You do know that Faux News and Karl Rove both have exceedingly iffy track records when it comes to the truth, don't you?

Find a reliable source if you want to make some kind of point. Otherwise you might as well be quoting Trump himself.

Not this way for example.....

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/karl-rove-as-florida-ballot-count-battle-rages-democrats-are-recklessly-violating-state-law

Karl Rove has whiteboards - plural - detailing her health situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqAiRRVLdHc

I've never understood what this gambit is supposed to pay off in. Do whackjobs believe that Democrats will think - 'well, Hillary might not be long for this world, so I'll vote Trump'? Any president is better than a corpse?

Or do they just want to bolster Trump-trooper spirits? Are they afraid the grass roots will lay down their arms if they don't have at least a remote hope of winning?

Bob - you speak for the whackjobs of the world; what do you say?

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837

I think it depends on how you define "worse". I believe that Hillary is capable of being the shadowy, sleazy politician that knows the corrupt system, knows how to use/abuse it, and is 100% willing to bend it to her own goals.

Trump is a largely incompetent blowhard. He, like Hillary, says what he thinks he has to say to get the support of his base, and then flip-flops to suit his purposes. He isn't a Washington insider, he doesn't have the network of connections that Hillary does.

If Trump could be another Bush, Hillary could be another Nixon. I'm not convinced that Hillary is the lesser of two evils here.

And that's still working under the assumption that Trump would be as bad as Bush. Bush was bad, but without Dick Cheney and Karl Rove whispering in his ear, maybe he'd have been a merely incompetent president instead of a terrible one. For all the negative things that I think can fairly be said of Trump, I don't think that he's very likely to become someone's sock puppet like Bush.

I'm definitely not sure that Trump would be better than Hillary (for whatever definition of "better" one chooses), but I don't think it is cut and dry to the point of delusion for someone to see either of them as the bigger threat.

This is exactly the tactic that Rupert Murdoch, Karl Rove, & the Koch Brothers use.

Thanks for finally seeing the light, shiny! You're one of us now. One of us!

It's hardly accurate to discount Karl Rove as "an old man" like he's some rambling wacknut on a street-corner.

He's the architect of neo-conservatism, the poster child of the Bush era, and a man capable of organizing multiple Super PACs worth hundreds of millions of dollars of secret money.>> ^direpickle:

Occam's razor. Which is more likely?
1) An old man refuses to believe that the world is changing around him
2) An old man had secretly rigged a national election, but the only people that knew about it were a bunch of spunky 4channers, and somehow taking down a website took down the entire infrastructure that would've allowed an entirely different set of servers talk to one another.

Assuming this actually happened...No one is talking about how anonymous technically had the ability to change votes however they would have liked...and how our electronic election system is completely FUBAR. This election it may have been Karl Rove/Anonymous, the next one it could even be a foreign power.

>> ^criticalthud:

amazingly, there are actually people on here questioning whether or not Karl fucking ROVE would stoop to cheating.
the man who has orchestrated more bullshit propaganda, flat-out lies, political strategies of un-cooperation and disinformation, war and mass murder.
YES, Karl fucking ROVE would rig an election.
He clearly believes he is ABOVE THE LAW
and for the most part, HE IS.


Exactly. One has to admit that this is entirely plausible, and that time lines certainly stack up. Karl's conniption fit on FOX about his certainty that Hamilton County would go Romney, even though Romney lost the county by 4% or so.

As to why he didn't try this in 2004, I would suggest it was because the tide was so severely against republicans in that year. As with this year, Obama would have won whether or not he lost Ohio.

Hopefully Anonymous will release some hard numbers and details. Karl Rove has been doing this for half his life, some time in prison might change that.

thanks - yeah, I think I tried that, but it wasn't working because it was an iframe embed, and I couldn't get youtube to give me the old style embed.

html5 -> WINNING!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by jonny:
How long before a significant majority of FoxNews viewers believe the actual voter suppression tactics used by Republicans in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc., were in fact a conspiracy led by Axelrod to suppress republican votes in keys districts?

Oh, and Karl:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/mZqj_et2_UY

(How do we embed video in comments again?)


< bracket and then type br ending with > then paste the embed code.may have to have it on classic embed code for it to work though =)

In reply to this comment by jonny:
How long before a significant majority of FoxNews viewers believe the actual voter suppression tactics used by Republicans in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc., were in fact a conspiracy led by Axelrod to suppress republican votes in keys districts?

Oh, and Karl:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/mZqj_et2_UY

(How do we embed video in comments again?)


< bracket and then type br ending with > then paste the embed code.may have to have it on classic embed code for it to work though =)

"Karl Rove said we should..."

Tools.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'daily show, jon, stewart, karl, rove, election, ohio' to 'daily show, jon stewart, karl rove, election, ohio, fox news' - edited by xxovercastxx

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 2 Badge!