What could possibly go wrong?

If you read through the material on this website then it seems to me that you will have plenty of clues.

I want one thing to go right in November. And that is the reality of clean,transparent,accurate and honest elections!!

"GOP Losing Its Grip On Multiple House Seats"

As if it matters!

The entire congress could be comprised of people who claim to be a Dem and the White House occupants could be pro-war/pro-corporate Barack "Hope/Change" Obama (with Queen Hillary and Bill at his side) who also claims to be a Dem, and little/nothing would change from the status quo, other than possibly some "window dressing" stuff for show.

Comment #1 wrote:

I want one thing to go right in November. And that is the reality of clean,transparent,accurate and honest elections!!

LOL. Dream on!

Why would any thinking person (versus a wishful-thinking partisan person) think that a 2008 "election" (if there is one) would be any different than the last two STOLEN (2000 and 2004) presidential "elections?"

I've read some comments saying "you must vote Democratic."

Yeah, if you want the status quo that's what you will do and I say that based on the Dems "enabling job" and ass-eating of Bush since 2000 to this day.

If one wants positive progressive CHANGE, one will vote for either:

Nader/Gonzalez (independents)

or

Cynthia McKinney (Green)

But I know most people won't have the courage or intelligence to vote for someone other than a politician with a D (or R) behind their name because that's how most people have been programmed from, in many cases, childhood. And it's very difficult to deprogram that without professional help. That partisan programming in people is really no different than the programming of religious beliefs.

I wish I could edit my previous post. I had a couple of typos. One correction:

Cynthia McKinney is the correct spelling of her name.

{Ed Note: Sheesh, Erma! Really. I did my best for you there. --99}

Hmmm . . .

What could possibly go wrong?

Ehhh....heh heh heh.

Erma,

If you recall in 2000, Nader said that he was willing to endure a Bush presidency for a few years if it meant that people would then dart for the political left afterwards. Well, now that's happening, and you're complaining that they're not running far enough to the left?!

Besides, I could never vote for a man who was willing to put up with a Bush 43 presidency as part of some political gamble. To me, that's as bad as HRC voting for Bush's war as part of a political calculation to make herself a viable presidential candidate in '08. Both Nader & Hillary forgot that the idea of an opposition party is to OPPOSE Bush's policies, not endorse them.

History will not be kind to either Clinton or Nader for that.

Not Erma

You know, I think Nader was poison in 2000 because of the meme about there being no difference between * and Gore. There was, and is, a cosmos of difference between them. I don't care what excuse he has for it, that may have been the single most damaging thing in Fiasco 2000. I can't tell you how many average Joes I heard repeating that outrageous bit of fallacious reasoning.

And, if we were not all so conditioned to parrot outrageous bits of fallacious reasoning from the establishment, I don't think many of us could disagree that Cynthia McKinney is the single best candidate we have in 2008. She has the experience, the dedication to truth and the Constitution, and definitely the guts and heart to be Commander in Chief. I was whining that I'd like her for president a couple years ago.

It makes me crazy that we're never going to get my kind of president.

Not in my lifetime, anyway.

The bottom line is who do people want to be President, Obama or McCain? I can buy into Brad's argument that it is a good idea to vote one's conscience in lopsided states so that third parties can get their funding. In 2000 I voted for Nader because Gore had Massachusetts for sure.

There are a lot of things that go into stealing these elections. It does appear that the closer the vote, the harder it is to rig them. So why would anyone vote against Obama in close states? In the purple states a vote for McKinney will be a vote for McCain.

There is a big influx of noise on the internet. People actually expect to be taken seriously when they say don't vote at all. There is the influx of people saying that Dems and Reps are all part of the same cesspool. That is bull.

Check out Larry Johnson's spook website no quarters if you can stomach it. It is not even readable. You have people working for Democrats for McCain. You have people spreading all kind of crap on Obama.

One last note. Kos Zuniga has admitted that he pays people to post. He calls it a fellowship program. It would be nice to find out every name that gets a paycheck from Kos. Mark Lindeman? DHinMI? What about Anonymous Army? Was he getting paid by Kos or perhaps Diebold?

The internet is rigged.

There are some people who continue to put out the lie and disinformation that when a person votes for Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader that they are not voting for McKinney or Nader (LOL), but rather they are voting for McCain. Bull shit. Some people will try anything to attempt to fool others.

If I vote for Ms McKinney, she is the candidate I'm voting for. Period. I'm NOT voting for McCain and never would. Period. And some people can keep putting that lie out there all they want and call it a "fact" but that doesn't make it so. It is simply Dem partisan pabulum which mainly the Dem koolaid drinking suckers like to spew. And I'm sick of hearing it. Every so-called "election" we hear this same shit from the Dem koolaid drinkers, the pathetic gullible naive suckers that they are (remember they were jumping up and down and celebrating the night of the 2006 "election" because these suckers thought that things were going to change just because the Dems were now in the majority. They expected the Dems in congress to do a 180 overnight and stop enabling the Bush regime. Ha!...It's only gotten WORSE with every passing day since. These were also the same damn fools who said the Traitor of the House Pelosi was not serious when she said "impeachment is off the table" well before the "election." I told the Dem koolaid drinkers that she was absolutely serious. They began calling me every name one can think of.

And using that twisted "thinking", one could say that a vote for Obama (who supported Liebermann) is a vote for McCain. Because both candidates will continue the status quo.

Source:

Barack Obama: "I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf."

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29228

When election are stolen they are made to look very close (examples: 2000 and 2004 presidential "elections") whether they were actually very close or not in reality.

One should vote for the candidates of their choice and not out of some herd/sheep fear mentality (ex. the "a vote for McKinney is a vote for McCain" nonsense).

I have no intention whatsoever of voting for Obama or McCain. If there is an "election" I will either vote for:

Gonzales/Nader (that's how I think of it since I prefer Matt Gonzales to Ralph)

or

Cynthia McKinney.

And when I vote for either, they are the candidates I'm voting for. Because I want positive progressive change. I don't want the status quo (Obama/McCain).

A couple of months ago I read an article where Gore was speaking about the 2000 "election" and the reason he gave for his "loss" (even though he didn't lose) had nothing to do with Nader. He didn't even mention Nader as the reason. Unfortunately, at the moment I forget the reason he gave, but I just found it interesting. Because ever since, the Dem koolaid drinkers have been trotting out Nader as the reason. Instead, they should be taking ownership and responsibility for their own party's failures and the pathetic campaign that Gore ran. But they refuse to do that. Gore and the Supremes were to blame for his "losing."

Erma #9

There are some people who continue to put out the lie and disinformation that when a person votes for Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader that they are not voting for McKinney or Nader (LOL), but rather they are voting for McCain. Bull shit. Some people will try anything to attempt to fool others.

You referring to me?

Anyone who goes on the internet and tries to get people to vote for McKinney, Nader, or any other person who has no chance to win when the state is a toss up is flat out wrong.

This forum is no different from any other and is getting worked on by either paid agents or their useful idiots.

Such people, even when you show them the errors of their ways, they'll come back with nothing but ad hominems. Maybe someone should find the thread from a few years ago when Erma lied about her age.

I used to stick up for people like this, but sometimes I am too trusting and get burned.

OBAMA WAS AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR. GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR MCKINNEY IN A CLOSE STATE. IF YOU DO, THAT'S A VOTE FOR MCCAIN.

P.S. Don't delete my post Agent 99. I'm not the one calling someone disinfo and kool aid drinking. A few months ago you deleted my posts, yet left up the posts of others who were breaking the rules. When you do things like that, that's when people start to wonder about yourself.

It does appear that the closer the vote, the harder it is to rig them.

Sorry, my first post above should have read the closer the vote, the easier it seems to rig them. Sorry for any inconvenience.

If there were only two choices, Obama and McCain, who does the good person select? Obviously Obama. But not according to Larry Spooky Johnson or any of these other people telling us not to vote, or the others who keep astroturfing that democrats and republicans are the same.

In close states, there are only two choices, McCain or Obama. Anyone saying otherwise is either disinfo or badly misinformed.

Someone wrote this stuff:

"OBAMA WAS AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR."

Initially, he claimed to be against the attack on Iraq, but at the time Barack "Hope/Change" Obama wasn't even in the Senate to vote one way or the other on it. And you conveniently omitted that he has continued to vote "yes" for the funding of the occupation which is the same as being for war and for the occupation. Because the funding continues the war/occupation which he initially claimed to oppose.

Someone wrote this stuff:

"Anyone who goes on the internet and tries to get people to vote for McKinney, Nader, or any other person who has no chance to win when the state is a toss up is flat out wrong."

LOL. I'm not trying to get anyone to do anything. That's just your partisan "spin" of what I wrote. I don't care who or what people vote for. I have my preference and I've already stated it. It just astounds me that after all this time and one "election" cycle after the other, most people still don't get it that one cannot stay in the same voting rut (presumably of this "lesser of two evils" bullshit) voting for pro-war and pro-corporate Establishment Republicrat politicians. And then they expect change! LOL. I mean, how thick/dense are some people who insist that people must vote for the Establishment candidates regardless. And then they wonder why nothing changes. DUH.

But I'm not the one on here trying to programme/order/tell/dictate to people which candidate they must vote for, or else.

How silly.

One must vote their conscience. That's what I intend to do.

(And writing a sentence in all caps holds no more credibility than a sentence written in lower case).

Obama has consistently been against the Iraq war. He is not against the action in Afghanistan. He has been consistent on both.

I find Nader the most self-centered of candidates, I were it simply McCain and Nader, I would have to find a third party to vote for. If you are conservative and don't like McCain, vote for Barr.

"Obama has consistently been against the Iraq war."

If he were consistently against the Iraq war/occupation he would not have consistently voted for the funding. And he's made comments about Pakistan and Iran:

Democrats and Iran: Look Who Supports Bush's Next War
http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=4521

"Recently, the Democratic Party's rising "progressive" star Barack Obama said he would favor "surgical" missile strikes against Iran."

"Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over.""

And if one wants to talk about "taking votes away" from other candidates:

A vote for Obama or McCain is "taking votes away" from Nader/Gonzales or Cynthia McKinney. It goes both ways, you know. What is, is.

The 2006 election surprised the Rs because the negatives kept rising in the last month. The preprogrammed 'spread' for voting machines turned out too small!
I've always voted but not every time for a major candidate. The talk about "throwing your vote away" is BS. Vote however you want - you don't have to talk about it! It is tempting to send Bob Barr a few dollars...

This argument that voting for a 3rd party candidate is voting for McCain is ridiculous, I agree. But, I voted for Nader in 2000 and it was a mistake. The Democratic Party is much more progressive as a whole than it used to be. You need to look at the big picture and the importance of doing absolutely anything to keep as many Republicans out of congress, and out of the presidency as possible. Another conservative SC judge is a disaster, and McCain will gladly appoint one. Obama isn't perfect, but you MUST realize either he or McCain will be the next president, and the purged voter rolls are already in McCain's favor.

This argument that voting for a 3rd party candidate is voting for McCain is ridiculous, I agree....

Obama isn't perfect, but you MUST realize either he or McCain will be the next president, and the purged voter rolls are already in McCain's favor.

I agree that a dumbass redneck or anyone else who votes conservative is not voting for McCain by voting for a third party candidate. That was not the point I was making. Your two points above are contradictory.

Anyone who votes against Obama in a close state is an asshole, imho.

The Democratic Party is much more progressive as a whole than it used to be.

wow. When Teddy Kennedy is one of the few who had the moral fiber to vote against the illegal war, after all the bullshit triangulation that has happened, after these Democratic sell-outs mostly do squat to make it a better world, I can't see how anyone can argue the Demopcratic Party is more progressive than it used to be. Harry Reid? Give me a break.

Paul Wellstone was the great one. Diane Feinstein? She is an asshole whose husband has ties to the Death Industry.

Sorry for my language, but I am getting fed up with the bullshit fascism in this country along with the mind-numbing sophistry that gets peddled around. I'm talking in general too. I am not singling out anyone here.

I don't have to apologize to anyone. I exposed Hertzberg and have helped to expose Lindeman and a lot of other crap.

People are too shallow. That's the problem. There are basically astroturfers running around and people are too shallow.

Joshua,

I don't know how on Earth you figure that "The Democratic Party is much more progressive as a whole than it used to be" (that's laughable) when they've done all they possibly could have for the illegitimate Bush regime since 2000 to this day. Just look up their damn voting records. Both parties are corporate, pro-war parties and get paid by the same people.

You can continue to live in Denial and keep falling for these corporatist candidates and then wonder why nothing changes.

If the Dem and Repug presidential candidates were credible candidates and worth voting for in the first place, you wouldn't have to worry or concern yourself with "third parties." Because the candidates would stand on their own, which Obama and McCain do not do because of their voting records (voting "yes" for war appropriations bills is being pro-war).

It's just that there is a lot of us who have stopped drinking the corporate Dem koolaid and we have stopped buying into the charade of "lesser of two evils" bullshit and "best of the worst" nonsense, which the sheep swallow. The rest of you can remain in those ruts and then later scratch your head while wondering why the status quo continues.

Stop blaming the real progressives for voting for the truly progressives candidates and go back to drinking your corporate koolaid.

As for judges and justices, I would remind you that the Dems gave us Alito and Roberts by their "yes" votes. Neither Alito or Roberts would be on the bench today if it were not for the Dems. The Dems had threatened to filibuster but never even tried and by the way a filibuster can go on forever.

To me, it's a given that McCain is going to get in (that is, assuming Bush/Cheney leave...and I'll believe that when I see it) because the Dems helped to spread these corrupt electronic voting machines through the nation. And the "election" (if there is one) will be called "close" and the networks will declare the "election" for McCain. Then Obama---in John Kerry style---will rush to the microphone to concede and say that the nation must unite because president [sic] McCain and that we must come together and have a healing. And Obama will promise to reach across the aisle (like he's been doing ever since he's been in the Senate).

And you tell me there's a difference between the two right-wings of this one-party system. Ha!

Erma to Joshua

And you tell me there's a difference between the two right-wings of this one-party system. Ha!

If the other side to you drinks Kool-Aid, are you Neo from The Matrix?

You simply try too hard Erma. You've been at this for two years. Many could easily argue that you are doing the work of Karl Rove, supplying sentiments that will make it easier for McCain to be cheated in.

We get it. Obama is a self-serving asshole. But McCain could be the anti-christ, and people arguing that the two parties are the same could easily be Republican operatives playing head games on the internet.

Socrates #23:

You simply try too hard Erma. You've been at this for two years.

I simply try too hard? What the hell does that mean? I simply express my opinion and tell it like is which you don't like to hear. Tough luck.

What do you mean, two years? Hell, I've been writing about this shit since 2000 when it started. I was one of only a few people out in the streets protesting the 2000 stolen "election" and those few of us who protested were told to "Get Over It!" Yes, that’s true. I would ask if you were out there protesting but you could say anything, so I won't bother asking that. And I’ve been to all the major anti-war protests since. Yes, that’s the sign of a “Repug operative” all right.

To this day I refuse to call this lying, war criminal Fraud in the White House "president" [sic]. I have never, ever called him that and never will. I cringe whenever I read or hear the "p" word connected with his name because he is illegitimate.. The same for Cheney. But most everybody else (except Brad, to my knowledge) has caved in on that, including people who initially called Bush "His Fraudulency." Yes, that's the sign of a "Repug operative" all right. Someone who refuses to refer to GWB and Cheney with the “p” and “vp” words. And I lambaste them every time I have the opportunity. Yes, that’s the sign of a “Repug operative” all right.

Sigh. Silly people.

And myself and other progressive have heard that silly "you are a Repug operative" propaganda from those koolaid drinkers in Denial for years. I have to say I haven’t heard it that much likely. So maybe it’s dying out except for a few stragglers who are still using it. I just toss it off because it is really desperate gutter tactics by those who refuse to see the reality. It reminds me of the Michael Savage rabid regressives who are still to this day throwing out the red-baiting and “commie” comments and the pinko stuff. I’m still called all that by those rabid regressive haters. To me the “Repug operative” drivel is really no different than that outdated stuff.

It seems that anyone who disagrees with some people is somehow a "Repug operative." LOL. And there's absolutely nothing I can do about that if that's what they think. That's their problem. People will think what they want. I continue to speak my mind. Some people just don't like reading the content. Well, there's a solution to that: Don't read my comments. You're not required to. Skip on by it. That's what the scroll function is for.

As for your "We get it." statement. You can only speak for yourself whatever you claim to "get" or erroneous, fictitious and ridiculous fantasies/judgments that you've dreamed up in your head about others with whom you disagree. I would never be so presumptuous as to speak for everyone here.

Hmmmmmmmm...

I was giving more thought to this "Repug Operative" nonsense after I posted earlier.

Isn't it interesting (actually hypocritical) that the person who referred to me as a "Repug Operative" has made these statements:

When Teddy Kennedy is one of the few who had the moral fiber to vote against the illegal war, after all the bullshit triangulation that has happened, after these Democratic sell-outs mostly do squat to make it a better world, I can't see how anyone can argue the Demopcratic Party is more progressive than it used to be. Harry Reid?

Diane Feinstein? She is an asshole whose husband has ties to the Death Industry.

I guess it's all right when that person says it, but not when I say it. Because I have said all of that since 2000. I can't stand war-profiteer Dianne Feinstein. And the Dems have enabled GWB/Cheney/Rove et al every step of the way with their "yes" votes, their complicity and their silence and by taking "impeachment off the table" despite illegal spying, torture, USAPATRIOT Act, 2 illegal wars/occupations. None of it matters to the Dems despite their purely symbolic words of "opposition" on occasion for merely theatre and show before the TV cameras to try and fool their gullible supporters. (The Dems know that most of their supporters will vote for them regardless of how they act/vote because their supporters---just like Repug supporters---are programmed to do so and because the politician has a D behind their name. That's the only requirement.) Then the Dems turn around and once again enable Bush/Cheney/Rove. It seems to me that the Dems in congress have been and are the "Repug Operatives," if anyone is, since the Dems are in power" and some people are too thick to see that the Dems have been and are the "Repug Operatives" (to use that term thrown at me). I'm not in power. Yes, I've said all that the quoted person above wrote. How, then, is that person any different than what they called me a "Repug Operative" because that person I quoted above says the same things I have about the useless politicians. I just take it a little bit farther, where the other person refuses to do.

The people who use this "Repug Operative" propaganda on other people remind me of fundamentalist "christians" that I've dealt with in the past. They want no or little criticism of their church, their beliefs or their minister. And anyone who does speak a word of criticism is "doing the work of the devil" (rather than possibly trying to improve the church?...rather than stay with the status quo!). Then carry that over to politics and the equivalent would be a "Repug Operative."

Interesting the duplicity of some people.

Not that it matters much for purposes of discussion, but her name is spelled "Dianne Feinstein", curse her.

Erma #25

Isn't it interesting (actually hypocritical) that the person who referred to me as a "Repug Operative" has made these statements:

Where'd I write that? Maybe you are one, seeing how you lie.

Don't worry about the scroll button. It is put into good use with your broken record.

The Dems are not in power. Some people never heard of the veto or the supreme court. You keep plugging away trying to make sure the Democratic Party doesn't get that much needed power.

The few years referred to your posts on this specific blog. That astroturf smell is strong.

Socrates #28 wrote:

"The Dems are not in power."

If I had known that was where you're coming from and that was going to be your response, I would never have even wasted my time with you.

Goodbye.

Let the record show that Erma did not respond to #27 and thus has been exposed as someone willingly writing disinformation.

Also notice that this person did not acknowledge my argument that the Democratic Party does not have veto power. Thus, "Erma" could very well be paid to make posts on the internet.