Truther Candidates Completely Rejected By US Voters

[WildCat]

Since some truthers, like Turbofan below, are apparently confusing the Obama victory for support for their pathetic, microscopic movement:

Look at the districts like Florida, Ohio, Penn, etc. Record number of voters
and all. People hate bush and what he did through his term. CNN was calling
the election early.

In Canada, over 80% supported Obama as well. Similar polls taken show that
a majority believe the US Government had knowledge, or was involved in 9/11.

Sorry, I don't make up the results, I just post up the facts.

If the "majority" of Americans are MIHOP or LIHOP, how did the candidates supporting such theories do? Let's have a look at the only 2 I know who were running for office. First up, POTUS candidate Cynthia McKinney.

How many votes did McKinney receive? Out of about 119,600,000 votes cast Nov. 4 McKinney received about 150,000 - or .125% of the vote. Put more simply, there's only 125 truthers per 100,000 voters - a pathetic number.

Then there's Kevin Barrett, who put on his Guy Fawkes mask to run for Congress in Wisconsin. Prrior to the election, Barrett claimed that 22% of the people n his district were truthers. So what % of the votes did Barrett get? 2%, about the same as every other Libertarian candidate in the district.

Truthers, what happened? Did you all sit home on election day, or could it be that your movement is a fringe group with the support of a tiny percentage of the population? We can agree it's certainly not the majority, yes?

If anyone knows of any other spectacular truther failures at the polls post the results here!

 

[MikeW]

Carol Brouillet managed 7,090 votes (4%) in San Francisco, just behind the Libertarian candidate.

 

[TexasJack]

There is still some controversy about Barrett's election, since he is claiming victory based on amount of money spent per vote. Stay tuned.

 

[Drudgewire]

There is still some controversy about Barrett's election, since he is claiming victory based on amount of money spent per vote. Stay tuned.

Chill said that comes from a parody site but if it is I don't get it. Nothing funny and everything seems to be promoting him, including the links.

 

[WildCat]

Chill said that comes from a parody site but if it is I don't get it. Nothing funny and everything seems to be promoting him, including the links.

It wasn't a parody site, it was the real thing.

Your sarcasm meter is broken...

 

[Drudgewire]

It wasn't a parody site, it was the real thing.

Your sarcasm meter is broken...

Stupid WEC replay keeping me up too late.

 

[Brainster]

Old "Hang 'em High" Barrett did pretty well for a guy who was arrested for domestic abuse during the campaign.

 

[chillzero]

Chill said

??

 

[Drudgewire]

??

Oops, it was Darat.

Sorry, basically sleeptyping this morning.

 

[chillzero]

It's ok. Just further evidence that you can't keep me off your mind.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's ok. Just further evidence that you can't keep me off your mind.

Get a room you two.

On topic: gee, Kevin Barret beats his kids, what a shock.

 

[VespaGuy]

I think the explaination is simple. Every single person who didn't vote beleives that 9/11 was an inside job. They just got high and forgot to vote.

ETA: All you need to do is take one look at the Loose Change forums to understand that Obama doesn't represent the "Truther" vote at all.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Since some truthers, like Turbofan below, are apparently confusing the Obama victory for support for their pathetic, microscopic movement...

That's just another piece of evidence that conspiracy peddlers cannot think logically. Conflating the defeat of Republicans with the notion that 9/11 Trutherism has traction is a leap of epic proportions; it ignores any and every other issue that went into every voter's decision.

It is revealing in one sense, though: It demonstrates that the rationale behind at least Turbofan's participation in the so-called truth movement is not actual discovery of truth, but rather is to demonstrate opposition to Bush. Conspiracy peddlers so blatantly give away their motivation when they center theories around Bush, Cheney, the White House, and government in general. Real research starts with the complex facts of the event, not the simplistic preconception that government is maliciously involved (or for LIHOPers, criminally and intentionally negligent).

 

[The Big Dog]

ETA: All you need to do is take one look at the Loose Change forums to understand that Obama doesn't represent the "Truther" vote at all.

Yeah, they are losing their **** over there.

Poor stupid sheep, Alex Jones is getting them all wound up so he can continue selling them crap off his website.

Pathetic.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Completely Rejected?

Dear Penny:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your belief that the U.S. government was complicit in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. I appreciate hearing your passionate views on this matter.

While I do not believe the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks, I do think it should be held accountable for the unacceptable mistakes it made in the run-up to that terrible day. The blunders that occurred prior to the 2001 attacks were inexcusable and often outrageous. The series of clear warnings about the potential use of hijacked planes as weapons is just one example of why the "surprise" of 9/11 should have been anticipated. In my view, proof of government complicity is not necessary when making the argument that the U.S. should accept some responsibility for what happened on 9/11.

Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

 

[GStan]

Completely Rejected?

Dear Penny:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your belief that the U.S. government was complicit in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. I appreciate hearing your passionate views on this matter.

While I do not believe the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks, I do think it should be held accountable for the unacceptable mistakes it made in the run-up to that terrible day. The blunders that occurred prior to the 2001 attacks were inexcusable and often outrageous. The series of clear warnings about the potential use of hijacked planes as weapons is just one example of why the "surprise" of 9/11 should have been anticipated. In my view, proof of government complicity is not necessary when making the argument that the U.S. should accept some responsibility for what happened on 9/11.

Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

Translation: Obama says we don't even need proof that 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[Horatius]

Completely Rejected?

Dear Penny:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your belief that the U.S. government was complicit in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. I appreciate hearing your passionate views on this matter.

While I do not believe the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks, I do think it should be held accountable for the unacceptable mistakes it made in the run-up to that terrible day. The blunders that occurred prior to the 2001 attacks were inexcusable and often outrageous. The series of clear warnings about the potential use of hijacked planes as weapons is just one example of why the "surprise" of 9/11 should have been anticipated. In my view, proof of government complicity is not necessary when making the argument that the U.S. should accept some responsibility for what happened on 9/11.

Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

Gee, an experienced politician receives a question on a topic he doesn't want to talk about, so he uses it as an opportunity to talk about what he does want to talk about - which is bashing the government run by the opposing party.

Shocking. Simply shocking.

 

[dudalb]

Homeland Insurgency needs to get with the Truther Program. Obama is just another one of THEM,no better then Bush.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Wrong part was bolded. Here's the proper emphasis:

While I do not believe the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks...

I am curious to know how this is supposed to prove even LIHOP, let alone MIHOP. It's LIHOI, therefore non-conspiratorial. Which is a conclusion that just about all of us here have already come to independently.

ETA: Oh, I forgot to answer your question.

Completely Rejected?

Yes. Completely rejected. His statement clearly accepts that terrorists using hijacked airliners were behind the event. And his dismissal of "government complicity" is a clear indication that he's discussing incompetence, not letting-it-happen-on-purpose. That is total rejection of the conspiratorial stance by Obama.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Gee, an experienced politician receives a question on a topic he doesn't want to talk about, so he uses it as an opportunity to talk about what he does want to talk about - which is bashing the government run by the opposing party.

Shocking. Simply shocking.

Gee, where did he say the Bush administration or the Republicans?

"the U.S. should accept some responsibility for what happened on 9/11."

Now does that completely embrace what all the debunkers are screaming about here everyday? For instance who do you think "should be held accountable for the unacceptable mistakes it made in the run-up to that terrible day"?

I mean as a debunker and all I'm interested in your thoughts on accountability.