Maybe all political advertising should be prohibited.
In our recent federal election, not one campaigner came to my door. I got a half-dozen leaflets in the mail. Virtually everything I learned about the candidates came from the news media.
In our recent provincial election, not one campaigner came to my door. I got a half-dozen leaflets in the mail. Virtually everything I learned about the candidates came from the news media. There were some lawn signs. The Green Party seemed to have more signs than votes.
So as far as I'm concerned, every cent the parties spent was wasted.
LaRouche was in the upper tier of the "good type" (individual donations) of funds raised in the early part of the 2004 Democratic Primary. He also got 276,075 votes (1.91%) in the 2000 Democratic Primary according to one source but 327,928 (over 2.0%?) according to a .gov reference here https://en.wikipedia.org/...uche_U.S._presidential_campaigns
All the "good" that did when the media censored out uncomfortable views that the CIA felt would attract significant support (votes or otherwise) so as to "disrupt" the preferred narrative (and not just on 9/11) of 2004 "issues".
16,181,892 Votes were cast in the 2004 Democratic Primary
John Kerry 9,871,270 which was 61% John Edwards 3,133,899 which was 19% Howard Dean 894,367 which was 5% Dennis Kucinich 617,264 which was 4% Wesley Clark 536,148 which was 3% Al Sharpton 384,766 which was 2% Other 744178 which was 5%
In 2000 Gore 10,885,814 (75.37%) Bradley 3,027,912 (20.96%) LaRouche 276,075 (1.91%) (possibly 327,000 votes)
The media lectured everybody about "campaign finance reform" for almost 10 years up till 2004, and their obsession help shoot John McCain up from 3% in the early days of the 2000 GOP primary up to a 53% to 35% win over Bush in New Hampshire (McCain only got around 5% in Iowa).
LaRouche didn't seem to do much different (on average) in 1996-2000 than media mega-stars such as Dean, Clark, etc. performed at the ballot box. I'm talking the ballot box.
Lets spend our energy making sure that the media is fair to everybody. Our country is weaker because the media white-washes out those who play by the rules and play fair and honestly (that is, have their main fundraising base from individual donors).
I can remember his ads years ago. They were half hour conspiracy nutjob ramblings. The number of votes he got was a rough count of how many total nutjob conspiracy freaks there are at any given time in America.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The Cruz and Kasich campaigns have agreed to not compete against each other in several states in order to give each a "clear field" to take on Trump. Kasich will not campaign in Indiana leaving it open for a Cruz push while the Cruz campaign will leave Oregon and New Mexico to Kasich. The plan is to bring the anti-Trump votes together in those states rather than have them split between Cruz and Kasich thus narrowing the gap with Trump and, maybe with a major push by a single campaign, deny Trump outright victories, thus the lion's share of delegates, in those states.
Indiana awards delegates by congressional district and over all state vote. Cruz may be able to pickup some districts where a split vote (Cruz/Kasich) would have left the district to Trump by a plurality. Poll analysis indicates that without Kasich Trump's lead over Cruz is cut to 2%, well within striking range for Cruz to push for an outright victory.
As noted earlier, Trump's delegate capture rate is right on the edge of a first ballot nomination at the convention. Every delegate denied Trump lessens that prospect.
quote: I can remember his ads years ago. They were half hour conspiracy nutjob ramblings. The number of votes he got was a rough count of how many total nutjob conspiracy freaks there are at any given time in America.
In addition to completely missing my point (which is perhaps my fault for not being clear enough - more on that later), your last sentence is actually untrue.
A poll from July 2006, sponsored by Scripps Howard and conducted by Ohio University, surveyed 1,010 randomly selected citizens of the United States, with a margin of error of 4 percent. The survey found that 36 percent thought it somewhat or very likely that U.S. officials either participated in the attacks or took no action to stop them because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East. It made some statements relating to some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories and asked respondents to say whether they thought that the statements were likely to be true. Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East. 59% "not likely" 20% "somewhat likely" 16% "very likely"
In November 2007 Scripps Howard surveyed 811 Americans about their beliefs in several conspiracy theories and asked this question: How about that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings. Is this very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely? 32% "Very Likely" 30% "Somewhat Likely" 30% "Unlikely" 8% "Don't Know/Other"
Other United States polls
Rasmussen Reports published the results of their poll May 4, 2007. According to their press release, "Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.", "Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure." and "Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view."
.... In May 2007 the New York Post published results of a Pew Research Center poll of more than 1,000 American Muslims. It found that 40 percent agreed that "Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks," while 28 percent disagreed. Of the 28 percent that disagreed, a quarter (7 percent) believe that the U.S. government is responsible.
In September 2009, a National Obama Approval Poll, by Public Policy Polling, found that 27 percent of respondents who identified themselves as Liberals, and 10 percent as Conservatives, responded "yes" to the question, "Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?"
Lyndon Larouche is an anti-nationalist , Marxist, (albeit) pro-life Democrat and actually he might have been able to win many states had the media not very deliberately conducted a complete news black-out.
The fact that we have an extremely dishonest news media was my main point though. Infact, the rather obvious (when pointed out in non-confusing fashion) corruption of CNN, CBC, ABC, FOX , NBC, etc. can't be more evidenced than their treatment of Larouche.
Ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room if you want, but "total nutjob conspiracy freaks" (even if completely wrong) exist because of crap like (the mainstream media crap artist B-L-A-C-K-O-U-T act) this existing/happening in the first place.
(Larouche got 2 delegates( 1 from 2 different states) in 1996 and 7-10 (from Arkansas) in 2000 and the "Democratic" party simply stole/erased them from him due to opinion differences.) (But I digress, lets get back to the media corruption)
Why should we let the media tell us that McCain/Feingold was going to "stop corrupt and powerful interests from drowning out those poor little American individuals from having a voice" when McCain & Feingold (plus many extremist supporters) wanted to limit individual donations to as little as $100 while still allowing the media to have blackout power on candidates they disagreed with (often those who have support of individuals as their base, like Larouche)? (The Supreme Court still won't lift the floor on limits from individual donations directly to candidates btw)
Nah, Lyndon LaRouge is a total flake. He had zero chance, because he, and his followers are totally and utterly nuts. He changed the name of his party on a regular basis, because people immediately assocated the name of the party to the conspiracy theories and declarations of L.R>
I haven't heard of anything that says they couldn't (at least in the constitution nothing is said of this) but the real question is whether anyone would vote for a convicted felon for the presidency? Also, unless they got their right to vote reinstated, a felon wouldn't be able to vote for themselves or anyone else.
quote: In 2000, Michigan's Democratic primaries had 2 candidates on the ballot. On of them recieved 71% of the vote. You might think it was Al Gore since he was the favored for the nomination at the time, but you would be wrong. The candidate recieving 71% of the vote in Michigan in 2000 was UNCOMMITTED. The candidate in second place was Lyndon LaRouche with 29% of the vote. The two leading candidates (Al Gore and Bill Bradley) took their names off the ballot in 2000 because Michigan moved up it's primary. Michigan's primary was held February 22, 2000, a week after the New Hampshire primary. Gore said that he was not going to participate in the Michigan primary because "Michigan was stepping on New Hampshire's toes." Michigan later had a closed Democratic Caucus, which Gore won, but turn-out was very low. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/25/522600/-
LaRouche wasn't on the ballot in something like 10-12 states but still got 2% of the total vote nationwide. So with no media attention, he would have gotten about 2.5% (?) if on the ballot in all 50 states. Some large states, like California and New York, saw him get less than one half of 1 percent. One can easily see him getting at least 2.5% in every state if the media gave him any attention. So at a minimum, he would have gotten more like 4% if you just give him his nationwide average (2.5% if he were on all 50 states) in the many states he did very poorly in. That assumes he wouldn't have done better in all states, with media coverage. Nobody - no matter how unreasonable - would deny LaRouche would have gotten a full 5% had he gotten media coverage. I can't imagine LaRouche getting less than 10% in the 2004 Democratic primary considering his strict pacifist views (among his dreaded 9/11 Truther views, could he get less than 15% in a slightly "fair" and unrigged Democratic race in 2004) and the electoral climate among the nation and party.
Ron Paul got 10% in 2008 and a somewhat higher percentage in 2012. And he was a worse fit for his party than LaRouche is for his. I would say that nearly half of the 2 million (plus) blacks in the 5 boroughs of New York City have read or know about Behold a Pale Horse by Bill Cooper and (again)nearly half think there is a genocide scheme targeting them. I just ran into a (black)guy in (on the street, and there were no events)Nebraska (2 days ago) who was talking to somebody (black) about that book. I was amazed when he recognized me from NY. He was from Manhattan. I said, "I should have known you were from NY when you were talking about the late Bill Cooper. Half of New Yorkers know that book." He responded, "Man, everybody knows about that book", and he meant most people, everywhere.
The Nebraskan black he was talking to responded by talking about David Icke's book Alice in Wonderland (9/11 Truther book plus other stuff). That is a known book among many blacks. One poll on Wikipedia (I quoted above) used to have Wiki text showing 29% of blacks were 9/11 Truthers compared to just 15% (?) of whites. It might be higher than that really.
Don't assume you know people. I think I know people better (lol). I have met average people in Nebraska who remember me from (only 3-6 months spent in Houston) Houston and now 1 from NY recognized me.
LaRouche outraised, in individual donations, (former Illinois Senator)Carol Moseley Braun, (Ohio congressman) Dennis Kucinich, Senator Bob Graham, and Reverend Al Sharpton.
He was excluded from the debates. The others weren't.
He was ignored 100%.
The media is corrupt and many know it.
Do a poll of New York City's 2.1 million black residents. See over 50% will have heard of Behold A Pale Horse by William Cooper. And nearly as many will believe what it says about blacks.
Perhaps the dishonest news media might be one reason.
I choose to take notice of monumentally important aspects of reality. People can ignore what they want, but the country is in real trouble. Our media just plain stinks. It is selling an agenda. It isn't reporting on reality. LaRouche was a part of the 2000 to 2004 Democratic primary reality. Look at his vote totals in Oregon, Arkansas, Michigan, etc. in 2000. Look at his fundraising amounts in 2004. Look at the 9/11 views among our citizens.
Ignorance isn't a virtue.
Carol Sagan said (in Cosmos) that the suppression of uncomfortable truths might be common in politics but it has no place in the endeavor of science and is not the path to knowledge.
I would add that the suppression of uncomfortable truths in the media driven world of political campaigns has caused a deep suspicion, among the general public, of all aspects of mainstream scientific (working)conclusions reached by the scientific community.
I refuse to not notice the source of the division.
I would say that nearly half of the 2 million (plus) blacks in the 5 boroughs of New York City have read or know about Behold a Pale Horse by Bill Cooper and (again)nearly half think there is a genocide scheme targeting them
Yet more supposed facts that you cannot back up.
I just ran into a (black)guy in (on the street, and there were no events)Nebraska (2 days ago) who was talking to somebody (black) about that book.
Oh, well that settles it. You and your millions of claimed conversations with black people have your finger on the pulse of the NY black community as a bunch of superstitious idiots.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams