Thom Hartmann: Why it's not crazy to think Anonymous stopped Karl Rove From Stealing the Election P2

[thomhartmann]

If you think it's crazy that Karl Rove tried to steal the election this year only to be thwarted by Anonymous - then you haven't been paying attention to the last 50 years of American history. Tune in...what do Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, both Bushes, and maybe even Mitt Romney have in common - besides all being Republicans?

The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann on RT TV & FSTV "live" 9pm and 11pm check www.thomhartmann.com/tv for local listings

[niyad]

1. just from the timing of the release of the hostages, many of us knew something fishy had

happened, and pretty well had it figured out. too bad there is no way to undo these treasonous acts.

[xfundy]

2. This should be required viewing

I wish he'd mentioned the mess Blackwell created in Ohio in
04.

[niyad]

3. you are correct, it should be required viewing. he did mention kerry, but only in passing.

[Ecumenist]

4. Amen. I believe that these things should be spread far & wide.. I cannot believe some of the

things I have read coming from what passes for "DU'ers" regarding the lies, obfuscation and doubt where it comes to the idea that Anonymous stopped the election from being stolen. SMDH

[rhett o rick]

5. But...but, they are only looking out for our best interests.

Bastards

[Overseas]

123. I thought that efforts to stop Husted's last minute software patch were decisive.

When I heard of Rove being upset and Romney not conceding, I thought the software patch must have failed.

Some other people think that the trigger in the patch was not pulled because they knew it was being closely monitored by FBI cyber-security and other independent monitors.

Here is a lot more detail in a video summary and text:
http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2012/4824

Rove wouldn't mind if some sort of Anonymous clone falsely claimed credit for stopping the vote flipping along the wrong route.

[KegCreekDem]

6. Thank you Anonymous and

thank you Thom Hartmann for getting this truth out.

[Coyotl]

110. Only one problem. It is not true except that he frames it as "possible"

Actually, it wasn't even possible, but that did not stop the misinformation.

This has been thoroughly rehashed over and over again on DU. Nonetheless, it keeps resurfacing.

The first sentence is FALSE. Smartech reported the votes on the WWW. The counties counted them, reported to the State of Ohio, and later reported their official counts. The county totals are available online still and you can see them yourself. Even county precinct totals are available. Counties counted and repoprted precinct level results.

[KegCreekDem]

122. Methinks thou dost protesteth too much.

What is your motivation? Are you really so naive to think that the Koch Brothers millions wouldn't be used to hack the election?

[OnyxCollie]

7. No E-Voting in Germany.

http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.5/no-evoting-germany

The German Federal Constitutional Court decided on 3 March 2009 that electronic voting used for the last 10 years, including for the 2005 general elections, was unconstitutional and therefore not to be used for the next elections in September 2009.

The court ruled that the use of the electronic machines contradicts the public nature of elections and the equipment used in 2005 had some shortcomings. However, as there has been no evidence of errors in the past, the results of the previous elections remain valid.

A petition signed by over 45 000 people in 2005, trying to ban e-voting, had been rejected by the German Government. Now, the court ruled that the Federal Voting Machines Ordinance having introduced e-voting was unconstitutional because it did not "ensure that only such voting machines are permitted and used which meet the constitutional requirements of the principle of the public nature of elections."

Also the court considered that, differently from the traditional voting system where manipulations and frauds are much more difficult involving a high degree of effort and a high risk of detection, "programming errors in the software or deliberate electoral fraud committed by manipulating the software of electronic voting machines can be recognised only with difficulty." Also, in the court's opinion, the electors should be able to verify how their vote is recorded without having to possess detailed computer knowledge. "If the election result is determined through computer-controlled processing of the votes stored in an electronic memory, it is not sufficient if merely the result of the calculation process carried out in the voting machine can be taken note of by means of a summarising printout or an electronic display."

Conspiracy Theories
Cass R. Sunstein
Adrian Vermeule
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

A broader point is that conspiracy theories overestimate the competence and
discretion of officials and bureaucracies, who are assumed to be able to make and carry
out sophisticated secret plans, despite abundant evidence that in open societies
government action does not usually remain secret for very long.20 Recall that a distinctive
feature of conspiracy theories is that they attribute immense power to the agents of the
conspiracy; the attribution is usually implausible but also makes the theories especially
vulnerable to challenge. Consider all the work that must be done to hide and to cover up
the government’s role in producing a terrorist attack on its own territory, or in arranging
to kill political opponents. In a closed society, secrets are not difficult to keep, and
distrust of official accounts makes a great deal of sense. In such societies, conspiracy
theories are both more likely to be true and harder to show to be false in light of available
information.21 But when the press is free, and when checks and balances are in force,
government cannot easily keep its conspiracies hidden for long. These points do not mean
that it is logically impossible, even in free societies, that conspiracy theories are true. But
it does mean that institutional checks make it unlikely, in such societies, that powerful
groups can keep dark secrets for extended periods, at least if those secrets involve
important events with major social salience.

~snip~

Whenever a bad event has occurred, rumors and speculation are inevitable. Most
people are not able to know, on the basis of personal or direct knowledge, why an
airplane crashed, or why a leader was assassinated, or why a terrorist attack succeeded. In
the aftermath of such an event, numerous speculations will be offered, and some of them
will likely point to some kind of conspiracy. To some people, those speculations will
seem plausible, perhaps because they provide a suitable outlet for outrage and blame,
perhaps because the speculation fits well with other deeply rooted beliefs that they hold.
Terrible events produce outrage, and when people are outraged, they are all the more
likely to attribute those events to intentional action. In addition, antecedent beliefs are a
key to the success or failure of conspiracy theories. Some people would find it impossibly
jarring to think that the CIA was responsible for the assassination of a civil rights leader;
that thought would unsettle too many of their other judgments. Others would find those
other judgments strongly supported, even confirmed, by the suggestion that the CIA was
responsible for such an assassination. Compare the case of terrorist attacks. For most
Americans, a claim that the United States government attacked its own citizens, for some
ancillary purpose, would make it impossible to hold onto a wide range of other
judgments. Clearly this point does not hold for many people in Islamic nations, for whom
it is far from jarring to believe that responsibility lies with the United States (or Israel).

Here, as elsewhere, people attempt to find some kind of equilibrium among their
assortment of beliefs,34 and acceptance or rejection of a conspiracy theory will often
depend on which of the two leads to equilibrium. Some beliefs are also motivated, in the
sense that people are pleased to hold them or displeased to reject them.35 Acceptance (or
for that matter rejection) of a conspiracy theory is frequently motivated in that sense.
Reactions to a claim of conspiracy to assassinate a political leader, or to commit or to
allow some atrocity either domestically or abroad, are often determined by the
motivations of those who hear the claim.


For those keeping score, the authors of HAVA have:

Been convicted of bribery and corruption for deals with Jack Abramoff and sentenced to 30 months in prison- Rep. Bob Ney

Been convicted of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering to get repub candidates elected, and have received a sentence of three years in prison (and has yet to serve a day)- Rep. Tom DeLay (See also DeLay's ties to Abramoff.)

Run for President (poorly)- Sen. Chris Dodd. Dodd was also a "Friend of Angelo" Mozillo of Countrywide.

Business and financial ties through the McCarthy Group with ES&S, the company that had a monopoly on vote counting in the US- Sen. Chuck Hagel

"When it can be established that when a number of political acts work in concert to produce a certain result, the presumption is strong that the actors were aiming at the result in question. When it can be shown that the actors have an interest in producing these results, the presumptions become a fair certainty- no conspiracy theory is needed." -Walter Karp, Indispensable Enemies

[cprise]

67. Wow, exactly-- 'a high degree of [physical] effort'

...creates a far higher likelihood of detecting vote fraud than is possible in a computer system where information is almost infinitely malleable.

Computerization is not appropriate for every type of problem. Secret ballot voting is one of those domains were computers create more problems than they solve.

I remember donating to the Florida NAACP when they announced they were mounting a legal effort against vote fraud in the 2000 election. Soon afterward they enthusiastically chomped at the bit that Diebold offered, and threw their support behind computerized voting as a fix. Right then I recognized some of the implications and was beside myself, hand to face, when I read about it in the news. They were not fixing the potential for another voting fiasco, but helping bury it.

I'm flabbergasted at this excerpt you posted. Thank you!

[Coyotl]

8. All good and well, but it proves nothing about 2012, so Thom is just back-pedalling

because he fell hook, line and sinker for a baseless conspiracy theory. Now he has to try and recover some credibility!

[OnyxCollie]

10. The Germans banned electronic voting

despite not having evidence of fraud:

http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.5/no-evoting-germany

The German Federal Constitutional Court decided on 3 March 2009 that electronic voting used for the last 10 years, including for the 2005 general elections, was unconstitutional and therefore not to be used for the next elections in September 2009.

The court ruled that the use of the electronic machines contradicts the public nature of elections and the equipment used in 2005 had some shortcomings. However, as there has been no evidence of errors in the past, the results of the previous elections remain valid.

A petition signed by over 45 000 people in 2005, trying to ban e-voting, had been rejected by the German Government. Now, the court ruled that the Federal Voting Machines Ordinance having introduced e-voting was unconstitutional because it did not "ensure that only such voting machines are permitted and used which meet the constitutional requirements of the principle of the public nature of elections."

Also the court considered that, differently from the traditional voting system where manipulations and frauds are much more difficult involving a high degree of effort and a high risk of detection, "programming errors in the software or deliberate electoral fraud committed by manipulating the software of electronic voting machines can be recognised only with difficulty." Also, in the court's opinion, the electors should be able to verify how their vote is recorded without having to possess detailed computer knowledge. "If the election result is determined through computer-controlled processing of the votes stored in an electronic memory, it is not sufficient if merely the result of the calculation process carried out in the voting machine can be taken note of by means of a summarising printout or an electronic display."

Silly Germans with their baseless conspiracy theories. They should be more trusting of their government.

[Coyotl]

14. So would I. But that doesn't prove anything except that I have good taste in voting.

But, what if everyone could read and test the code?
Then wouldn't e-counting of paper ballots be acceptable if audited too when demanded?

There is no government, just real people doing government jobs and functions!

[OnyxCollie]

16. "But, what if everyone could read and test the code? "

Well, we don't have that. We have outsourced a government function to a private, partisan corporation that uses secret, proprietary code to count votes.

Kinda funny that someone who criticizes "baseless conspiracy theories" uses a hypothetical as support for their argument.

[kooljerk666]

21. your dog has a nice smile............

that's all..................

oh yea agree 110%

[Coyotl]

22. Why assume I need to be told what is wrong with voting today?

We are, after all, discussing what is wrong with a specific election conspiracy theory. You can assume I know the basic facts. What is in dispute is the non-factual.

[OnyxCollie]

26. How can you "prove" what is non-factual?

When the possibility exists for tampering in electronic voting, claiming Anonymous did not tamper with electronic voting is impossible unless you can prove (1) electronic voting cannot be tampered, and (2) that Anonymous could not tamper with the elections.

I await your empirical evidence. No hypotheticals, please.

[cprise]

68. Large corporations also control the circuitry

...for which they can have chips made to order. There is no way to examine the logic within a VLSI microchip once it has been manufactured. It is a MUCH bigger problem than software.

It would be almost trivial to include a few 'malfunctioning' logic gates among billions of others in today's chips without them being detected.

[99th_Monkey]

18. Why in the world are you contorting yourself into a pretzel

to defend e-voting and cast doubt on GOP election buggery?

What's you agenda mister?

[99th_Monkey]

17. I think the word is "CONTEXT"

Thom was making the point -- which obviously is lost on you --- that election
buggery by GOP is basically in their DNA. I didn't know about the LBJ tape
until I saw this clip. This is great background information, not "back-peddling"
as you claim.

I for one, am thoroughly delighted that Thom is taking this seriously and
covering it well.

[Coyotl]

23. You have to see what he said before this tape to know what he is back-petalling

[99th_Monkey]

25. I've seen all THREE of Thom's tapes on this story

Thom did this third tape for the benefit of obtuse nay-sayers carping
about the whole issue of vote-rigging in OH by Rove, and it's possible
interception with a firewall by Anon this year, as being unworthy of
people's attention. That's YOU Coyoti.

But obviously Thom's efforts to provide context & background have had
no discernible effect on your "head-in-the-sand" demeanor. whatever.

[Coyotl]

48. He did that to prop up his own viewpoint.

Everyone else already knew all that third tape, or they had their heads in the sand all this while.

[99th_Monkey]

79. "prop up his own viewpoint"? is an undeserved slur

leveled against an honest & skilled journalist, who is simply
providing background and context ... yes, for those of you
who still have your head in the sand <-- so you got that
part right.

Otherwise, why do you say you know those things, yet act like
you don't know those things? .. i.e. like suggesting it's a
silly CT to think Rove tried to steal OH, or that Anon may have
helped to prevent that?

[Coyotl]

81. Why isn't it "a silly CT to think Rove tried to steal OH"?

Until there is some evidence, it really is SILLY. How was Rove going to do it?

Please provide some indication of how that can be done, something other than "it is on the WWW" please.

Regarding 2004, I proved it was stolen and cooperated with State of Ohio after the election by providing my evidence to the State. So I know how and who and when and where. And I do NOT like silly CTs to be floated as cover-ups to the real facts.

The Smartech meme is BULLSHIT. The 2012 story is BULLSHIT. Hartmann is in over his head because these false memes are not questioned by him. Thom Hartmann has become a disinformation tool, conscious or not.

[reusrename]

89. What is yor take on Michael Collins' reporting on the 2012 primaries?

There's proof that the primaries in many states, including Ohio, were electronically flipped.

Personally, I believe the evidence to be absolute proof beyond any shadow of doubt. I beieve this because I understand that a miracle would be required to produce these results naturally. I am not convinced that God's plan guided his team to produce victory after victory, over four seperate front runners, while each time perfectly mimmicking results that can only be caused by electronic flipping of votes.

What standard of proof would satisfy you enough for you to admit publicly that the Anonymous claim is plausible?

You do not appear to be swayed by a preponderance of the evidence.

http://markcrispinmiller.com/2012/10/how-many-flipped-votes-helped-romney-win-his-partys-nomination/

[99th_Monkey]

97. Collins was not the only one who noticed the 2012 GOP Primary vote-buggery

Here's a compendium of numerous news reports on this, including Maddow
(which is ultimately spun to support Ron Paul as the "defender of liberty&quot but
never-the-less, these news reports were actual footage.

&feature=player_embedded

[reusrename]

99. Ron Paul was an infinitely better candidate.

In a fair election, he might easily have won against Obama. He would have gotten the racist vote that Romney received, plus he could have drawn a lot of the young vote that isn't familiar with the racist history of his ideology. He would have been formidable, especially with someone like Gov. Christy as a running mate.

The reason Ron Paul was not allowed to win, he was never acceptable to These Guys.

[99th_Monkey]

98. If you are such an "insider" with first-hand knowledge of how Rove REALLY stole OH

why are you not testifying before Congress, or calling up Thom Hartmann for
an interview to "set him straight" on the "real" story?


If you are so intent on calling Thom's reporting BULLSHIT, then prove it.

[reusrename]

73. This is exactly why this video was produced.

It's obvious to everyone that the Anonymous claim is very plausible. I'm beginning to suspect "head-in-the-sand" demeanor may be too kind. Something more disturbing could be driving this irrational reaction to the story. Especially when you couple the denial with the mocking and ridicule. One has to wonder. But at least your getting more than emoticons for a response, which looks like progress to me.

Carry on.

[99th_Monkey]

78. +10

thank you for beaming some lightness & sanity into the
conversation.

Yes, the ferocity and hyper-persistence of some is intriguing.
One wonders about what all is going on behind that keyboard.

[drynberg]

9. I TOO AM GRATEFUL TO TOM FOR SHARING THESE NASTY TRUTHS, BUT

Whadda we do now? How do we make our elections clean in the future. Maybe the private voting machines are a good place to start cleaning house...and then paper ballots with a trail that can be hand counted with supervision of all parties. So, how do we get this ball rolling? Cause we gotta start NOW!

[Coyotl]

82. You can start "now" by joining the groups we started eight years ago!

Us "old timers' on the election integrity front are already organized,

in places where there is more than just talk, of course.

[Festivito]

95. The number one problem is our news media.

It's fine to have corporate media, but we need other sources as well. Privately funded to protect our money interests. Publicly funded to protect our people and our votes.

[amywalk]

11. Benghazi could have been a CIA operation to hurt Obama to influence the election.

[bonniebgood]

46. amywalk, your comment has not been lost. A whole lot of us

believe this to be true. Pick your poison. sex scandal or treason?

[reusrename]

117. or it could have been war crimes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1861666

[global1]

77. And Behind The Scenes This Was Found Out By The Obama Administration And......

Petreaus was made to pay for it by facing a scandal instead of facing a firing squad for 'treason'. And if this was Tom talking about Benghazi and how it played into the 2012 election - he might had said the American People couldn't handle a story about 'treason' so they discredited Petreaus by using a sex scandal. After all Petreaus was the head of CIA.

[iandhr]

12. If Anonymous had proof on Rove they would spill it.

They are just pretending to be relevant.

[Coyotl]

15. Anon actually promised in the video to spill the evidence

Too many holes that can't be patched over in this story.
When the fraudsters are exposed, they can claim they saved Obama because Rove was afraid to act.

[LiberalLovinLug]

28. Seriously

I know you seem to enjoy making a joke out of election stealing, but for many of us on DU, this is no joke.
And constantly using your favorite smiley does nothing more than make you seem like a bully on the school yard trying to belittle anyone who doesn't suck up to you.

Its as if some of you are convinced that even the word "conspiracy" is some made up word that has no meaning in the English dictionary.
Maybe you watch too much Sci-Fi channel, I don't know.

[RC]

20. So, that proves this election was totally on the up and up and Rove

did no wrong?

"When it can be established that when a number of political acts work in concert to produce a certain result, the presumption is strong that the actors were aiming at the result in question. When it can be shown that the actors have an interest in producing these results, the presumptions become a fair certainty- no conspiracy theory is needed." -Walter Karp, Indispensable Enemies

We have in this country, Republican manufactured, owned, operated and programed electronic voting machines, where these Republican owners are on the record of electing Republicans wherever possible.

What's not to get? It is obvious something went very wrong for Karl Rove this recent past election. Something more happened, or rather didn't happen, that was planned to happen, besides Obama swamping out the "Fix" this election.
Anonymous is not a single entity, but a loose group of like minded people. Maybe they "know too much" and like their freedom. Maybe they just like living. Whatever, it doesn't really matter. We now know enough to start real investigations into our elections, but it takes time to get organized.

[Coyotl]

24. Try to understand that I am skeptical of what hasn't been proven

You realize my being skeptical does not mean you should assume I am not!

On edit: P.S. We election integrity activists have been organized since 2004, doing things like producing films and academic work on the topic.

[OnyxCollie]

27. "We election integrity activists have been organized since 2004..."

On the Internet, anyone can claim to be an "election integrity activist."

One can do so without a shred of proof.

[heaven05]

36. yes!!!!

Anonymous is an "election integrity activist" also by their criteria.

[Coyotl]

49. On the Internet, anyone can claim to be an "election integrity activist"

But can you watch their election integrity films on the internet?

[OnyxCollie]

75. Still waiting on your evidence.

Since you're doing nothing but babbling, I will assume you don't have any.

[Coyotl]

80. Still waiting on your evidence

that the original Anon/Rove story has one scintilla of truth, not to mention some evidence.

And, no, I do not reveal my public ID on this forum, so take my word for it. I have two election integrity film credits plus academic studies.

[OnyxCollie]

88. Why should I take your word for it?

Other than ad hominen attacks against Thom Hartmann and Anonymous, you haven't produced anything to support your argument.

[reusrename]

116. Sounds like Edison/Mitofsky doesn't it.

OTOH...

[cui bono]

108. You just gave the exact reason Anonymous may not want to reveal their identity

So do you think it's okay to hold them to do something you refuse to do yourself?

[Coyotl]

112. Noone is asking Anon to reveal an identity. Besides, this is NOT Anon

in all likelihood. Even so, noone is saying identify yourself.

[bvar22]

69. Not necessarily.

If I were Anon, I wouldn't provide the proof.
I would have already gotten the exact result needed.
Why give anyone a lead on my identity?

Does the names Bradley Manning and Julian Assange mean anything to you?
Why play their game (and apparently your game too) and take unnecessary risks when there is absolutely no need to do so?
Kudos to Anon!

[Rockyj]

74. Here, Here!

& as a result of Manning & many others who RISKED their lives to expose the TRUTH; they will NEVER be forgotten! AS far as Bradley Manning is concern he risked his life for Americans to know the TRUTH about WAR MONGERS like EVIL Senator McCain!
Sadly, it doesn't make us much DIFFERENT FROM THE PEOPLE McCain CONDEMNS!

[barbtries]

13. bookmarking for later.

<<<<<< me

[deutsey]

19. I will watch this later, but regardless of whether Anonymous thwarted Rove or not

I think an important reason so many people can find it feasible that it happened that way is our trust in the integrity of the electoral system has been completely compromised since 2000.

As a nation, we need to do all that we can to restore that trust and integrity.

[bvar22]

29. NOW you have DONE IT, Thom.

Clearly, you haven't been listening to the sensible posters at DU.

There are NEW RULES:
You MUST Prove It before you can discuss the possibility that this might have happened,
or the ramifications of Anon's claim demonstrating the vulnerability of our Privatized, Secret, Opaque, unverifiable elections.

[font size=7]PROVE IT,[/font]
beyond the doubt of the most hardened, conservative, establishment mouth piece at DU,
[font size=7]or STFU, Thom![/font]



[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

[99th_Monkey]

33. Absolutely! PROVE IT!!! or STFU. New Rule on DU.

Thank you for clarifying that. I was getting a little confused, wrong-headedly
imagining we actually DISCUSS things on DU, look at possibilities, weigh evidence,
etc. This "new rule" will really come in handy when I disagree with what someone
else posts. NOW I can just say ... "PROVE IT NOW!!! ..or STFU!!!"

That won't take nearly as many brain cells as actually deliberating issues.

What a relief.

[Coyotl]

50. No, just prove unbelievable, extraordinary claims. No need to STFU

No need to even prove anything unless you make unbelievable, extraordinary claims, of course.

[Pbs1914]

59. God you are annoying

How many threads are you on now spewing the same Bs regarding this same topic? 10? 20?

[Coyotl]

64. How many threads are there on this topic?

I hope I didn't miss one. But hey, start another.

[pintobean]

85. It appears you have a fan.

Sorry, I should have looked at the history before voting to leave it.

#4

[Coyotl]

87. But not of my work!

Sometimes they know not to whom they speak.

[reusrename]

102. Thanks for taking it down a notch.

I appreciate it.

[Coyotl]

103. You're kidding

not a chance As long as there are people trying to sell snake oil around here ....

[reusrename]

115. No, no, not snake oil. Mike Collins' report on the 2012 primaries.

Why no comment?

[RoccoR5955]

45. Prove it?

I'm sorry, but I don't think that any one of us should have to write a networking manual for anyone. People wouldn't understand it. These things are complicated, and Anonymous uses colorful language to describe it. Sometimes archaic, but colorful.

I don't understand why these people keep insisting that Anonymous reveal their code, and paint a great big target on their back.

The concepts of advanced networking are not for the uninitiated into the field. Most of our techs don't understand how a lot of this stuff works. No matter how simple it's explained to them.

So unless you are a network administrator, network technician, systems programmer, or the like, YOU should STFU!

[Rockyj]

71. Amen!

[Samantha]

30. Since Jeb Bush is gearing up for 2016, bookmark this video

and any other material you might have on his participation in the "taking" of the 2000 election. It never ceases to amaze me that people like Jeb Bush think that given time people will "get over it" or just not remember what has happened in the past. If he does in fact run, he is going to see just how wrong he is about that.

Sam

[elleng]

31. 'This is treason,'

and Dems haven't wanted to mention it.

[OnyxCollie]

34. Weird, huh?

Dems don't mention torture, habeas corpus, Fourth Amendment violations, or drone strikes either.

[snot]

38. THANKYOU. Given all that, the bank bailouts, and more,

I'm tempted to add, "PROVE that the Dems in power give a genuine rat's *ss about the 99% or STFU."

[elleng]

41. STFU

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

[OnyxCollie]

42. Uh oh. Here comes The List. nt

[cui bono]

105. Yup, post right above yours has it.

Funny how certain things never make it onto "the list".

- Codified Bush's warrantless wiretapping
- Increased drone strikes
- Stated it is okay to assassinate American citizens
- Deported the most undocumented workers
- Made backroom deals with big pharma and the "health" insurance companies
- Squandered all the energized supporters dedication once elected by making deals with corporations
- Gave a handout to the big banks rather than to the people

There's more I'm sure, but this gets you a big STFU on here if you bring any of this up. It also gets a bunch of threads started for the sole purpose of ridiculing anyone who dares mention things of this nature or concerns of possible future shortcomings.

And never do I see the actual discussion of policies, just snarky replies by the "club" whose intent seems to just be dividing DU and not allowing discussion.

[bvar22]

40. ...OR...

the damaging effects of "Free Trade" on America's Working Class

or

The Failed and very expensive War on Drugs

or

The Militarization and National Coordination of our local Police Departments

or

the coordinated suppression of legal protests

or

Don Seigelman....(Don WHO?)

or

War Crimes & War Criminals

or

Torture

or

The expanding "private" Prison Industrial Complex

or

The successful Emerging Populist Democracies in Latin America

or

US support for one of the few remaining Right Wing Death Squad Oligarchies in Latin America (Colombia)


Gosh, there sure are a lot of things that don't get talked about today.



[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

[Coyotl]

51. We Dems do want to mention it, and love when someone can prove it too

I really enjoy hearings, Watergate, Iran-Contra, USA Firings, etc. And, as a Dem, I enjoy watching Republican sentencing hearings.

I'm a Dem and I mention it. So your argument just FAILED!

[elleng]

53. Sorry, should have said Dem higher-ups in the party,

who have chosen, over the years, as noted by Hartmann, NOT to mention it.

[cui bono]

106. But do you see how combative you are in that post?

Not really a good way to have discourse. That attitude has become a real problem on this site.

[Coyotl]

111. no

[applegrove]

32. After a break for months as all hands were

were on deck to help Mitt get elected, we are back to the default position where one conspiracy after another is started amongst democrats. This serves only to alienate dems from each other, as is the aim.

[OnyxCollie]

35. It would be better

if Dems would simply shut up, get in line, display their loyalty, and stop questioning the authority of the government and its institutions.

You know, like RWers do when Republicans are in office.

[heaven05]

39. is that like not displaying

their loyalty to some poster on here with awesome intellect and intelligence that cannot be disputed without a long running segment on how they, the disputers, cannot see the obvious logic of the awesome intellects and intelligences of some posters when disputing something or someone like say.......anonymous and the hack/antihack claims?

[OnyxCollie]

44. What?

Quit mumbling. I can't understand a word you're saying.

[Coyotl]

83. Very well-put, erudite, insightful, and a joy to read

not to mention nail, hammer, head

[heaven05]

100. both

of your opinions, you and the other poster, mean ZERO to me. Your inability to understand that you are in the minority reminds me of a rethug nominee in our recent election. Go Anonymous!

[applegrove]

47. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that if Rove or anyone did steal

votes there would be a massive criminal investigation. And there is not. I'm noticing a pattern. When the primaries and election were on, and republicans were otherwise engaged, the consipiracy theories on the DU were rare.

[Sadiedog]

54. Really? I do not seem to remember a big investigation after the 2000 elections. nt

[applegrove]

56. That is because Al Gore, acting like a decent human being, gave

up the fight in the courts. He opted not to pursue further court action when the Supremes came down with their decision (for what he thought was the good of the country but which proved not to be). Which he regretted. Since then Democrats have learnt they have to fight like mad and never, ever give in, because the GOP always will fight through any means necessary.

[bvar22]

92. Your post #56 is pure speculation.

You make several unsupported claims based on speculation in the above post, #56.
If you have PROOF of your claims, you should post it NOW and stop hiding behind an anonymous screen name.

[applegrove]

118. It is common knowledge that Gore lost when he chose not

to pursue the Supreme's decision in courts. That is how the election was stolen in 2000.

[reusrename]

107. I'm pretty sure Al Gore knows better.

He would have been taken down with the the twin towers and President Lieberman would have gone to war with Islam instead of Dubya.

Things might have been much worse than they were, had things gone the other way. In either event, it was heads they win, tails we lose.

[applegrove]

119. Are you saying you'd rather not have had Al Gore as president?

[reusrename]

121. Not at all.

I'm saying that it wasn't going to happen.

[OnyxCollie]

72. There was no massive criminal investigation

into the Iraq war, or torture, or domestic surveillance, or mortgage fraud.

I'm noticing a pattern, too...

[Coyotl]

84. Criminal investigations only come to light with prosecutions, so you are maintaining you know

something that requires you to be the director of the FBI or something like that to have the info needed to so assert. I'm guessing you are just saying stuff without evidence on this front.

[OnyxCollie]

90. Away with you,

annoying little pest.

[Coyotl]

52. Don't you just hate it when a

bullshit storm like this hits

[bvar22]

91. Turnabout is fair play!

You insist that:
[font color=red] "all hands were were on deck to help Mitt get elected, we are back to the default position where one conspiracy after another is started amongst democrats. This serves only to alienate dems from each other, as is the aim." ---applegrove, post #32[/font]
---

You and a handful of other self-appointed Hall Monitors have continuously attacked Democrats by incessantly repeating the extraordinary claim that an open discussion of the issues suppresses voter turnout and helps Republicans,
and yet you and yours have not offered the first shred of proof to support this wild claim.

[font size=4]PROVE IT, or STFU!
[/font]

After election 2012, it would appear that your claim is utter bullshit, and an open discussion of the issues actually helps INCREASE turnout.

[applegrove]

120. I was all for an open discussion on voter suppression this election.

There was lots of evidence.

[byronius]

37. Thanks for this. Eye-opening. Hartmann's a Great American.

[heaven05]

43. rethugs

treasonous? Trying to steal elections??? Want power for powers sake? could care less than shit about the 99%????Perish the thought! Anonymous can you believe this? Repukes treasonous?

[calimary]

55. I certainly don't think it's crazy. Not at all. When you consider who's involved and what their

track record has been, longterm. I think there's something to it, absolutely. Wouldn't be a bit surprised. If kkkarl rove's involved, suspect a rat. Suspect there's something no good afoot.

[Stargleamer]

57. Romney's own polling had Obama up by 5% on Election Day

yet Obama wins by 1.9%. Something strange was going on again.

[psychmommy]

58. Wow this was awesome.

Thanks Thom. We need to push for a heading. See Mccain could jump on this to stay relevant.

[Pbs1914]

61. I basically wrote the exact same thing in a thread a few weeks back

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021434422

[Pbs1914]

62. So I'm glad Thom Hartman expanded on that idea having come to a similar conclusion

[Pbs1914]

63. Amazing Video

Thanks so much for this. Can you send a direct link to this video so that I can show others?

Thank you

[Coyotl]

65. At the same time this is all old history and very familiar

to those iof us paying attention to politics lo all these decades.

[HopeHoops]

66. "And that's the way it is." Good job, dude. Good job.

Thanks for posting this. I watched the Carter/Reagan debates and picked out three very clear Reagan lies. I expected the Washington Post to have a headline "REAGAN LIES HIS ASS OFF", but all I got was a single paragraph at the end of an article on A-12 - "Mr. Reagan made a few mistaken assertions during the debate." I was NOT happy about that.

[Snarkoleptic]

70. kickski

[cantbeserious]

86. Can A Political Party Be Charged With Treason? If So, We Should Nominate Republicans For The Honor

eom

[ProSense]

93. Quoting you, Thom:

<...>

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

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

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

I completely agree.

If Anonymous has definitive proof that Rove tried to hack the vote, present it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021842950

Evidence is a precious commodity and demanding it shouldn't be frowned upon. Otherwise, we risk becoming them: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021861002

[Coyotl]

101. That's not what he said until the first comments came under criticism

This is the fall-back position to compensate for falling for the BS in the first place.

[reusrename]

114. Anonymous claims to have abandoned that approach.

They were originally going to try and catch them in the act, but then they opted for just locking them out instead.

Rove and his minions were locked out (this has been reported on independently) and because of that there is no evidence of an attempt to electronically flip votes in the server logs.

In other words, if Anonymous is telling the truth, the proof you are demanding would not exist. It would have to come from some other source in some other form. They never sent the command "FLIP VOTES" because they were not able to log on.

If this really happened, I'm glad they chose this tactic. Even if they had proof of Rove's guilt, it would not change the argument one iota. The science deniers would just continue to deny just like they deny proof of electronic vote flipping in the primary.

They cry "give us some proof" and then bury their head in the sand when facts are produced.

[cui bono]

96. "Eisenhower was the last legitmately elected Republican president."

Think about that.

THINK.

[Coyotl]

104. It is not true if you think about it

You can commit treason and still be "legitimately elected" because of the number of people who vote by party irrespective of how treasonous their candidates are.

[cui bono]

109. I don't think that if the treason were truly exposed and prosecuted they would get elected and

I think that's why Thom is using that word, although I can see your point. And since Nixon's treason was never exposed at the time he was elected after having committed treason.

[Coyotl]

113. We exposed Iran-Contra and that did not stop Bush I from winning once.

The people knew the administration was selling weapons to terrorists to fund an illegal, mercenary army!