Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 8:20 PM
28 online now:
14174dm, AZPaul3, dwise1, Faith, jar (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,137 Year: 15,173/19,786 Month: 1,896/3,058 Week: 270/404 Day: 84/73 Hour: 3/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
164165
166
167168
...
181NextFF
Author Topic:   The Right Side of the News (formerly In the News)
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1520
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 2476 of 2714 (858174)
07-18-2019 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 2472 by Hyroglyphx
07-16-2019 2:25 AM


Talk about threats to democracy. (hint: it is not You Tube ads)
quote:

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.

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)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2472 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2019 2:25 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2478 by Theodoric, posted 07-18-2019 9:43 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18801
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 2477 of 2714 (858183)
07-18-2019 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 2472 by Hyroglyphx
07-16-2019 2:25 AM


Re: Bill is no liberal figurehead
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2472 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2019 2:25 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2479 by JonF, posted 07-18-2019 10:02 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6490
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 2478 of 2714 (858190)
07-18-2019 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 2476 by LamarkNewAge
07-18-2019 12:58 AM


Re: Talk about threats to democracy. (hint: it is not You Tube ads)
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:
In the 1996 Democratic Party presidential primaries, he received enough votes in Louisiana and Virginia to get one delegate from each state, but before the primaries began, the Democratic National Committee chair, Donald Fowler, ruled that LaRouche was not a "bona fide Democrat" because of his "expressed political beliefs ... which are explicitly racist and anti-Semitic," and because of his "past activities, including exploitation of and defrauding contributors and voters." Fowler instructed state parties to disregard votes for LaRouche

https://en.wikipedia.org/...at_exoneration,_visits_to_Russia

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2476 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-18-2019 12:58 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2482 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-19-2019 10:28 PM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 2486 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-22-2019 12:17 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5342
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 2479 of 2714 (858193)
07-18-2019 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 2477 by Percy
07-18-2019 8:57 AM


Re: Bill is no liberal figurehead
Remember this is the guy who thinks the SoS is in charge of all US intelligence apparatus.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2477 by Percy, posted 07-18-2019 8:57 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 2480 by Theodoric, posted 07-18-2019 10:14 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6490
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 2480 of 2714 (858197)
07-18-2019 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 2479 by JonF
07-18-2019 10:02 AM


Re: Bill is no liberal figurehead
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2479 by JonF, posted 07-18-2019 10:02 AM JonF has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6768
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 2481 of 2714 (858213)
07-18-2019 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 2472 by Hyroglyphx
07-16-2019 2:25 AM


Re: Bill is no liberal figurehead
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2472 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2019 2:25 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1520
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 2482 of 2714 (858385)
07-19-2019 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 2478 by Theodoric
07-18-2019 9:43 AM


Re: Talk about threats to democracy. (hint: it is not You Tube ads)
Below you combined 2 unrelated issues, but here is your first quote, Theodoric.

quote:

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.


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:

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.

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:

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:

In the 1996 Democratic Party presidential primaries, he received enough votes in Louisiana and Virginia to get one delegate from each state, but before the primaries began, the Democratic National Committee chair, Donald Fowler, ruled that LaRouche was not a "bona fide Democrat" because of his "expressed political beliefs ... which are explicitly racist and anti-Semitic," and because of his "past activities, including exploitation of and defrauding contributors and voters." Fowler instructed state parties to disregard votes for LaRouche


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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2478 by Theodoric, posted 07-18-2019 9:43 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1520
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 2483 of 2714 (858486)
07-20-2019 6:24 PM


LaRouche really was against nationalism (though he didn't market himself overtly such
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:

NDON LAROUCHE FEB. 13, 2019
Political Cult Leader Lyndon LaRouche Dies at 96
By Ed Kilgore

....

LaRouche had always maintained an organizational presence in Germany, and it’s there that he last made waves, as Foreign Policy reported during a German national campaign in 2017:

[Foreign Policy text]

A week before Germany’s federal elections, Berlin is blanketed in a layer of campaign posters, from Angela Merkel and the Christian Democratic Union’s bland slogan “For a Germany in which we live well and happily” to the far-right Alternative for Germany’s proclamation of preferring bikinis over burqas.

But one set of signs are particularly bizarre, even cryptic.

“The future of Germany is the New Silk Road!” reads one pinned to a streetlight near Berlin’s main train station.

“Cultural renaissance instead of barbarism,” reads another. And, “Germans can stop world war!”

These posters, in a matching blue and yellow color scheme, all urge Berliners to “vote BüSo.”

What the posters don’t say is that BüSo — short for Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität, or Civil Rights Movement Solidarity — is a political party founded and operated by eccentric American millionaire Lyndon LaRouche and his German wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

[ny mag commentary: LaRouche was seizing on the idea that a German-Chinese alliance could save the world. And there was a lot of evidence that his real audience wasn’t in Germany but in Beijing:]

“Journalists” associated with the LaRouche’s news outlet, the Executive Intelligence Review, are regularly invited to Chinese government press conferences in Washington and are quoted extensively in Chinese state media, where they often parrot government propaganda …

[T]here’s the dangerous possibility that Chinese officials and academics actually think the LaRouche movement is a serious Western group. For a middle-aged Chinese official with little experience in or contact with the West, distinguishing between LaRouche’s Schiller Institute and, say, the Brookings Institution, the Cato Institute, or other mainstream think tanks is tough.

[NY Mag commentary: LaRouche was seizing on the idea that a German-Chinese alliance could save the world. And there was a lot of evidence that his real audience wasn’t in Germany but in Beijing:]

“Journalists” associated with the LaRouche’s news outlet, the Executive Intelligence Review, are regularly invited to Chinese government press conferences in Washington and are quoted extensively in Chinese state media, where they often parrot government propaganda …

[T]here’s the dangerous possibility that Chinese officials and academics actually think the LaRouche movement is a serious Western group. For a middle-aged Chinese official with little experience in or contact with the West, distinguishing between LaRouche’s Schiller Institute and, say, the Brookings Institution, the Cato Institute, or other mainstream think tanks is tough.

[End Foreign Policy quotes]

[back to NY Mage comments]

Deceptive to the end, LaRouche passes from the scene having migrated from Marxism to quasi-fascism, and from fake Democratic to fake German allegiances. It’s never been clear to what extent Lyndon LaRouche was a con man, or just a megalomaniac who drank too deeply of his own Kool-Aid. But he left a lot of damage in his wake. And in the end, the drug dealer Elizabeth II got the last laugh by outliving him.

http://nymag.com/...t-leader-lyndon-larouche-dies-at-96.html


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:

Readers React: The political cult of the late Lyndon LaRouche just wouldn’t leave this reader alone

FEB. 17, 2019 3 AM
To the editor: If the Democratic Party ever had a Donald Trump, it was Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., who died Feb. 12.

https://www.latimes.com/...uche-obituary-20190217-story.html



    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1520
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 2484 of 2714 (858562)
07-21-2019 9:30 PM


After the "air-born AIDS" and anti-Semitic stuff passed, LaRouche was pretty good.
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:

China Plans $4.7 Billion Renovation of Haitian Capital
by Cynthia R. Rush

A PDF version of this article is in the September 8, 2017 issue of Executive Intelligence Review and is re-published here with permission.

Sept. 5 (EIRNS)—On Aug. 25, Ralph Youri Chevy, mayor of the Haitian capital, Port-au-Prince, formally accepted a $4.7 billion proposal from China’s Southwest Municipal Engineering Design and Research Institute (SMEDRIC), to renovate and rebuild that city, including its port, over the next three years, providing all the infrastructure required to modernize the capital and uplift its impoverished population. This nation of ten million, which shares the island of Hispaniola with the Dominican Republic, has never recovered from the effects of the January 2010 earthquake that killed 250,000 people, injured tens of thousands more, and wiped out what little infrastructure existed.

Although financing for the renovation is not yet pinned down, journalist Georgeanne Nienaber noted in an Aug. 27 article in The Huffington Post that “China has made good on similar projects in its estimated trillion-dollar Silk Road initiative, not to mention 30 futuristic infrastructure projects in its own country. Perhaps the future has finally arrived for Haiti, and as a result, the Caribbean corridor will be transformed.” Telesur news agency reported Sept. 1 that the initial idea for the project was conceived of at the May 14-15 summit of the Belt and Road Initiative in Beijing.

The Chinese proposal stands in stark contrast to the criminal actions of the Obama Administration and allied “Western donors,” who rejected the proposals made by American statesman Lyndon LaRouche in February 2010, by which the U.S. would sign a 25-year bilateral treaty with the Haitian government to rebuild the nation, based on an emergency deployment of the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and other military and civilian agencies with expertise in responding to natural disasters. The immediate priority at that time was to relocate to higher ground, the almost two million homeless earthquake victims stranded in Port-au-Prince, with the necessary medical and other services, before the arrival of the rainy season brought another wave of mass deaths.

During a Jan. 30, 2010 international webcast, LaRouche warned that “you cannot apply a band-aid to Haiti, because the objective is, if the country is going to be viable . . . you have to have a sovereign Haiti.” Haitians, he added, have been “subjected to all kinds of terrible history; . . . promised this, and betrayed, and promised that, and betrayed, and promised and betrayed. . . . So, it’s a model approach: we make a contract with the government, as a treaty agreement between the United States and Haiti, to assure the rebuilding of their country, in a form in which it will actually be a functioning country which can survive.”

http://r.schillerinstitute.org/...ina-rebuild-haiti/crh.html


I will skip 6-8 paragraphs to the end

quote:

Many other Caribbean nations are also looking forward to “a brilliant future” with China’s help. Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, Barbados, Guyana, and Cuba are among the governments that have signed major agreements with the Chinese government, or Chinese state-sector companies or private entities, to build needed infrastructure.


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.

https://www.popsci.com/...softer-approach-water-conservation

The first 8 paragraphs will be skipped, but here were the concluding two paragraphs.

quote:

SCIENCE
Strategies for a Changing Planet: Water
The amount of water on Earth is fixed, but everything else is changing fast

By Elizabeth Royte
July 12, 2012

....

The Army Corps of Engineers, in the 1950s, proposed what remains perhaps the most audacious transfer scheme of all. By diverting the flow of Alaskan rivers through Canada and down to the lower 48 states, the North American Water and Power Alliance would double the amount of freshwater available to farmers and growing cities in the west. The scheme fell out of political favor but was later adopted and tweaked by Lyndon LaRouche, the once-perennial presidential candidate. Legal, political, economic, social and environmental considerations aside, the plan is highly complex and, if history is any guide, would precipitate more problems than it solved. (An overview on LaRouche's website says it "signifies a change in the organization of the planet as a whole.")

LaRouche's plan is loopy, but humans have, in fact, already reorganized the planet's hydrological regimes by mainlining carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We can try to cope by moving water around, changing it from salty to fresh, or conjuring it from thin air using chemical reactions. These manipulations will become more difficult as we hit economic and physical limits. But with smart management, cooperation and planning, we can find a way to live within these limits and to share the planet's water equitably with people and with nature.


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
Posts: 1520
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 2485 of 2714 (858565)
07-21-2019 11:07 PM


https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000presprim.htm see Michigan
Larouche got 29.42%
Replies to this message:
 Message 2488 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2019 10:43 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1520
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 2486 of 2714 (858567)
07-22-2019 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 2478 by Theodoric
07-18-2019 9:43 AM


Back to the other issue of your Theodoric (and a question about LaRouche)
I said this:

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.

You said this:

quote:

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.


Your next issue was about the Michigan primary (see above post).

Here is the wikileaks revelation

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43823

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 China
By Chen Weihua in Washington China Daily USA
Updated: 2017-08-18

quote:

Life-changing trip

Of her seafaring in 1971, Helga said she was shocked by the extreme poverty she saw in Africa. She described it as "such a shocking experience" and seeing Africa "from the bottom".

"I came back from this trip with the absolute conviction that the world had to change, had to be improved," she said.

Back in Germany, Helga tried to look for a theory to fix the problem that haunted her. She found Lyndon LaRouche, a US political activist better known for launching the LaRouche Movement.

The movement, which has included many organizations and companies in the world, promotes a revival of classical art and greater commitment to science; advocates the development of major economic infrastructure projects on a global scale; and calls for reform of the world financial system to encourage investment in the physical economy and suppress financial speculation.

Helga found Lyndon to be the only one who talked about the need for the development and industrialization of Africa and Third World countries, as well as the establishment of an international development bank, something like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) today.

"Then I became part of the movement," she said. On Dec 29, 1977, the two got married in Wiesbaden, a city in west central Germany.

Helga said she did not follow the Third World theory of then-Chinese leader Chairman Mao Zedong but paid more attention to the Non-Aligned Movement headquartered in Indonesia.

She has met some world leaders such as Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Mexican President Jose Lopez-Portillo.

Helga said they had been promoting the idea of development of a Eurasian land bridge through infrastructure in the early 1990s, but did not receive a positive response from the US. "The only government which responded positively was China," she said.

In 1996, she returned to China for the first time to attend and speak at a meeting on Eurasia

http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/...7-08/18/content_30807211.htm


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:

2004
He waged a campaign, begun in October 2002,[12] to have Dick Cheney dumped from the Republican ticket.

Again, LaRouche gained negligible electoral support. However, according to Federal Election Commission statistics, LaRouche had more individual contributors to his 2004 presidential campaign than any other candidate, until the final quarter of the primary season, when John Kerry surpassed him. As of the April 15 filing, LaRouche had 7834 individual contributions, of those who have given cumulatively, $200 or more, as compared to 6257 for John Kerry, 5582 for John Edwards, 4090 for Howard Dean, and 2744 for Gephardt.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/...U.S._presidential_campaigns#2004


Look at the fundraising from individuals in 2004.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres04/

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2478 by Theodoric, posted 07-18-2019 9:43 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6768
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 2487 of 2714 (859805)
08-03-2019 10:12 AM


Another demographic time bomb for Republicans
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: 6490
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 2488 of 2714 (859806)
08-03-2019 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 2485 by LamarkNewAge
07-21-2019 11:07 PM


2000 Michigan primary results are meaningless
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%. 41≠29.

Edited by Theodoric, : New subtitle


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2485 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-21-2019 11:07 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2489 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-03-2019 9:05 PM Theodoric has responded
 Message 2490 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-03-2019 9:20 PM Theodoric has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1520
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 2489 of 2714 (859860)
08-03-2019 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 2488 by Theodoric
08-03-2019 10:43 AM


Re: 2000 Michigan primary results are meaningless
But what do the papers have to say about rules being followed?

What do the papers have to say about relative votes?

quote:
Is Lyndon a Democrat?
Print edition | United States
Jun 22nd 2000 | Little Rock

LYNDON LAROUCHE is is not your ideal presidential candidate. He's a convicted felon, for a start. He did not even bother to register to vote in the last presidential election. His hyperventilating prophecies of world financial collapse and international Jewish conspiracies are ignored in most of America. But not in Arkansas, one of the few southern states that Al Gore might win.

Last month, Mr LaRouche received 53,280 votes, or 22% of the total, in the Arkansas Democratic primary. That was 17,000 more than George W. Bush received from the Republican Party on the same day. Mr LaRouche's tally should gain him at least ten state delegates at the Democratic convention in August in Los Angeles. That is, unless the Arkansas Democrats stop him. On June 24th, at the Arkansas State Convention, the party's leaders will officially amputate Mr LaRouche's delegates from Mr LaRouche and give them to Mr Gore instead.

https://www.economist.com/...2000/06/22/is-lyndon-a-democrat


10 or 7 delegates should have been his based on the actual votes.

Stolen.

quote:
Lyndon LaRouche, a perennial candidate who runs for president as a Democrat every four years, is suing to get the delegates he won with nearly 22 percent of the votes he received in the Arkansas presidential primary.

Arkansas Democrats, with the enthusiastic approval of the national party, have refused to seat his backers at the state party convention in Hot Springs on Saturday.

They accuse Mr. LaRouche of racism and wackiness, and say he isn't a legitimate candidate.

The state party insists that since Mr. LaRouche doesn't qualify as a party candidate he can't participate in the state convention to determine who will represent the state at the party's national convention in Los Angeles in August.

Mr. LaRouche contends in his lawsuit, to be heard tomorrow in Pulaski Circuit Court in Little Rock, that on the basis of the 22 percent of the vote in the Arkansas presidential primary he is entitled to seven delegates at the national convention. He bases the claim on an Arkansas law. It stipulates that any candidate receiving 15 percent or more of the presidential primary vote is entitled to have delegates represent him at the national convention.

....

Nevertheless, in winning 22 percent of the vote against Al Gore in the May primary, he received more than 30 percent of the vote in seven Arkansas counties and more than a thousand votes in 16 largely rural counties. In the absence of a favorable ruling in his lawsuit, Al Gore will get all 48 Arkansas delegates.

....

The dispute over the LaRouche delegates is unlikely to be heard at the Los Angeles convention, but the party has had contentious fights in the past over the seating of disputed delegates. In 1964, when blacks were prevented from participating in the selection of delegates from Mississippi, Fannie Lou Hamer and others organized the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party.

The freedom group sent delegates to the convention, staged a fight with the party credentials committee, and prevailed. The dispute led to a reform of delegate selection and opened the party to the participation of blacks in several Southern states where they had been excluded or discouraged.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/.../22/20000622-011451-9383r


And LaRouche did perform in other states

Oklahoma primary, March 14,2000

quote:
Gore 69%

Bradley 25%

LaRouche 6%


Pennsylvania primary, April 4, 2000

quote:
Gore 74%

Bradley 21%

LaRouche 5%


Oregon, May 16,2000

quote:
Gore 85%

LaRouche 11%


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2488 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2019 10:43 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2493 by Theodoric, posted 08-05-2019 3:54 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1520
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 2490 of 2714 (859861)
08-03-2019 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 2488 by Theodoric
08-03-2019 10:43 AM


Re: 2000 Michigan primary results are meaningless
Theodoric has an interesting view of history.

Here is some of his spin.

quote:
The democratic primary meant nothing, so the vast majority of Democrats would not have bothered to vote in it.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana#Demographics

But look at the "democratic" situation.

quote:
The long absence of Republicans from state positions, from the turn of the century through much of the 1960s, was due to the party having been hollowed out by the Democrats passing a new constitution in 1898 that disenfranchised most African Americans in the state, who made up 47% of the population in 1900.[1] But by 1900, two years after the new constitution, only 5,320 black voters were registered in the state, despite their advances in education and literacy.[2] They had constituted the majority of Republican Party members in the 19th century after gaining the franchise as freedmen and citizens in the post-Civil War years.

Treen served as governor from 1980 to 1984. He lost his bid in 1983 for reelection to his popular long-time rival, Democrat Edwin Edwards, who was returning after two previous terms. Treen had earlier been elected to Congress in 1972, serving from 1973 to 1980. Treen grew up as a Democrat, but joined the Republican Party in 1962. At the time, there were about 10,000 registered Republicans in the state; African Americans, who had previously made up most of the party members, were still mostly disenfranchised. By the time of Treen's death in 2009, only a few other living Louisiana Republicans had exceeded his length of tenure in the Republican Party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Treen


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2488 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2019 10:43 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2492 by Theodoric, posted 08-05-2019 3:44 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
164165
166
167168
...
181NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019