|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
quote: The fact that the primary calendar was designed to ensure a huge Clinton advantage (over Sanders) was a much bigger deal than Russian ads. Beyond the hacked stuff: We also have the problem with a shocking, but little known fact: Political parties can simply throw out election results. Had Larouche actually gotten 50% in Michigan (2000 Democratic primary), instead of 41%, the election would have been thrown out. Virginia LaRouche delegates were thrown out in 1996, and the courts allowed it to be done by the party (the elections were not under United States legal requirements but are a "private party affair" or something)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Hyroglyphx writes: She had sent numerous classified cables through open servers because she's an idiot. Your classified cables link doesn't even mention "classified cables." The word "classified" doesn't appear in the article, and the word "cable" is used in a different context, as in "cable network." It also doesn't mention open servers, just Hillary Clinton's private email server, which security-wise was tight as a drum. Ironically, during Clinton's term as Secretary of State there was a successful hack of department computers, but not of her private email server. You can believe Hillary Clinton's an idiot if you like, but at least do it for reasons that are true. She used a private email server in violation of department policy that put our nation's security at risk. In terms of actual damage, going from memory I believe less than 10 emails were found to contain classified information, and they were only deemed classified retroactively, i.e., after the emails had already been sent.
The Secretary of State is directly in charge of those cables,... Dude, what the heck cables are you talking about? Your Secretary of State link doesn't mention cables.
...especially as they relate to foreign affairs, which were among the trove of malfeasance uncovered. I don't think any of us would be happy about a "trove of malfeasance," but that's incredibly vague, and you have not so far mentioned a single fact related to your specific claim about cables. If you explained what you're talking about maybe others would be unhappy too, but so far there's no specifics to go on. The word "cable" does not appear in the Wikipedia article on the Hillary Clinton Email Controversy And lastly, the cables were HACKED. Hillary Clinton's private email server was never hacked, though there were attempts. For perspective, the server for this website receives around a hundred hacking attempts a day, and if it weren't for the automated firewall software I use for blocking IPs it would be around a thousand a day. You're starting to sound like Marc9000 who gets all his information from radical right-wing sources. You earlier claimed you advocate liberal views all the time, including here, but I still have yet to see one, and now you seem to be going off the deep end on Hillary Clinton a la the alt-right. Why do you even care about Clinton? She's not in government and she's not running for anything. There's nothing wrong with not liking Clinton, I don't like her either, but anyone with integrity will make sure their criticisms are true.
That you shift the goalposts because it wasn't at her house [her private email server] that was hacked but the DNC [emails] is completely moot. The hacked emails were of the DNC and of John Podesta, chairman of the Clinton campaign.
How do you think those emails ended up there? Could you be specific about which emails you mean? Your links didn't turn out to be relevant to your claims, and it's not possible to tell what you're trying to say.
The DNC doesn't have access to that kind of material, but Hilary did. Again, please just give us a little information to go on.
You trying to spin it like no big deal is hilarious. JonF wasn't spinning the Clinton email controversy as no big deal. He was noting that your exaggerated, unsupported and alarmist claims have no impact on the facts on the ground.
She is, without question, the highest ranking government official to ever leak sensitive information regarding the United States in the history of espionage. Since we have the redacted (for security purposes) Clinton emails, the DNC emails, and the Podesta emails, you should have no trouble telling us what "sensitive information" you mean. Maybe we'd be just as upset as you if we could just figure out what you're talking about. And as far as being the highest ranking government official to leak sensitive information, that would be Trump, who did it on camera with the Russian foreign minister and the Russian ambassador. Here's an ABC news report about it in case you've forgotten, the essentials are right up front, you only have to listen to 10 or 20 seconds:
The only reason she wasn't hanged and quartered... The phrase is "drawn and quartered."
...was because there's no reason to assume it was done with deliberate intention of harming the US, but rather, that she's simply a moron. Maybe you're right that Clinton is a moron, but how do you hope to convince anyone if no one can figure out what you're talking about?
And this hack, by the way, was also how we now know there was a conspiracy to oust Bernie Sanders by the DNC in favor of Clinton. But the hack still wasn't of the Clinton email server. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
The fact that the primary calendar was designed to ensure a huge Clinton advantage (over Sanders) was a much bigger deal than Russian ads.
What is the evidence for this assertion?Are you a LaRouche follower? LOL. He was a nutball. I really think his crazy conspiracy theories helped the rise of Trumpism. Had Larouche actually gotten 50% in Michigan (2000 Democratic primary), instead of 41%, the election would have been thrown out.
Not sure where this disinformation came from but it isn't true. First of all, Michigan did not have a primary in 2000. They held a caucus. Laoruche got less than 1% support. The GOP did hold a Primary that year. Any votes he received in the Primary did not matter as that was not the way to get state delegates.https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=26&yea... Virginia LaRouche delegates were thrown out in 1996, and the courts allowed it to be done by the party (the elections were not under United States legal requirements but are a "private party affair" or something)
You make it sound like he had a chance. He had one delegate from Virginia and one from Louisiana. Do you not think a political party should determine who is a member of that party. Especially when that person has beliefs counter to that party?
quote:Lyndon LaRouche - Wikipedia Oh yeah he committed massive fraud and was a convicted felon. No wonder they did not want him in the party.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Remember this is the guy who thinks the SoS is in charge of all US intelligence apparatus.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
You would think that someone that has made veiled claims of being involved in some sort of government security or military work would understand basic things like this.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
Hi, Hyro. Sorry for the pile on, but I just gotta do it.
And this hack, by the way, was also how we now know there was a conspiracy to oust Bernie Sanders by the DNC in favor of Clinton. What conspiracy was this? As far as I know, all the leaked emails showed was that people in the DNC didn't like Sanders much and trashed-talked him. That seems to me to be a gross breech of professional ethics and shows a potential for bias, but as far as I know the emails don't show that they actually took any action based on this bias. Am I wrong?It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
Below you combined 2 unrelated issues, but here is your first quote, Theodoric.
quote: This issue was covered in another thread, and I will find the "evidence", which will clearly establish an attempt to do what I described. It appears to have been successful too. (But I want to get to the LaRouche stuff) LaRouche was always a left-wing type, and he worked with right-wingers to attempt to form a broader movement. Every relationship he formed with right-wingers fell apart fairly quickly. LaRouche was indeed a social conservative (Pro-life, anti-gay). He was anti-gay, and that seemed to cement him as a dangerous nut. NEXT ISSUE: The Michigan early Democratic primary (2000)
quote: There was an early primary that bumped other states. Gore and Bradley boycotted it, and that left LaRouche verses "none of the above". He was in a primary against the Democratic establishment. You are looking at the later vote the party decided to hold.
quote: LaRouche was not attacked as "anti-Semitic" by progressive & anti-war Jewish folks. Aside from "liberal" cold-warriors, it was essentially politically "moderate" and conservative Jewish folks that made a big deal of his (lip service) anti-Zionism and his (for example) occasional comments and "white" and "Jewish" bankers hurting various places (like Latin American). LaRouche was less anti-Semitic (and it is debatable if he really did have any real feelings of the sort) than the average Democratic party member is today. He had a falling out with right-wing groups over his not-so-anti-Semitic operations. Lyndon LaRouche - Wikipedia Always remember that LaRouche was deeply into policies that included massive infrastructure projects around the world, and requiring multi-national cohesion. His proposals included spending hundreds of billions on Latin America. Marshall Plan type of stuff. He had more to say about how help the world than America.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
I struggle to find older papers (from 2000-2005) which clearly outlined his vision for Latin America (essentially a big United States investment to build infrastructure projects), but I will try to find them, somewhere.
It is difficult to talk about Larouche without all the "conspiracy" accusations (such as the ones from the one in the book - well received in the United States' mainstream media - Lyndon Larouche And The New American Fascism, which claims he was a CIA agent who used psychological operations against a dumb populace), but I will try to ignore all the mainstream media's conspiracy theories. Here is a hint: (after his death, this was from one of many articles) (I will skip the first half-dozen paragraphs which give the ceremonial attacks, and get to the actual real stuff)
quote: Trump did not support infrastructure projects like the Chinese Silk Road. Trump was not anti semitic (one of his rare public virtues). Trump did not work with civil rights leaders. The L A Times got this wrong.
quote: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
I was trying to find the Popular Science article on the western water shortage, which mentioned a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers idea to divert water from Alaska through Canada to Arizona. I failed, but I found this.
quote: I will skip 6-8 paragraphs to the end
quote: I don't think LaRouche's anti-Semitic tactics, from last century, were harmless, but once he noticed it was bad practice, it would have been nice if the media gave him the coverage his campaigns SHOULD HAVE EARNED HIM. He got nearly 25% against Gore in Arkansas (2000 primary). His ideas deserved coverage. China seems to have listened to him, to some extent, anyway. FEDIT FOUND ARTICLE i was looking for. Strategies for a Changing Planet: Water | Popular Science The first 8 paragraphs will be skipped, but here were the concluding two paragraphs.
quote: I have to admit that I have a soft spot for the "mad" technocrat. We lost something when the corrupt media ignored the old pacifist. Here is a well-received book (entire text readable in link) that claims he was a CIA agent or something. (I have never read it, but read interviews of the author in leading news outlets, while the publications glowingly praised the "conspiratorial-minded" research and conclusions) https://web.archive.org/...rouche.org/newamericanfascism.htm (see the conspiracy theory - about the conspiracy theorist - that the mainstream media loved) (The media loved the theory of the critic. Hated the conspiratorial LaRouche) Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
Larouche got 29.42%
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
I said this:
quote: You said this:
quote: Your next issue was about the Michigan primary (see above post). Here is the wikileaks revelation WikiLeaks - The Podesta Emails Now, back to LaRouche. (I wonder what you feel about the media blackout of him) Here was a "puff piece" (as one United States journal described this Chinese government publication)which tells how his German wife initially thought of him when they were meeting. Identifying with ChinaBy Chen Weihua in Washington China Daily USA Updated: 2017-08-18 quote: I would have liked to see views of this type presented in the political debate. We were robbed by a corrupt news media. The same media that was (especially during the 1996-2000 cycle) loudly ranting about McCain-Feingold (specifically) and Campaign Finance Reform generally. The forces opposed to the reforms (often pushing - actually exceeding - the limits of constitutional limits on speech) often mentioned the power of the media in silencing folks, and the need for free speech enabling tools such as campaign freedoms (like raising dollars). Lyndon LaRouche's experience backed up the critics. LaRouche suffered a TOTAL blackout from the television media that was genuinely fraudulent; his fundraising standing place - relative to his 2004 Democratic rivals - WAS ACTUALLY OUTRIGHT LIED ABOUT, infact the entire Democratic field was lied about. His fundraising position was not presented in the stats, so the relative position of his rivals (of all of those who raised less than him) was numbered in a deliberately incorrect position.
quote: Look at the fundraising from individuals in 2004. 2004 Presidential Race | OpenSecrets LaRouche outraised 4 Democratic rivals, but was below 5. (The television media - especially CNN - dishonestly claimed to be presenting fundraising statistics while ignoring LaRouche's dollar amounts and his entire candidacy) The other 9 were invited to the debates, and the media sponsored most of the debates. The media did not cover him at all in 2004. I think the media dishonesty is scary, in a manner 100 times more extreme than LaRouche's more scary elements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
From the New York Times:
Electoral Time Bomb, Republican Strategists Fear The climate crisis is becoming an important issue among young Republicans. A majority of younger Republicans see climate change as real and important (although it appears that only a minority recognizes the human cause). Republican strategists are recognizing that there will be some loss of votes in 2020 and perhaps a much more substantial hit beyond. Bad news is that by the time their votes matter in the policymaking, it will probably be too late to do anything if we haven't already committed ourselves to a solution. But it does appear that the current Republican party is committing itself to policies that will eventually doom it to minority status - not that it would matter if it happens on a dying planet. But it is stuff like this that must worry Republican strategists, which is undoubtably why part of their strategy is to maintain artificial majorities through voter suppression and extreme gerrymandering.It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
Of the primary which was not official. The democratic primary meant nothing, so the vast majority of Democrats would not have bothered to vote in it. Long before the primary the Democratic party announced that they were going to use a caucus to determine who would win the states delegates. If LaRouche had 100% of primary vote it would still be meaningless.
Why would voters in a primary that they knew had no meaning? The only candidate that had votes in that election was Larouche. There were only 44k total Democratic votes in this primary. In the general Al Gore received over 2 million votes, do you really think 13k votes for LaRouche in meaningless primary shows some sort of conspiracy against Larouche. REMEMBER, the primary votes did not count. The decision to go with a caucus was made on 5/8/1999. Everyone knew that the primary meant nothing. Also, you claimed he received 41%. 4129. Edited by Theodoric, : New subtitleFacts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
But what do the papers have to say about rules being followed?
What do the papers have to say about relative votes?
quote: 10 or 7 delegates should have been his based on the actual votes. Stolen.
quote: And LaRouche did perform in other states Oklahoma primary, March 14,2000
quote: Pennsylvania primary, April 4, 2000
quote: Oregon, May 16,2000
quote: We saw the 22% total in Arkansas. And the fact is that there should have been delegates, since there were taxpayer funded Federal Matching Funds given to the Democratic party plus 3 of the party's candidates. LaRouche got the matching funds! Look it up. The Washington Times article mentions the Supreme Court decision in 1996 (and LaRouche would loose this 2000 legal challenge in the courts as well), but the courts are corrupt. The court said the Democratic party primary was a "private club" (or something close to it), but why does a private club get taxpayer funds? The courts are corrupt. The media is corrupt. The Democratic party has been very corrupt (not so "democratic"). Those are facts. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
Theodoric has an interesting view of history.
Here is some of his spin.
quote: I should remind him that in 1960, Louisiana had 3,257,022 people reside there, and over a quarter of the people were black. Blacks were mostly Republican then. Louisiana - Wikipedia But look at the "democratic" situation.
quote: That was 1962. LaRouche ran from 1976 to 2004. In the long shadow of a Democratic party that felt it could get away with the most egregious of "legal" tactics. This nation has a dark side and the courts are part of it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024