Cynical Nation

Take the recount story. Much funnier. Mind you, as always, the story is reported for joke value, because, you know, we're all supposed to laugh at Kucinich rather than think about what he's saying and whether it is true or not.

The fact is that there are reasons to consider the vote in New Hampshire for recount, primarily because of inconsistencies that point to potential failures on the part of the electronic voting machines and not because of voter fraud. I've sat through discussions involving election board officials and listened to the problems they have described. The bottom line, is the machines do not produce a verifiable result and the results from the same reader can be read as inconsistent. These people I listened to were country clerks from Passaic and, I think it was, Bergen Counties in NJ. They said that they would get the results transmitted to them over the phone lines from the machines, but because they were being conscientious, when the box with the results (the device in which the votes are stored is a removable unit) came in, because the results box (don't know the official name for the unit) has to be sent to the clerks after the election, they used their own, local reader to count the votes and got tallies that were different from the ones they were sent over the phone lines. And I think they said that when they had the results read again on their own readers, they got yet another set of numbers. So the concern is legitimate. But we're supposed to laugh because, you know, this was Dennis Kucinich, after all. Can't be concerned with poorly made electronic voting machines that don't give accurate results if Kucinich said something about it. Gotta laugh, right? That's, like, a reule or something. Because anything with Kucinich is goofy, right?

Yeah, but the fact that virtually "anything with Kucinich IS goofy," is more a function of his innate goofiness, than with the perceptions of the general public. Just as Ron Paul's credibility has been irrevocably shaken (at least in the eyes of many) by his flirtations with the dangerously goofy "9-11 Truthers."

The article Barry posted acknowledges that the Kucinich camp CAN call for a recount, BUT while those who lose by 3% or less must pay $2,000, those who lose by more (he garnered less than 2% of the vote and lost by over 36%) must pay the full cost of the recount. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?

The "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" all ONLINE would seem to benefit Barack Obama, who lost by only 2 percentage points, so why doesn't the Obama camp get it done for the $2K, rather than having the Kucinich campaign pay the whole nut? That is IF, the Obama camp really believes the online "rumors, allegations and reports" are credible.

Apparently Kucinich wants to get the recount done for the $2,000 "insiders price"....and THAT really is kind of goofy, since it's a case of a candidate accepting the rules to run in a given Primary and then seeking to change the rules AFTER the fact.

Yeah, that's pretty goofy alright.

Didn't bother to read anything in the comment, just the signature, which was enough to see that your local unemployed fruitloop is still stalking me, and still untreated.

"Didn't bother to read...the comment" (DBK)

That's exactly what I'd expect from a guy who defends the likes of 9-11 Truthers like Dennis Kucinich & Ron Paul.

People who don't read much, tend to be far more susceptible to conspiracy theories like that.

I considered the source.

Me too.....what I'm saying is that there are actually very few ideas that are dangerous, to the point where a "believer" of those ideas may be, by mere dint of believing such things, considered to be unstable - one of those is anarchism (the idea that we could all live quite well and comfortably without ANY government at all), another is the 9-11 Truther conspiracies.

Whether you believe in any of those 9-11 Truther conspiracies or not is immaterial to the FACT that you've here defended one of the primary, in fact THE primary 9-11 Truther in the current Presidential race - Dennis Kucinich.

The fact that you don't see Dennis Kucinich, as even "goofy," let alone "dangerous" (which all 9-11 Truthers are) implies that you have no problem with the 9-11 Truther viewpoint.

Bizarre as it may seem, the anarchists have actually made better (that is, more factually substantive) cases for THEIR views (despite their being ultimately wrong), than the 9-11 Truthers have for theirs...and you seem to be in sympatico with the Truthers!

Yes, consider the source indeed.