Why Are Liberals So Condescending?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

WSJ emphatically stated that the election was stole while in the paragraph above stating that there were provisional ballots that weren't counted. The notion that the election was stolen is simply not true and Krugman said as much though not explicitly. Rossi twice lost in court and if he was in the same position he would have done the same exact thing Gregoire did. Ditto for Coleman.

There are people who, to this day, declare that the 2000 election was stolen in Florida based on the simple fact that consistent procedure wasn't uniformly followed during the recount. This, of course, is true, but the assertion that the outcome of the election was ever truly in doubt, or that the recount was anything more than a formality that the democratic nominee was entitled to by law is no less ridiculous than anything published with regards to the Minnesota senate race. According to Krugman, anyone who believes that the 2000 election was stolen is either stupid or a liar. There is no middle ground.

Krugman is more than welcome to blow holes in any poorly supported argument that concludes with an assertion that the election was "stolen". If he's going to concern himself with the underlying motive (as opposed to the argument itself, which he is clearly unconcerned with) of those who are writing for the WSJ opinion page, he should definitely be less concerned with trying to prove them lying, lest he wish the same standard be applied to him by some random dude on the internet.

If you want to know what I personally think, it's that with a state that has now elected both Jesse Ventura and Al Franken to high public office within the last twelve years...voting fraud would be of the last things I'd write an editorial about regarding Minnesota.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

There are people who, to this day, declare that the 2000 election was stolen in Florida based on the simple fact that consistent procedure wasn't uniformly followed during the recount. This, of course, is true, but the assertion that the outcome of the election was ever truly in doubt, or that the recount was anything more than a formality that the democratic nominee was entitled to by law is no less ridiculous than anything published with regards to the Minnesota senate race. According to Krugman, anyone who believes that the 2000 election was stolen is either stupid or a liar. There is no middle ground.

The people that believe the 2000 election was stolen are indeed either stupid or liars. Either the election was stolen or it wasn't! There is no middle ground. The case went up all the way to the Supreme Court and a decision was made that what Gore wanted was unconstitutional. We're a nation of laws and if you can't win in court, well, you lose.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Krugman is more than welcome to blow holes in any poorly supported argument that concludes with an assertion that the election was "stolen". If he's going to concern himself with the underlying motive (as opposed to the argument itself, which he is clearly unconcerned with) of those who are writing for the WSJ opinion page, he should definitely be less concerned with trying to prove them lying, lest he wish the same standard be applied to him by some random dude on the internet.

If you want to know what I personally think, it's that with a state that has now elected both Jesse Ventura and Al Franken to high public office within the last twelve years...voting fraud would be of the last things I'd write an editorial about regarding Minnesota.

I think WSJ journal itself did a pretty good job putting a hole in its argument. Krugman did pen an article in which he disputes another WSJ claim and linked to it in the post...I'm not sure if it's worth his time to dispute every thing WSJ writes.