Friday, August 21, 2015

Subway Severs Ties With Jared Fogel Due To Him Getting Arrested And Pleading Guilty To Sex With Minors Way Worse Than When He Said He Was Personally Going To Give Kids AIDS?

As you likely have heard, Jared Fogle has agreed to plead guilty to "distribution and receipt of child pornography and unlawful sex acts with minors". I don't know how, but apparently this is way worse than when he said "I'm going to seek out all the underprivileged and hungry children of the world and I'm going to give them AIDS myself".

And, even though he said this over 13 years ago, Subway continued their relationship with Jared until just this year! This, despite him also saying "When it comes to fitness, Subway goes hand in hand with AIDS". That's AIDS, as in acquired immune deficiency syndrome, the disease that has killed 37.34 million people worldwide (as of 2013). Even so, Subway continued to utilize Fogel as a spokesman. Something they surely regret now.

Perhaps you don't recall Jared saying that he was going to give kids AIDS? I know I didn't remember. That is, until I saw a repeat of a TV program. A program where what happened was dramatized by the creators of South Park. The episode that aired on 3/6/2002 as a part of the program's sixth season.

Jared Has Aides is the first episode of the sixth season of the American animated television series South Park. The episode was rated TV-MA in the United States... In the episode, weight loss advocate Jared Fogle incurs the wrath of South Park after he announces that he lost weight because he has aides (misinterpreted as AIDS). "Jared Has Aides" was written and directed by series co-creator Trey Parker. The episode, which satirizes Subway spokesman Jared Fogle, was inspired after Parker saw several commercials featuring Fogle on television. While the episode has received positive reviews from critics, it has been criticized by Rick Hollingsworth, an AIDS activist, and was briefly banned on television due to a scene portraying child abuse. Fogle himself reacted positively toward the episode, calling it "flattering". (Wikipedia/Jared Has Aides).

Jared was "flattered" by Trey Parker shinning a light on Jared's perverted idea that he should give kids AIDS? That seems extremely odd. Too bad the authorities didn't take the episode seriously. Which I presume they did not, given the fact that Jared wasn't arrested for over a decade after this SP episode aired.

By the way, do I think the SP episode was funny? Not really. This post? Not that funny either. Possibly also in bad taste. Not in as bad of taste as Trey Parker writing an episode in which Jared says he's going to give kids AIDS, however. Given current events. I mean, if Trey Parker had relayed his info to the authorities instead of using it to create a SP episode? Perhaps Jared could have been stopped before he committed his crimes.

Image: Subway Orders All Signs Down. Jared's image is quickly being removed from shops across the country.

DSB #20

Monday, August 10, 2015

Washington More About Insiders V Outsiders Than Democrats V Republicans (Thom Hartmann Rant #7)

The following is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 8/3/2015, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom discusses what matters most in Washington, which is being an "insider". Thom explains that whether someone is an insider or an outsider is more important than their political affiliation.

Thom: We thought Barack Obama was an Outsider. We voted him in as an Outsider, but he was really an insider all along. He basically was taken under Bill Clinton's wing when he gave the DNC speech. The powers that be worked miracles to get him into the Senate. He was in the Senate only a few months before they started running him for president.

He was the Insider's nominee. But he ran on a platform of being an Outsider. It worked, and it worked because it had been tried before. It was tried in 1992 by Bill Clinton who ran on an Outsider's campaign platform, which was called the New Covenant.

Bill Clinton's New Covenant was basically that we need to reject Reganism and go back to the wisdom of FDR and John Maynard Keynes. We need to take America back to before the Reagan Revolution. But, as has been famously documented by [Naomi Klein], in the weeks leading up to his inauguration - when candidate Bill Clinton became president-elect Bill Clinton - Larry Summers, along with Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin sat Clinton down and said...

Son, you may think that you are the populist president, that you were elected on this platform of dramatic change - but that's now how you're going to govern. Not if you want to be on the Inside. Not if you want to have the assistance of Congress. Not if you want to have the assistance of the corporate system.

Being an Insider is like being in the mafia. And I don't mean that in a "bad" way, I mean that in an organizational way. It's structure. Most companies are structured like this, by the way. You've got Insiders in companies and you've got Outsiders. It's the Insiders who rise up through the ranks, and it's the Outsiders who stand on the outside and wonder why they get passed over for promotions. Even if they're smart and even if they make better contributions.

It's knowing how to play the game. I've been given several opportunities since I started this program 12-13 years ago to essentially become an Insider. Invited to the White House, etc. I chose, from the very beginning, that I was never going to be an Insider. I wanted to maintain my integrity. I did not want to be dependant upon party or political structure.

You will find other people in the media, on so-called Left-wing radio and TV who want to become part of the Inside. They don't want to be Outsiders. And so those people will not talk about our insane trade policies, because that is something that is very important to the Insiders. They make a lot of money off our trade policies.

They won't talk about net neutrality, because that is also something that is important to the Insiders. The small number of corporations that own our media don't want net neutrality. You won't hear Democrats and Liberals who are Insiders talk about those things. You won't hear Hillary Clinton talk about those things. You won't hear them talk about the TPP or Keystone XL. Because these are things that produce [or could produce] an enormous amount of money for the Insiders.

If you start talking about them, immediately the power structure [will try to shut you up]. And it's not like some weird conspiracy, but it's there. You can watch someone on television for 2 minutes and know - Insider or Outsider. Harold Ford Jr, Insider. Michael Steel, Insider. Virtually every guest that you see on CNN or MSNBC is an Insider.

And the Insider message [on the Democratic side] is - we want to elect Hillary Clinton. She's been an Insider from day one. Her husband is an Insider. He brought us "free trade" and deregulated the banks. Things that helped the Insiders. He governed in a fairly moderate way, just slightly to the Right of Dwight Eisenhower - who was, I would say, probably the last Outsider President on the Republican side.

Although you could argue that Reagan was elected as an Outsider... and then became an Insider. His vice president, George Herbert Walker Bush was the ultimate Insider. His father had been a United States Senator. In fact, he got busted by FDR for dealing with the Nazis after we were already involved in World War 2.

But for the Democrats, this is the question - how did the Democratic Party lose it's soul.

[End Thom Hartmann Rant]

The Democratic Party lost it's soul when "the party abandoned its working-class base" according to a 11/11/2014 Nation article by William Greider.

The shift away from the people was embraced most dramatically when Bill Clinton's New Democrats came to power in the 1990s. Clinton double-crossed labor with NAFTA and subsequent trade agreements, which encouraged the great migration of manufacturing jobs to low-wage economies. Clinton's bank deregulation shifted the economic rewards to finance and set the stage for the calamity that struck in 2008. Wall Street won; working people lost. Clinton presided over the financialization of the Democratic Party. Obama merely inherited his playbook and has governed accordingly, often with the same policy-makers.

This is the kind of shit that causes anyone who pays attention to think it's hopeless. The oligarchs have corrupted both parties. We have two corporate parties, although one of them is fully corrupted and FULLY does the bidding of the plutocrats, while the other is less corrupted; or a lot less corrupted (depending on if you're talking about a Blue dog or a Progressive).

Bernie Sanders might be the only politician in Congress who truly represents The People instead of the rich people. Although he has to compromise to get anything done. So in the end he does vote for legislation that benefits the Insiders. Makes me wonder what it's going to take before the people revolt.

By the way, many people who don't pay attention to politics also think it's hopeless. But it's because they believe the false meme that says the two parties are equally corrupt. There is a difference, however. Which is that the Repubs work for the benefit of the oligarchs exclusively, while the Dems work for the benefit of the oligarchs so they can get the campaign cash they need to compete and get into government and do a little for working people.

At least that was Bill Clinton's reasoning (that the Dems needed to sell out a little or Repubs backed by plutocrat cash would crush Dems with no plutocrat cash). Was Bill Clinton right? No, I do not think so. Although if the plutocrats are able to crush the campaign of Bernie Sanders... well, that might prove that Bill was right. Or that he set up a self-fulfilling prophecy. By which I mean this - Bill went 3rd way and the Dems started selling out big time, thus causing a lot of people to turn away from politics and stop paying attention.

Thus many people are too apathetic to realize that Bernie is the real deal (or even know who he is). They just see the plutocrat-funded ads that play during their TV programs and think they're getting the truth, when (in reality) it's lie-filled deceptive brainwashing propaganda designed to trick people to voting against their own interests.

SWTD Tags: 2016 Election, Bernie Sanders, MSNBC, Thom Hartmann.

DSB #19

Thursday, August 6, 2015

Initial Thoughts On The 1st 2016 Republican Potus Debate

It's over for Randal Paul. He hasn't a chance. I mean, obviously, Fox Nooz is running the show. 7 hopefuls were sent to the kid's table, likely ending their chances. I heard Rick Perry (who was on the cusp) wasn't happy to be edged out by Kasich.

But Randal? the Fox pundits obviously do not like him. One of the big moments of the night, according to the post-debate discussion, was when Randal stood up for our 4th amendment rights and Christie went after him for it (yeah Christie!). Fox is clearly not on the side of the Constitution on this one. Those rights need to be chucked out the window in order to wage the "war on terror".

Of course everyone had to out anti-choice each other. Huckabee wasn't the only one who went full on Religious Right and declared that fertilized eggs have full Constitutional rights. Although, I'm guessing these eggs don't have the rights we need to chuck in order to "keep us safe" from the "terrorists". But the one that keeps the eggs from getting murdered? They definitely have that right.

One area where Fox (nor the audience) did not go full on Religious Right, however, was in regard to Megyn Kelly asking Kasich about expanding Medicaid... and him citing his religious beliefs as why he did it. Both the Fox moderators and the audience voiced their disagreement on that one. Which reminded me of the last time the Repub potus hopefuls debated and an audience member yelled out in the affirmative in response to Ron Paul being asked about letting someone without HC die (Ron's answer was also YES).

Helping needy Americans is clearly something the Right does not like. So Kasich is gone too. Despite the fact that he just squeaked by (poll-wise) to make it to the big boy table. For the record, he came off as the most Moderate of the bunch by far. Even though he is also anti-choice (I don't recall if they got to him on that question).

Ben Carson said (my interpretation) that Black people should just get over it (racism, that is). And it's Obama's fault that race relations have gotten worse during his time in office. Don't blame all the racist Right-wingers for hating that a Black man was elected president, in other words. The audience LOVED that. Ben is the right kind of Black man. An (ex) MSNBC personality described him as the Conservative Black best friend... although someone told me that's racist. A Conservative someone, btw.

My verdict? Kasich is out. Carson is likely out. Randal, like his father, will stick it out although he will NOT be the nominee. He does not seem to be quite as popular as his father, however, so that ups his chance of dropping out before the convention (quite a bit, I think). Everyone who did not even make it to the debate? They're probably out too.

In regards to the front runner, Donald Trump... right out of the gate Megyn asked the 10 contestants which of them would not take a pledge to support the nominee and not run 3rd party. A question obviously aimed at Donald. Raise your hand if you won't pledge, Megyn said. They waited and Donald eventually raised his hand... and the audience did not like his response.

Later Megyn asked Trump about some misogynist comments he had made, and he shrugged them off with a joke about him only saying such things about Rosie O'Donnell. And not being politically correct - which did not cut it. The audience didn't buy it. Nor did they buy it when he was asked what his proof is that the Mexican government is sending rapists and drug dealers over the border - and he couldn't provide it.

The panel of voters "just like me" after the debate said their opinion of Trump was harmed by his performance. Randal accused him of trying to help Hillary by leaving open the 3rd party run possibility. Megyn also suggested he would be helping the Dems (although she did so before Randal lept to the attack).

Rubio got a jab in when asked the God question - which was that the Democrats have no good candidates (even though polls show, I believe, that Hillary beats any one of them). And God gave the Republicans quite a few good candidates... according to Marco.

God approves, apparently, of punishing poor women because Planned Parenthood spends $0 of government money on abortion services. And of not helping poor people (because they refuse to help themselves?). Every candidate (who was able) was sure to stress their humble beginnings. They did it (became wealthy), so screw the lazy poors (sloth being a sin?).

Image: 10 candidates were interviewed by Fox Nooz on 8/6/2016 at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland OH. (Row 1) Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, Donald Trump, Chris Christie. (Row 2) John Kasich, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Randal Paul.

SWTD Tags: 2016 Election, Fox Nooz, Mike Huckabee.

DSB #18

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Democratic Socialism & The Market (Thom Hartmann Rant #6)

The following is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 8/3/2015, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom discusses regulated markets in the context of Chris Matthews conflating Socialism and Democratic Socialism. Under Socialism, the State owns the means of production. This is not the case under Democratic Socialism, despite Chris Matthews bashing Bernie Sanders by lying about him being a Socialist in favor of "getting rid of the market". (See DSB #16).

Thom: the Democratic Socialist countries like Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland. Ikea [a Swedish company] isn't owned by the government. Volvo [also Swedish] isn't owned by the government. Siemens [a German company that is a prominent maker of medical diagnostics equipment] is not owned by the government. All the northern European countries - probably most of the European countries - would define themselves as Democratic Socialist countries.

In fact the United States, since the FDR administration, has been a Democratic Socialist country. Social Security is democratic socialism. Medicare is democratic socialism. Medicaid is democratic socialism.

Basically it's where we say... what are the boundaries between the Commons - the things that we all collectively own administer - and the private industry sphere. What are the appropriate lines?

Democratic Socialists place them in a very slightly different place than Insider mainstream Democrats do. Insider mainstream Democrats think that it's fine that half the electricity in the United States is produced by For Profit companies. Democratic Socialists say that electricity is a natural monopoly and should be owned by the community.

In fact, if the democratic socialist perspective had prevailed, right now president Obama wouldn't be facing a lawsuit from the trade association for the For Profit electric companies who are all hysterical and angry at him for tightening up the air pollution rules.

The question I've been asking on this program for weeks now - since Bernie has really taken off - is when will the Insiders really go to attack him? First they tried to ignore him as Ghandi pointed out. First it's a media blackout. Well, they're maintaining that blackout.

Then they tried ridiculing him. Oh, he's too old. He's too rumpled - look at his hair. Now they're attacking him. Chris Matthews pretending he doesn't know the difference between Democratic Socialism and Soviet-style Socialism... implying that Bernie is a Soviet socialist, which he is not.

[plays clip of Chris Matthews saying Democratic Socialists like Bernie Sanders are in favor of "government control of the economy" and "getting rid of the market". According to Matthews Democrats "accept the power and efficiency of a capitalist system" while "Socialists do not". And that this is a "fundamental difference". Also, Bernie can't be the nominee because it's not the "Democratic Socialist Party".]

Yeah, socialists in the old Soviet Union didn't [accept the power and efficiency of a capitalist system]. But Bernie Sanders does. What we're seeing right now... it s not that Bernie is too far Left, or that Hillary is too far Left or too far Right. You notice that conversation that Chris Matthews had with Chuck Todd... it was free of policy. They were not discussing issues. They were discussing "what brand".

Chris Matthews was essentially saying to Hillary Clinton - you need to brand Bernie as a Socialist. But polls show that, among Millennials, Socialist is actually a good word! It's associated with genuine hope and change.

[End Thom Hartmann Rant]

Democratic Socialists believe in the market, although they realize that the market needs to be regulated. The "free market" is a fairy tale believed in by Republicans and Libertarians. And Hillary is a corporate Democrat... or "Insider Democrat", which is the terminology that Thom uses. It essentially means that she is a part of the establishment, and the establishment always looks to protect itself.

Which explains why Hillary is able to raise massive amounts of money from wealthy corporate Democrat donors. These are Democrats who want to keep things the way they are. Yes, they will try to improve things for the poor and working people... but don't get carried away and do something radical like putting The People first! The People being a reference to the masses instead of the Rich People. (Note: Corporations play both sides by donating to both parties. There aren't many corporations that donate exclusively to Democrats or Republicans).

Both Insider Democratic politicians and Insider Republican politicians put rich people first. Although the Insider Democrats put The People (the "lower classes") second, while the Republicans put The Rich People 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. And they MIGHT do something for The People simply to placate the masses. And so their false meme that says Conservative economics benefits everyone isn't exposed as the fraud that it is. They've got to keep the dupes thinking that the masses will reap the rewards when the wealth "trickles down". Ha ha. It's a joke. On us.

"Government regulation is artificial influence" is what these people believe. Artificial, in that it prevents monopolies and wealth concentration, which Conservatives and Libertarians love. Although some deny this, saying they are for "reasonable regulation".

So, what's the difference? The difference is that some believe that the market has some intelligence and needs minimal regulation, while others realize that the market is dumb and needs to be managed.

The idea that markets allocate resources or hash out prices on their own is completely nonsensical. It's like saying your computer can calculate your tax returns on its own, without you having to hit a button. [The] libertarian preference for a small government is no more "neutral" than is Bernie Sanders' preference for a robust and activist social democracy. Both represent a particular set of inputs, and thus a particular set of outcomes. (Bernie Sanders is right: Markets are dumb).

Priorities must be set and the output We The People want should be that priority. For those who believe in the "free market", their priority is that which is best for the few. For those who believe the priority should be the many, Socialism, a system that involves "central planning, or of having bureaucrats direct the flow of every last resource in the economy", is one proposed answer. But historically this system has been shown not to work.

A compromise that marries the best of Capitalism and the best of Socialism is the answer. Why? Because it has been shown to work in the European Democratic Socialist Nations.

SWTD Tags: 2016 Election, Bernie Sanders, MSNBC, Thom Hartmann.

DSB #17

Monday, August 3, 2015

On Chris Matthews Conflating Socialism & Democratic Socialism To Harm Bernie Sanders (Thom Hartmann Rant #5)

The following is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 8/3/2015, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom discusses a question posed to Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) by Chris Matthews on the Thursday 7/30/2015 edition of Hardball and what Matthews said after DWS left.

The question Matthews asked was how are Democrats different from Socialists (this was in the context of the self-described democratic socialist Bernie Sanders running for president as a Democrat). After Debbie dodged the question and (instead) explained how Democrats are different from Republicans, Chris Matthews gave his take on why Debbie dodged the question, which was to bash Bernie Sanders and try to harm his chances in the Democratic POTUS primary. Thom's rant concerns why Matthews did this. (see SWTD #301 for my take on DWS's dodge).

Thom: After Debbie Wasserman Schultz was on and Chris Matthews tries to get her to, essentially complain about Bernie being a democratic socialist [he went on to deliberately conflate Democratic Socialism with Socialim].

Here's what he had to say... listen to this.

Chuck Todd: She doesn't want to answer that question. What do you think?

Chris Matthews: I think there's a big difference. Socialists traditionally believe in government control of the economy. Democrats believe in modifying the economy to help people at the bottom. A safety net. Modification, but clearly they believe in the market.

Chuck Todd: Why do you think she didn't say that?

Chris Matthews: Well, politically, she doesn't want to offend the Bernie people.

Chuck Todd: You think that's the issue?

Chris Matthews: Well, I think so. Maybe there was an intellectual problem, but I will give her the benefit of the doubt and say it was really a political problem. Because I think Hillary Clinton hasn't staked out the difference, and she better. I mean, it's not the Democratic Socialist Party.

You've got to run as a Democrat, which is always harder... to explain being a Progressive or a Liberal. It's a lot harder than just being a right wing or a left winger. You're actually somewhere center left, and it's a little harder to define. But clearly Democrats have had a record in this country for 200 some years of being for Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights, interventions in the market.

But not getting rid of the market. Clearly they accept the power and the efficiency of a capitalist system. Socialists do not. This is a fundamental difference.

Socialists do not if you're talking about Chinese communism, or if you're talking about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But Chris Matthews is trying to say that Bernie Sanders doesn't believe in capitalism or the market, which is a complete lie.

Either Chris Matthews is profoundly ignorant - which I don't believe for a second. I think he's one of the smartest guys out there. Or this is the leading edge of the establishment/insider spear thrown against the outsider Bernie Sanders.

It's really Insiders versus Outsiders here.

[End Thom Hartmann Rant]

The Insider Democrats are those who work for the "powers that be", or the wealthy and the large corporations (passing legislation that favors them in return for campaign contributions). Bill Clinton referred to this sellout movement as the Third Way. MSNBC is an Insider network, which is why they recently canned a number of their on-air personalities, including Ed Schultz. (Schultz wasn't Insider enough).

Chris Matthews is an Insider who is obviously in the bag for Hillary, which is why he lies about Bernie Sanders. And why he posed his gotcha question to DWS. DWS, while being the representative of the Insider Dems, realizes that the Dems need the votes of the Bernie supporters after Bernie bows out (the conventional wisdom, not what is inevitable), which explains why she dodged the question.

For more of my take on the differences between Socialism, Democratic Socialism, and the Democratic Party see SWTD #301, "On Debbie Wasserman Schultz Not Knowing The Difference Between A Socialist & A Democrat".

SWTD Tags: 2016 Election, Bernie Sanders, MSNBC, Thom Hartmann.

DSB #16

Saturday, August 1, 2015

On Al Gore Being Elected President In 2000 #2

The following is an excerpt from the 7/18/2011 transcript from the Progressive personality Thom Hartmann's TV Program, The Big Picture.

In this segment (see video below) Thom asks "can Republican get elected without fraud & treason?". The answer according to Thom is NO. Thom says that "since Dwight Eisenhower left the presidency in 1961 - 5 different Republicans have been President of the United States. And every single one of them - from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush - have been illegitimate".

Watch the video for Thom's reasoning regarding the other frauds... my commentary here concerns only George W. bush's theft of the 2000 election from the rightful president, Al Gore.

Thom Hartmann: ...the most recent illegitimate Republican president - George W. Bush - the man who was given the White House by five right-wing justices on the Supreme Court. In the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision in 2000 that stopped the Florida recount and handed George W. Bush the presidency - Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his opinion:

The counting of votes ... does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [George W. Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he [Bush] claims to be the legitimacy of his election".

I guess denying the guy who ACTUALLY won the most votes in Florida - Al Gore - the presidency - did not constitute "irreparable harm" to Scalia. And I guess it wasn't important to mention that Scalia's son worked for the law firm that was defending George W. Bush before the high court.

Just like it wasn't important to mention that Justice Clarence Thomas's wife worked on the Bush transition team and was busy accepting resumes from people who would serve in the Bush White House as long as her husband stopped the recount in Florida... which he did.

And more than a year after the election - a consortium of newspapers including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and USA Today did their own recount in Florida - manually counting every vote in a process that took almost a year - and concluded that Al Gore did indeed win the presidency in 2000.

As the November 12th, 2001 article in The New York Times read:

If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won.

That little bit of info was slipped into the seventeenth paragraph of the Times story on purpose so that it would attract as little attention as possible around the nation.

Why? because the 9/11 attacks had just happened - and journalists feared that hitting people with the plain truth that George W. Bush actually lost the election would further hurt a nation that was already in crisis.

[End Transcript from The Big Picture]

The NYT article referenced above is not available online, although a Google search reveals MANY references to it. One example would be a 5/28/2008 Alternet Article titled "New York Times Perpetuates the Myth that George Bush Won the 2000 Election" which reveals that the original NYT article was by Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder... and YES, says Gore won.

Although 7 years (and change) later a movie reviewer for the NYT got it wrong. Alessandra Stanley, in a 5/23/2008 review of the HBO television movie Recount, wrote "Mr. Bush would have come out slightly ahead, even if all the votes counted throughout the state had been retallied".

Nope. Under FL law a recount should have been performed. Larry Beinhart of AlterNet writes "the Florida court... ordered a recount. Then the United States Supreme Court stepped in and shut the recounts down".

But the votes were recounted later by a consortium of newspapers (as Thom recounts)... and, concerning that recount, Larry Beinhart wrote "it took almost a year and cost more than a million dollars. [In the end the conclusion was that] Al Gore got more legal, countable votes than George Bush".

There you have it... Al Gore was elected to the White House as our 43rd POTUS. But he did not serve because the Conservative justices of the SCOTUS stopped the recount and anointed George W. bush.

Video: Excerpt from the 7/18/2011 airing of Thom Hartmann's "The Big Picture"... Thom asks "can Republicans get elected without fraud & treason? (9:01). Section concerning the theft of the 2000 election starts at 4:45... and ends at 6:58.

SWTD Tags: Al Gore.

DSB #15