oh God, we're so fucked.


The truth does win out, always, and evil ALWAYS does itself in, but not before it takes down the some of the best humanity has to offer. Like the peacemakers of the world. <sigh>

[merh]

12. Many of us know this, it is just so damned difficult to get others

to appreciate it! :shrug: {head pounding on brick wall}

[Old and In the Way]

15. I believe that, too.

I also wonder where the rest of the Party was on 11/2.....who knows what kind of support Kerry was getting from the rest of the "don't rock the boat" entrenched Democrats.

Kerry held up his side of the bargin....he and Edwards campaigned like crazy and made the sale to the American people. I cannot understand why the DNC didn't subscribe to the raw exit polling data and why they didn't have feet on the ground in Ohio and Florida to protect the votes. And why don't they do something relevant right now....like condust a national post-election poll to see if the reported results match with what people say?

I understand people's frustration with Kerry. But, at the end of the day, it's us that have to make sure that our voting process works for fair and transparent elections. Kerry was every bit the candidate that I expected and wanted.

[RaulVB]

17. The "rest of the party"

The future of the DNC would need a long and detailed conversation.

Right now, there is nothing they can do to gain some credibility.

Incompetents, almost all of the guys working there!

[Karenca]

19. I know he won, and I think he thinks he won.

I think he thinks more yes than no.
But I don;t think he's postive he won, but I am positive he won.

Aye yiy yiy! ...This has been a long and stressful 8 weeks!

[GetTheRightVote]

22. I am as certain of it as the air I breathe gives me life, I hope he joins

us in this fight for what is right.

:kick:

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Straight Shooter]

26. Let me tell you about my dream of Kerry last night.

He was young, in his thirties, wearing a dark blue suit, (ouch, looking good!) and standing at a lectern, saying nothing.

I'm sitting there, thinking, "Speak, speak. For God's sake, speak."

But instead, he came and sat between me and another person, someone who dislikes him, some unknown person in my dream. (Yeah, Kerry sat beside me, mama mia!)

And then Kerry began to sing, a truly sweet melody it was, in a very soft but compelling voice.

-----------------------

Damn, I woke up and couldn't remember what the song was that he was singing.

Does this dream mean anything at all? Who knows. From silence to singing, though, it sure felt good to be there with him.

[whometense]

31. Cool dream.

Let us know if you remember what the song was.

[Straight Shooter]

38. I wish I could remember. All I know is the content was positive.

But if I do happen to remember, you'll be the first to know ;)

[whometense]

79. Thanks!

I love thinking about dreams - though mine are usually so obvious it's embarrassing. ;-)

[Joe Chi Minh]

104. That's

pretty moving, Straight Shooter.

[saracat]

27. I know Kerry knows more than we do. But what he knows, I

don't know. I believe he won. I believe he knows that, but that is just my opinion. I don't know that. None of us have access to those facts. It comes down to a faith issue. I believe because I choose to. Kerry may be basing his position , whatever it is, on facts.

[Joe Chi Minh]

105. saracat,

you make the horrendously obvious sound unbelievably mysterious and arcane. It's not just a matter of opinion what he knows. There is an irreducible minimum that a man with his worldly intelligence, professional expertise, integrity and commitment to the common good (rarest of qualities in a politician) *must* have been able to discern, from all of this farcical pantomime of overreaching and inevitable nemesis. Without even trying!

[juajen]

116. Gee, saracat, that was very Rumsfelian.

I know, time to go to bed. I'm really tired. I hope the Kerrys and the Edwards had a lovely New Year's night; and here's hoping we all have a better and brighter New Year; 2004 was a doosey.

[Goldeneye]

29. I realized

...but its nice to know you and others know too. He did call them the lyingist (no idea how to spell it), most corrupt ... in history. And I have a hard time believing he'd let democracy fall through the cracks, especially since he went to Vietnam to fight for this country. But what about Gore, and Clinton? They know too, and they have known. Where the heck are they. I'm truly lost again...damn it. Maybe the are all working on this...we'll see.

[Cocoa]

30. Kerry knows Bush won

I also know Bush won, and you probably do too.

[RaulVB]

34. If you really "believe" that...

Boy, what about some honesty for a change?

Try to join civilisation. Is not that hard!

[fooj]

41. I find it absolutely stunning...

that people (regardless of party affiliation) find it so difficult to admit that something is very, very wrong in Freedomville!!!! BOTH ELECTIONS (2000,2004) completely flipped at the same exact time in favor of the bandit!! That alone should give one enough to chew on! (not to mention all of the other incidents which are ridiculous in number)!!I teach George Orwell's 1984/AnimalFarm...I have become quite fond of this quote: "In a time of universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." Cheers to our Revolution!!!:toast:

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING??:think:

[eowyn_of_rohan]

82. Thanks for that great Orwell quote

...which I had forgotten. Here is another quotation about lies and truth:

The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them more easy victims of a big lie than a small one, because they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell big ones. Such a form of lying would never enter their heads. They would never credit others with the possibility of such great impudence as the complete reversal of facts.
-- Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

[EFerrari]

42. Show me the votes n/t

[seito]

56. LMAO

Whatever you say...

[Patchuli]

73. Boy won't you be surprised then

when the science of factual reality proves otherwise, huh? LOL!:D

[SammyWinstonJack]

90. No

bu$h knows Kerry won and he also knows there isn't a damn thing we can do about it! That's why his arrogance has grown ten fold since Black Tuesday. :argh:

[abbiehoff]

32. John Kerry is a very smart guy.

It's my favorite thing about him. He knows he won, and he knows how to investigate fraud (remember BCCI). The truth will come out eventually. I'm sure it will not be soon enough to get him inaugurated in January, but there will surely be a huge scandal and government shake-up sometime in the next year. The best part is that once that happens, we can have honest elections again.

[flyarm]

117. i believe this as well!!

and i believe the * admin knows this as well also..i think this is why the *its are destroying so many records at present!! Sorry i just returned from holiday, but i remember reading somewhere that all sorts of files are being destroyed at present, i don't have the link , but i certainly remember reading that..does anyone have a link to that??
why would the * admin be destroying files now if they feel secure in 4 more years??
fly

[madison2000]

35. I am in THE KERRY CLUB and this is the theme song again

"Have A Little Faith In Me"

When the road gets dark
And you can no longer see
Let my love throw a spark
Have a little faith in me

And when the tears you cry
Are all you can believe
Just give these loving arms a try baby and
Have a little faith, faith in me

Have a little faith in me
Have a little faith in me, oh and
Have a little faith in me
Have a little faith, faith in me

When your secret heart
Cannot speak so easily
Come here baby, from a whisper start
To have a little faith in me

And when your back's against the wall
Just turn around and you, you will see
I will catch your, I will catch your fall just
Have a little faith, faith in me

Have a little faith in me
Have a little faith in me
Have a little faith in me
Have a little faith, faith in me

I've been loving you for such a long, long time
Expecting nothing in return
Just for you to have a little faith in me
You see time, time is our friend
Cos for us there is no end
All you gotta do is have a little faith in me

I will hold you up, I will hold you up and
Your love gives me strength enough to
Have a little faith in me
Oh faith, darlin'

Have a little faith in me
Oh, faith

[whalerider55]

39. a further point

i think kerry won. i also think that strategically, framing this issue as whether or not kerry won was a losing framework from election day onwards.

i think this was, and has been years, an issue of enfranchsiement. regardless of the ultimate outcomes, why weren't the democrats the shining beacon, the voice in the maelstrom telling america and the world that the constitution allocates the right to vote to everyone, and does not allow that right to be abridged by intimidation, supression; and there already exist a body of laws that address this futher issue of votes being counted as they are cast.

as a sidelight, other than Bob Graham, where were the dems who shoulda been working the street to get real election reform (not just election funding reform) passed?

so, my position, just so you know where you are aiming, is this.

i think the dems should have been active and vocal about the appearence of fraud, supression and miscounting that seems endemic and strangely seems to only affect dems. i think we should have been concerned and vocal about how this affected downticket races, not just presidentiual and sen/cong seats/ if you don't have a dem setting up the protocols for vote admin, votes slip away. They get Harrised, or Blackwelled.

Kerry needn't have opened his mouth on this issue, but it is a constitutional one, and one that could've either affected this election, or set the table for the next one.

and that protest and public conversation diodn't need a secret, faith-based strategy to happen. it just needed principled leadership.

thats all, folks. your thoughts?

whalerider55

[Darknyte7]

58. Precisely... It's about the Voting Franchise Stupid!

In fact, I believe you helped me come up with the slogan for my sign that I'll be carrying on January 6th up the on the Hill. Thank you friend!

You are dead on in you analysis here. Actually you have been for a while now, as I've been observing your posts.

This simply must be about our Voting Franchise. Attempts to isolate and mitigate reported instances of by intimidation and varied-and ever more complex suppression schemes simply can't be tolerated. Voter suppression has been around in this country damn near since it's inception. Fortunately, there are tools in both the Constitution and the law (the 14th Amendment, the 29th Amendment, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, etc...) to remedy the ever evolving problem. MANY people sacrificed for this sacred right.

The Voting Franchise is all we have. It's not about John Kerry or George W. Bush. It's about every eligible citizen having the equal access and opportunity to to exercise that franchise and be confident that it with be accounted for accurately.

[liberalla]

70. Agreed !

"i think the dems should have been active and vocal about the appearence of fraud, supression and miscounting that seems endemic and strangely seems to only affect dems. i think we should have been concerned and vocal about how this affected downticket races, not just presidentiual and sen/cong seats/ if you don't have a dem setting up the protocols for vote admin, votes slip away. They get Harrised, or Blackwelled."

I like that! They get Harrised, or Blackwelled.

This will be/should be ardently pursued and advanced no matter what happens with Kerry. Long term. I think people have been aware of it, and talked about it but have not pushed it loudly and consistently.

P.S. Yes, I KNOW Kerry won! After being dazed and in a funk by the result, I realized we had been robbed again about 10pm on Nov. 3rd.

edited to add P.S.

[ginnyinWI]

76. it is about voting but

how to get the public to believe we need change?
If Kerry and friends can uncover massive fraud, it will have to be fixed. Last time, in 2000, they weren't ready and didn't have the resources to document everything. This time they were ready.
It seems the only thing that gets through to those in power is to have the public know what they're doing. (Witness how Bush upped the disaster relief in response to public criticism.)

[omulcol]

40. Correct me if I'm wrong but

If John Kerry is linked to G Bush through the Skull & crossbones society - does it make any difference who the president is ?

If Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and the like ( Skull&Bonesmen) dominate the political agenda, isn't the President ( whoever) just a mouthpiece for them.

IF the Iraqi Invasion was primarily planned by Bonesmen, and efforts were made to install a Member within that group as President, the Iraqi Invasion was a certainty just waiting to happen.

In this sense Kerry would have been no more than an election safety valve for the Bonesmen's victory at gaining the White House.

In much the same way, Blair ( Labour ) seems to be continuing the Thatcher ( Conservative) doctrines - that Howard ( Conservative) is determined to pursue should he win the next UK election in May 2005.
It apparently makes no difference to politics who the voters vote for.


Any comments ??

[EFerrari]

43. Sure. I think that's hilarious!

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BarbinMD]

65. Thanks (again)

Sincere thanks for this post. Being a "newbie", I appreciated it.

[BarbinMD]

64. Thanks

I hope it's okay to address you, given my small number of posts (slight curtsy). Can you tell me when I become a "real Du'er"? Do I get an e-mail with instructions on the secret handshake? Or do I just wake up one morning with a halo?

Geez...ya gotta start somewhere.

[omulcol]

68. Uh ??? What kind of a response is this ???

There is no John Kerry. They are all the same freaking person!
I don't have any idea what John Kerry believes. And there are very few people around here that I trust. Most of you guys are all too new. Either too new with your Kerry love and absolute conviction(which really strains credibility that he's going to sworn in!!) or your Kerry dislike. Which is even more fucking annyoing.
If you were here banging it around for the last six months (and I'm not much of a long termer) but I've been on this site for everyday since April.
Who the hell are you people and why are you trying to mess with our brains? Who are you people that have 1000 or 2000 posts and only showed up after November 2nd? I don't have that many and I've been here since April. Psych ops-I just read Mr. Freepers post about messing with us.
The real Du'ers are not that stupid. And you know what else-we actually know the difference between wrong and right.
Something that those that voted for George Bush will never understand.

Keep taking the Prozac son !

[seito]

57. OMG

Here ya go :tinfoilhat:, you need this more than me

[Patchuli]

75. Comments?

Oh pooh. How's that? sheeeeesh.......it's not a FRAT THING!

[Silver Gaia]

81. I'm not intending to start up this line of discussion again...

but you did say "correct me if I'm wrong," and I would like to correct some misinformation stated in this post. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz are not listed as members of Skull & Bones. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are all membes of PNAC (and THAT is far worse and more noteworthy than S&B, IMO), but they aren't members of Skull & Bones. Yes, John Kerry is listed as a Skull & Bones member (1966). But none of his forefathers are listed (an important point in my mind). George W. Bush is listed (1968), as are George H. Bush (1948), and Prescott Bush (1917).

As I see it, for John Kerry, this was something done in the rashness of youth, and was not about carrying on a family legacy for him. John Kerry returned from his service in Vietnam a changed man, and nothing in the way he has lived his life since then shows that he has lived the life of a "Bonesman." For George W. Bush, however, this was a family legacy passed from father to son, and the manner in which he has lived his life, and continues to live it, shows that he has espoused the life of a "Bonesman" his whole life. MHO.

Now, that's all I have to say on this. I posted primarily to correct the misnformation regarding the three non-Bonesmen. I am not going to argue with anyone. I have investigated this, and these are my findings and the decison I came to as a result. As far as John Kerry goes, I believe it to be a non-issue, and to continue to bring it up--especially without even having the facts straight--serves no constructive purpose, IMO, toward our mutual goals here.

[omulcol]

102. Joolz ... thanks for

your opinion. I agree my statements were incorrect and value your corrections, but the point I was tryng to discuss was whether history is pre-determined by a handful of men in power, through manipulation of the masses, rather than by the natural evolution of things.

My facts may have been wrong but it was the idea I needed feedback from. You provided something for me to think about and for that I'm grateful - but it does seem not too many are prepared to even contemplate the issue.


One thing that haunts me is why Bush's administration found it so imperative to steal the elections - and why so little has been achieved in re-addresssing the issue.
Michael Howard of the Conservative Party ( UK ) has announced he will adopt American style election techniques to take power from Blair - even though he seems to embrace, and endorse the same political agenda.
It makes no difference to UK voters whether Labour's Blair remains in power or whether Conservative Howard succeeds as Prime Minister - and this scenario just seems to me to exist in America .... at the moment..

[Joe Chi Minh]

107. I'm surprised

you *read* such a puerile post, Joolz, never mind dignified it with an answer. The first sentence or two tell us all we need to know.

[FreeCajun]

47. That's why he says it won't change the outcome!

I've been saying that to myself, but thank God there are other people who are thinking the same thing!

[frustrated_lefty]

48. I neither know that, nor do I care.

Given the potential for another 4 years of shrub in office, our candidate should have fought tooth and nail every inch of the way. Kerry gave up overnight.

It's his duty to "protect what remains of the democratic institutions of this country?" Just exactly HOW is he doing that by acquiescing to a Bush victory?

[politicasista]

61. Okay so Dean or Clark would have fought

[juajen]

119. Simple, he learned from Gore's mistakes

He is playing this very smartly. He will remain intact and will not be ineffective in fighting against this atrocity in the future. He will be doing everything he can to restore democracy to this country. I honestly believe this and more power to him. If you thought he had the smarts to be President, you have to let him play his hand. He knows who the joker is, but has to finesse to take him. Come on, don't any of you play bridge?

[graywarrior]

49. Study the history of politics before determining anything about Kerry

Face it, unless you're "in" politics or teach political history, you know nothing. I figure Kerry knows more about what is going on than we do. I may not like how he's handling the situation and I certainly let him know it by writing off emails every day, but I am not in the drivers seat here. I KNOW NOTHING except what I feel and emotions don't make it right.

[RaulVB]

52. Good then!

You speak for yourself I do on my behalf!

[graywarrior]

62. I didn't direct this as you, so lighten up.

:)

[RaulVB]

71. Sorry! (n/t)

[graywarrior]

94. No big deal. We're all human ( I think)

[Peace Patriot]

50. Some thoughts about Kerry...

To whoever upthread wrote, "Show me the votes," all I can say is, "Show me the votes."

--and, "Show me the poll sign-in sheets." --and, "Show me the source code for the central electronic vote tabulators" --and "Show me the raw Exit Poll data." --and...but you get my point.

This was the most NON-transparent election ever conducted, outside of Stalinist Russia. And, funnily enough, all machines and all number discrepancies defaulted to Bush. And every vile act of vote suppression favored Bush and hurt Kerry.

On another topic, whether Kerry knows he won, and what he and the Dems might do about it, and about us here at DU being merely a "vocal minority":

I remember when NAFTA passed. The most radical of my associates screamed and yelled, and said, "Read the damn thing!" And I did. And I agreed with them. NAFTA, GATT et al gave away our sovereignty, and our ability to control corporate behavior, labor conditions and the environment.

Clinton promised labor and environmental protections in these treaties. He lied. The thing passed without any such protections (with Congressmen not even reading it). The Dems caved. We are seeing the result now in massive job losses and other impacts here and abroad (which is as much Dems fault as Repugs.)

We are also seeing worldwide deforestation, water pollution, global warming and the destruction of our planet.

"Vocal minority"? So what?

I remember when the vote came up to give George Bush the power to invade Iraq. I remember taking names of Dems I would never, ever vote for, for any office. (Amazingly, 125 of them voted against the war--124 more than opposed Vietnam.) Somehow I found myself on Nov. 2 voting for John Kerry, who had voted to give that Butthead a green light to kill thousands and thousands of people sitting on his oil deposits.

But I had worked this out for myself. What I saw happening was an amazing, unprecedented democracy movement in the U.S. Grass roots and Dem leadership putting aside their differences, and uniting to oust the BushCon mass murderers and thieves. It was beautiful. I saw much possibility in it. The empowerment of the people. We would have a president who was beholden as much to US, the grass roots, as to Corporate Oil and Globalisation criminals.

Then the Darth Vader BushCons got out their light sword and slaughtered this movement in one fell swoop, by stealing another election.

How? By carefully laying the groundwork over the last two years, getting other BushCons to sell electronic voting machines to all the states (paid for with OUR money, poured into BushCon pockets, thence to BushCon election coffers!), and by keeping the source code that runs the machines as secret, proprietary information; and by insisting that no paper trail was needed, backed up by Tom DeLay in Congress.

Such an obvious scam. The Republicans owning the voting system. And hardly a peep out of the Dem leadership.

And now we think John Kerry is going to risk his neck to challenge this blatant fraud?

I just don't know. If true to form, he won't. If he's got hidden reserves of character, and devotion to principles of democracy, and our Constitution, that I don't know about, maybe he will.

He voted for the Iraq war.
He voted for the Patriot Act.
He voted for NAFTA, GATT and all the rest.
He never raised a word of objection to torturing prisoners.

Although I wish with all my heart that he would challenge this election--and I actually DO feel that he has it in him to do so, despite all--I don't think he is going to, not on Jan. 6. Others probably will, but he will keep his distance. (He's taking a trip to Iraq, as I understand it.)

He may have in mind a long term strategy of exposing and disempowering these fascists. (That fits with how he has worked in the past--the BCII and Iran-Contra investigations, for instance.)

Such a strategy is obviously aimed at 2008. But I don't see how he thinks the Dems can ever regain the White House, or even a majority in Congress, when we have lost our right to vote.

The thing seems so obvious to me. I hope it is to him.

RaulVB, what do base your assurances about Kerry on? The only hope that what you say about him is the truth, that I see, is the POSSIBILITY that he may be pursuing a strategy of misdirection (called the Teflon strategy, or, as I call it, The Rattlesnake strategy).

If that is the case, it would be very, very hard for us to guess what he is going to do. The evidence of his statements and actions could be read either way (laying in wait, will strike; or, is highly ambivalent, sees no advantage in it for himself, or fears the BushCons)(--a not unreasonable fear, I might add).

I think maybe we should give up hoping that a White Knight will come to the rescue--and give up our whole dependency on leaders, especially Dem Party leaders.

We need to recover our right to vote NOW. We must achieve:

a) A paper receipt for every vote.
b) Open source code.

or

a) Paper ballot.
b) Hand count.

And it must be done locally, state by state. A doable thing. And a MUST DO. Without the right to vote, we have no democracy.

It's up to us.

[RaulVB]

53. The man's character, very simple

Nobody doubts about his character, except for right wing hacks like the "swifties" or lunatics like Zell Miller.

[spooked911]

110. I agree with you completely

and I think people here are WAY too idealistic about Kerry.

[elizm]

55. I agree...Kerry has to know it's a time bomb...

..And anyone who thinks about it and trys to imagine what could happen as a result of this action, can understand that he HAS to work it as carefully as he can. I'm QUITE sure he is WAY smarter than I! :)

[corbett]

63. Absolutely But We're Filled With Aimless Zeal

Even his most ardent supporters who have known since November 3 that the election was rigged have struggled to know what to do with our energies. Many of us can't make it to Ohio and/or Washington in early January so we're stuck.

That doesn't mean that we'll yield, though!

Kick for Kerry!

[kitkat65]

66. I'm worn out with doubt BUT when I look at Kerry's history

he's had a lifelong career of public service

Loved his country enough to go to Viet Nam

Brave enough to speak out against Viet Nam

Smart enough to know the nuances of international and domestic affairs instead of a 'bring it on" mentality

Rich enough (love you Theresa) to not be a greedy sell-out to corporations

I'm just hoping he's clever enough to see all the angles and know when to seize the best moment to take appropriate action

I really don't think he would sell out unless he saw absolutely no hope

[Quakerfriend]

67. I do think that the shrub will be in on 1/20

However, JK is pricipled and tenacious, I believe. It seems that he may be our hero, but not our next president. I guess that it will take him until mid '05 to bring this whole cabal down. I'm very intuitive at times. And, I feel that the 911 scandal will get the snowball rolling! 911 + election fraud + financial decline + international call for his head = Bush out by mid 05.

[seabeyond]

69. JOHN F. KERRY KNOWS THAT HE WON ON NOVEMBER 2ND, correct?

no, i dont know that kerry knows this. he hasnt shown anything that he believes there was nation wide fraud. i hear a lot of high up dems, and intellectual dems say there was no election fraud. further i know kerry has said that he doesnt believe there was fraud that would warrant a change in who won. so no, i dont know that kerry knows.

like everyone else, i am patiently sitting here waiting to see if kerry does know there was nation wide fraud, and i sit here patiently waiting to see if he will do something about the nation wide election fraud if and when he does know

what i do know is: "he feels it is his duty to protect what remains of the democratic institutions of this country".......if he and others, that is all of us dont stand up to election fraud this year, then quiet in this matter will no way protect shit in this country.

i will wait and see, in order to "know" what is in kerry's mind and what he does about it

[Not a Sheep]

85. Nicely said. /eom

[spooked911]

111. Exactly

I am not convinced kerry "knows" that he won

[anamandujano]

123. I'm waiting also

I do think that Kerry knows he won. We'll have to see what stuff he is made of.

[buddysmellgood]

72. Violence was an option? I guess I missed that meeting.

I think Kerry knows he won, but he's not making sure we achieve an objective through nonviolent means. If he had the proof, he'd present it.

[McCamy Taylor]

74. Where is Thomas Jefferson When You Need Him?

Hell, even John Adams who turned into a federalist f**k applauded the Boston Tea Party. James Madison, Samual Adams, Tom Paine...these guys knew when the rule of law stopped being the rule of law and they knew what to do to fix it.

The American Revolution is living proof that we have the temperment to do things a little differently here in the US and not have total disaster the way they might in Europe. We immigrant/melting pot types are flexible. We thrive on change.

We could actually have a debate in Congress maybe even a Senate fillibuster for a few weeks during which W. would continue to serve his first term as president rather than be a second term president

AND LIFE AS WE KNOW IT WOULD NOT CEASE TO EXIST.

I wish that Kerry could figure his out. Must be his Catholic upbringing.

[whalerider55]

83. Jefferson?

Rolling in his grave.

Imagine.
We've gone from Jefferson to Dubya. That's like riding shotgun on a port-o-jonny heading downhill on trash heap during a thunderstornm.

sheesh

whalerider55

[osaMABUSh]

77. Bush is going down within two years

The failed Iraq war will push people against *. The _______ scandal will be the end for Shrub. Now that blank might be election fraud or something else but whatever it is it'll be Watergate-like and will either push * out of office or taint his presidency so bad that any Dem (Gore, Kerry, (remember Nixon in '60), Biden, Clinton, etc.) can walk into the Oval office in '08.

[euler]

84. When did you speak to him ?

[Boredtodeath]

86. resolved by non-violent means

That's not his choice to make. It's up to the people, not John Kerry.

And, no, I don't believe he thinks there was fraud. I've heard from reliable sources that he believes the opposite as does his legal team.

[Not a Sheep]

87. So once again Kerry expects us to be mindreaders? Hmmm... /eom

[demo dutch]

88. He's out of town skiing for the next few weeks, apparently someone

went by his house and there's a dign on the door, at least that's what I read on another thread. Mind you.. who hangs a sign on their door saying they're out of town??!! Maybe he has a motive, and the strategy is that he cannot be a target for the repugs, while the drama unfolds in congress on Jan 6th.

[liam97]

89. Conyers' role is truly critical here

He has let everyone know with documentation that fraud might have occurred. This public declaration makes it difficult for senators to walk away and "knowingly" certify a fraudulent election. That will be tantamount to the formal death and cremation of the democratic party.

[Oversea Visitor]

121. Poor Conyers

Will the Senators abandon him.
Will Kerry abandon him

But most of all
Will the people abandon him

" Now listen up, you go to war with the General you have , not the General you want"

[hippiechick]

92. There were online articles

They're probably archived by now, you can do a search, I think.

He's out west for 2 weeks, then going to the Middle East.
So he won't be anywhere NEAR DC to 'challenge' the results until at least the middle of Janaury.

That is, if he really intends to 'challenge' the results. :eyes:


:hippie:

[bush_is_wacko]

91. I know this much is true...

But I also know that for at LEAST the last three election cycles *Co. has placed into office Thugs in very high positions that will do EVERYTHING in their power to prevent the public from finding out what they've been doing in our country and around the world. Unless Kerry garners some support from heavy hitters, both inside and outside of our government, he may not be able to get the truth out there. *Co. will do everything in their power to stop him. And I do mean everything! They have the power to arrest, torture...etc anyone that gets in their way. They control our armed forces. That is what we're up against.

[liam97]

93. I agree but people's power is eventually triumphant

we need a strong showing on the streets to support Conyers, the greens, Fitrakis, Wasserman and JJ

[bush_is_wacko]

95. I think we'll have that strong showing

but I'm a little concerned that *Co. has the pow ere to CREATE a riot and blame it on "We the People." His budget for his inauguration looks to me like it includes funds to clean up the aftermath of just such and event. Who the hell needs that much money for a friggin SECOND term inauguration? Tienanmen Square anyone? (Sp?)

[liam97]

97. You mean on the 20th?

I was thinking more on the 6th which could be made into a public debacle if there were lots of people on the streets

[bush_is_wacko]

99. From what I can tell, the number's for both dates will be huge

Either date could be the opportunity he needs to show the rest of the peons the extent of his power. Not that I think that should prevent anyone from showing up. I would be going if it wasn't for financial issues. I know several people that are willing to travel quite a distance to be there for both dates. If he can do it on the 6th, however, this country will be a mess come the 20th. There will be cameras there and those people will be along the fringes enough to get that information out to people. I don't wish any harm to come to people but I think the potential exists.

[bunny planet]

100. Yes. but thanks for pointing it out anyway

[seeking-the-truth]

106. reaeding Kerry's mind

I hope you are right about Kerry KNOWING that the election was stolen, but too many people on here claim to be mind readers. Going down that path to pump up our enthusiasm can leave us all in the weeds.

[spooked911]

112. NO-- we don't! Kerry dismissed vote rigging as a "conspiracy theory"

Mark Crispin Miller met Kerry before the election and said he brought up the possibility that the election could be rigged, and Kerry dismissed it as a "conspiracy theory".

Theresa on the other hand was more interested in the possibility.

[CraZdem4life]

118. just because a man says something out of his mouth...

...doesnt mean its what his mind is saying...

[Visioneer]

120. Then how do you know...

>>>>I don't know what I would do in his position>>>>

You seem so cocksure about everything else you posted regarding the Senator. Why can't you be so sure all the way?

[New Earth]

126. yes i know this

this thread needs to be kicked right about now :hi:

[bunny planet]

127. Yes, a little late night kick!

but first a little hop.



Now the kick!
:kick:

[forintegrity]

131. Yes, I've kown this all along

No news here.