Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Yes, The Real The New Awesome Primary Thread
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 275 of 478 (782254)
04-21-2016 4:40 PM


Citizens United.
Compared to the alternatives, CU was a blessing. I see it as kind of like "Its better to fight them over there than over here" kind of issue.
There were senators(like Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings, Bob Kerry) who wanted to amend the constitution to limit "spending" (EVC might have fallen into that category) based on speech delivered during a government-set and totally arbitrary "campaign season" (or something like that).
That was for all forms of media communication. And even if individuals were behind it all.
Citizens United is a free-speech buffer-zone in my opinion. It enables the fight to be over corporations (and their rights) , and protects what little freedoms individuals have (even though donations to candidates are severely curtailed and limited).
Count me as 100% supportive of Citizens United. It takes the fight deeper into the field of play that leads to a more secure environment for free-speech. I'm not even sure my view on/about the actual issue of corporate spending. But free speech for individuals is under assault. (and I think our 1st amendment is so watered down from what it should be, that it is never safe to backtrack further and further)

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Genomicus, posted 04-22-2016 12:04 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 277 by Pressie, posted 04-22-2016 6:26 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 289 of 478 (782385)
04-22-2016 3:43 PM


Immuch more concerned about the CIA run media.
(this computer keeps "closing" my text. I've had this problem for the last week. Lost my original post. My post will have to be heavy on my quotes, and less on my own words - which keep getting lost. Sorry.)
I was attempting to show that Lyndon Larouche was blacked out in the 2004 Democratic Primary coverage(as well as in 2000 when he beat Bill Bradley for the race for 2nd in Arkansas but was totally ignored by the media in name, vote totals, as well as complete absence of standard - in 2000 - 2nd place small pic when the "winner" got a large center screen pic at the moment of the network/AP call) even though his $8.4 million was 6th highest in individual fundraising amounts. The media commonly placed #7 as #6, #8 as #7, etc. while the 9/11 Truther Larouche was completely air brushed out of the medias (otherwise!) endlessly obsessive fundraising coverage.
quote:
This article appears in the May 2, 2003 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
FEC Report: Presidential Candidate LaRouche Has the Broadest Support
The following leaflet was released April 25 by LaRouche in 2004.
The April 15 filings of the Democratic Presidential candidates with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), show that Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche is first among all the candidates in the number of individual contributions recorded by the FEC. LaRouche is also first in the dollar amount of "un-itemized contributions," which represents money given by persons whose cumulative contributions are less than $200.
By official FEC figures, 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. As to the dollar amount of un-itemized contributions, LaRouche had $1,325,061 far above Kerry's $407,299, Edwards' $242,745, Dean's $786,237, and Gephardt's $179,046. (See Table 1.)
TABLE 1
Funds Raised by Democratic Presidential Candidates
Up to March 31, 2003
Candidate Individual Contributions Less Refunds Transfers
from
Previous Campaigns Other Total $
Raised
Kerry $7,501,390 $2,650,000 $4,477 $10,155,867
Edwards $7,398,836 $0 $0 $7,398,836
Gephardt $3,353,928 $2,403,521 $172,475 $5,929,925
LaRouche $3,704,005 $0 $2,082 $3,706,087
Lieberman $2,961,023 $0 $51,600 $3,012,623
Dean $2,932,262 $0 $12,100 $2,944,362
Graham $1,092,161 $0 $27,000 $1,119,161
Kucinich $172,695 $0 $0 $172,695
Moseley-Braun $72,451 $0 $0 $72,451
Sharpton n/a n/a n/a n/a
Source: Federal Election Commission
In addition, by FEC reports, LaRouche ranks fourth among the ten candidates in total money raised, with $3.7 million, behind Sen. John. Kerry (Mass.), Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), and Rep. Dick Gephardt (Mo.)all serving members of Congress. He has outraised Sen. Joe Liebermanthe Democratic Party's candidate for Vice President in 2000former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, and Sen. Bob Graham (Fla.), and dwarfed the fundraising of Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), and former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun (Ill.). New York Rev. Al Sharpton's report is not yet available. Note that a substantial amount of Kerry's and Gephardt's funds were transferred from previous campaigns. (See Table 2.)
FEC Report: Presidential Candidate LaRouche Has the Broadest Support
The former leftist (who became a total neo-con) Sol Stern had an interesting article in the right-wing City Journal of New York a few years back.
quote:
from the magazine
The Ramparts I Watched
Our storied radical magazine did transform the nationfor the worse.
Sol Stern
Winter 2010
The Social Order
In 1965, I was a Berkeley graduate student, on track to become a tenured radical. Instead, I dropped out and joined an obscure, liberal Catholic magazine called Ramparts, headquartered in the sleepy Bay Area suburb of Menlo Park. A little more than a year later, I wrote a story exposing the CIA’s secret penetration and financing of the National Student Association (NSA). The article helped catapult our now-radical, San Francisco—based monthly to national attention and to a catalytic role in the protest movements of the time. The mainstream press celebrated my leftist colleagues and me as heroes of American journalism. Ramparts’ rise to celebrity status seemed to herald a new era of the media’s speaking truth to power. The reality was far less luminous, and Ramparts’ legacy, which a new book celebrates, was not a positive one for the country.
I still remember the phone call I received one evening in February 1967 from an old classmate at the City College of New York. He had just picked up the next day’s New York Times at a Manhattan newsstand and noticed a front-page picture of me and fellow Ramparts editors Warren Hinckle and Robert Scheer. It’s above the fold, my friend exulted, and then read out the headline on the accompanying article: ramparts: gadfly to the establishment. The photograph, taken in Ramparts’ San Francisco office, was captioned planning the next expose.
There would be no more Ramparts exposs of CIA front groups. The media heavyweights now pursued the story far more effectively than our monthly magazine could have. Tom Wicker, the Times’s prizewinning D.C. bureau chief, assembled a team of experienced reporters to follow the money trail from the CIA-connected foundations named in my Ramparts article. The Washington Post jumped in with its own reporting team. Turning up new connections almost every day, the newspapers described how legitimate tax-exempt foundations laundered millions of dollars from the CIA and passed the funds to an agency-designated list of civic and cultural groups, labor unions, magazines, and book publishers.
It soon became clear that the CIA/NSA relationship was just one thread in an elaborate web of citizen front groups secretly supported, and sometimes even created, by the spy agency in the early days of the Cold War. Other beneficiaries of CIA largesse were highbrow magazines like The New Leader and Encounter; the international operations arm of the American Federation of Labor; and the American and European sections of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the anti-Communist organization founded in 1949 by public intellectuals such as Arthur Koestler, Sidney Hook, and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. The top-secret project had been approved at the highest levels of the U.S. government.
Until the Ramparts story broke, the government could count on the mandarins of Washington journalism to protect national-security secrets. But as details of the front groups spilled out, editorials in the Times and the Post skewered the secret funding arrangement and compared it with the methods used by America’s Cold War enemies. CBS News broadcast a program narrated by Mike Wallace, In the Pay of the CIA: An American Dilemma, which described the maze of CIA-connected foundations and civic groups that had received agency money. Wallace interviewed apologetic American liberals who had been active in the funded organizations, including feminist stalwart Gloria Steinem and socialist leader Norman Thomas. According to one CIA operative, the Ramparts scoop led to the biggest security leak of the Cold War.
The Ramparts I Watched: Our storied radical magazine did transform the nationfor the worse. | City Journal
He is very very sorry. I don't care (about his about face) really.
I care about the more important funding issues though.
Dollars and Sense and Power and Blackouts and Stuff.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 302 of 478 (782487)
04-24-2016 5:15 PM


What good is it to do "good"?
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 Lyndon LaRouche U.S. presidential campaigns - Wikipedia
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
quote:
Delegates
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 got 5.47% in 1996 against Bill Clinton's 88.98%. 496,000 votes.
1996 Democratic Party presidential primaries - Wikipedia
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).

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-24-2016 8:54 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 305 of 478 (782511)
04-25-2016 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Tanypteryx
04-24-2016 8:54 PM


Re: What good is it to do "good"?
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.
From Wikipedia:
quote:
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.[11] 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[12] because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.[13] 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"[13][14]
....
In November 2007 Scripps Howard surveyed 811 Americans about their beliefs in several conspiracy theories and asked this question:[17]
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[edit]
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."[18]
....
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.[20]
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?"[21]
Opinion polls about 9/11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia
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.
(In addition.)
(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)
2004 Presidential Race | OpenSecrets
Scroll to the bottom for the fundraising states for all 2004 candidates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-24-2016 8:54 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by ramoss, posted 04-25-2016 1:20 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 307 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-25-2016 1:26 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 309 by Percy, posted 04-25-2016 3:18 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 310 of 478 (782525)
04-25-2016 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by kjsimons
04-25-2016 1:37 PM


Re: What good is it to do "good"?
quote:
the real question is whether anyone would vote for a convicted felon for the presidency?
Here are some numbers
quote:
MICHIGAN
Primary Election: February 22, 2000
Uncommitted D
31,655
70.58
LaRouche, Lyndon H., Jr. D
13,195
29.42
Total Party Votes:
44,850
Election and voting information | FEC
I got this from Kos.
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.
Daily Kos: Page Not Found (404)-
Back to the FEC site.
quote:
ALABAMA
Primary Election: June 6, 2000
Gore, Al D
214,541
77.03
Uncommitted D
48,521
17.42
LaRouche, Lyndon H. D
15,465
5.55
Total Party Votes:
278,527
....
ARKANSAS
Primary Election: May 23, 2000
Gore, Al D
193,750
78.47
LaRouche, Lyndon H., Jr. D
53,150
21.53
Total Party Votes:
246,900
....
DELAWARE
Primary Election: February 5, 2000
Gore, Al D
6,377
57.24
Bradley, Bill D
4,476
40.18
LaRouche, Lyndon H., Jr. D
288
2.58
Total Party Votes:
11,141
Total State Primary Votes:
11,141
....
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Primary Election: May 2, 2000
Gore, Al D
18,621
95.90
LaRouche, Lyndon H., Jr. D
796
4.10
Total Party Votes:
19,417
....
IDAHO
Primary Election: May 23, 2000
Gore, Al D
27,025
75.72
None of the Names Shown D
5,722
16.03
LaRouche, Lyndon H., Jr. D
2,941
8.24
Total Party Votes:
35,688
....
INDIANA
Primary Election: May 2, 2000
Gore, Al D
219,604
74.91
Bradley, Bill D
64,339
21.94
LaRouche, Lyndon H., Jr. D
9,229
3.15
Total Party Votes:
293,172
....
LOUISIANA
Primary Election: March 14, 2000
Gore, "Al" D
114,942
72.96
Bradley, Bill D
31,385
19.92
LaRouche, Lyndon H., Jr. D
6,127
3.89
Crow, "Randy" D
5,097
3.24
Total Party Votes:
157,551
....
NEBRASKA
Primary Election: May 9, 2000
Gore, Al D
73,639
69.95
Bradley, Bill D
27,884
26.49
LaRouche, Lyndon H., Jr. D
3,191
3.03
Write-In D
557
0.53
Total Party Votes:
105,271
....
NEW JERSEY
Primary Election: June 6, 2000
Gore, Al D
358,951
94.89
LaRouche, Lyndon H., Jr. D
19,321
5.11
Total Party Votes:
378,272
....
OKLAHOMA
Primary Election: March 14, 2000
Gore, Al D
92,654
68.71
Bradley, Bill D
34,311
25.44
LaRouche, Lyndon H., Jr. D
7,885
5.85
Total Party Votes:
134,850
....
OREGON
Primary Election: May 16, 2000
Gore, Al D
300,922
84.86
LaRouche, Lyndon H., Jr. D
38,521
10.86
Miscellaneous D
15,151
4.27
Total Party Votes:
354,594
....
PENNSYLVANIA
Primary Election: April 4, 2000
Gore, Al D
525,306 74.20
Bradley, Bill D
146,797 20.73
LaRouche, Lyndon H., Jr. D
32,047 4.53
Scattered W(D) 3,172 0.45
Keyes, Alan W(D) 668 0.09
Total Party Votes:
707,990
....
TEXAS
Primary Election: March 14, 2000
Gore, Al D
631,428 80.24
Bradley, Bill D
128,564 16.34
LaRouche, Lyndon H., Jr. D
26,898 3.42
Total Party Votes:
786,890
Election and voting information | FEC
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by kjsimons, posted 04-25-2016 1:37 PM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2016 7:43 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 311 of 478 (782526)
04-25-2016 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Percy
04-25-2016 3:18 PM


Re: What good is it to do "good"?
oops.
Caught you too late.
Sorry.
lol

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Percy, posted 04-25-2016 3:18 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2016 4:13 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 313 of 478 (782533)
04-25-2016 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by New Cat's Eye
04-25-2016 4:13 PM


I'll try again then. Think Democratic Primary 2000 (and 2004).
The media is extremely dishonest.
They ignore those that don't accept certain "truths" as a pre-requisite.
If a candidate has views that aren't "mainstream", then they risk a complete total "blackout". They are ignored in a very strict fashion. Not so much as a mention of their name.
LaRouche got double digit percentages against Gore in more than 1 state in 2000, but was ignored 100% by the media.
His name was not mentioned ever on CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX, MSNBC.
FOX didn't even mention him to smear Democrats.
In 2004, he was ignored despite his (2000 performance precedent)getting over 20% in 2 states (one was Michigan though, see above post on that atypical situation), and over 10% in several.
The 9/11 issue would have made him red hot in 2004 IMO.
And his ("individual donation") fundraising was comparable to just about everybody in the Democratic field in 2004. Look at the numbers.
2004 Democratic primary numbers
Liebermann
Individual contributions $14,208,790 75%
legend PAC contributions $182,413 1%
legend Candidate self-financing $2,000 0%
legend Federal Funds $4,267,797 22%
legend Other $404,180 2%
Edwards
Individual contributions $21,884,886 65%
legend PAC contributions $2,000 0%
legend Candidate self-financing $0 0%
legend Federal Funds $6,624,940 20%
legend Other $5,086,399 15%
Super (Media) Man (aka Howard Dean)
Individual contributions $51,361,995 97%
legend PAC contributions $15,500 0%
legend Candidate self-financing $0 0%
legend Federal Funds $0 0%
legend Other $1,590,553 3%
Dick Gephardt
Individual contributions $14,308,289 66%
legend PAC contributions $421,749 2%
legend Candidate self-financing $0 0%
legend Federal Funds $4,104,320 19%
legend Other $2,856,778 13%
General Clark
Individual contributions $17,362,258 59%
legend PAC contributions $45,950 0%
legend Candidate self-financing $0 0%
legend Federal Funds $7,615,360 26%
legend Other $4,563,101 15%
LaRouche
Individual contributions $8,372,619 82%
legend PAC contributions $4,845 0%
legend Candidate self-financing $0 0%
legend Federal Funds $1,456,019 14%
legend Other $421,913 4%
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 choose to be aware of some more glaring causes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2016 4:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2016 5:47 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 343 of 478 (782679)
04-27-2016 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by NoNukes
04-25-2016 7:43 PM


1 final post on this side issue.
quote:
Yet more supposed facts that you cannot back up.
Nobody has ever polled New Yorkers (or anybody else) on book familiarity and whether they can identify book titles including specific books like Behold a Pale Horse. I didn't say it was a proven fact. Also, Puerto Ricans might be aware of it in high numbers too. They were one of the targets of the government in Cooper's book BAPH. I have a very hard time saying good things about Bill Gates (he made a comment in support of a world government on Jan 27 or Jan 28 2015) to Puerto Ricans because they immediately respond that he wants them all killed. I have a hard time talking about ANY issue to Puerto Ricans without getting a response about how elites are trying to kill them. I ask a Puerto Rican guy on the street "what's your dogs name" and I get "C.I.A." as an answer. Then I get told about John Kennedy and UFOs and other issues in Cooper's books.
I always noticed that Behold A Pale Horse was one of the few conspiracy theory type books on library shelves in Brooklyn (aside from black nationalistic type stuff which are numerous everywhere in NY).
quote:
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.
I don't remember superstition of any type being covered in my posts. It seems to me that 90% of blacks in NY are (fairly fundamentalist)Christian, and 10% (or more) are Muslim. There are some vocal agnostics though. Is that what you meant? Most poor minorities are Roman Catholic. Dominicans seem to be strict Roman Catholics. Puerto Ricans have lots of vocal protestants, but most are RC (without superstition). The Roman Catholic types are the most likely to include (slightly) unconventional Caribbean/African type beliefs in. I was friends with a Puerto Rican (priest?) who had some religion called Uriba or something. They did seem to have animal sacrifice.
I used to own Behold a Pale Horse, and it isn't superstitious. Has lots of interesting information and frequently references the government documents and hearings from 1950s-1980s.
Its mostly Protestants and Muslims who like the book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2016 7:43 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by NoNukes, posted 04-27-2016 4:40 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 346 by NoNukes, posted 04-27-2016 4:44 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 345 of 478 (782682)
04-27-2016 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by New Cat's Eye
04-25-2016 5:47 PM


Final post on the Democratic Primary 2000 and 2004
quote:
in a thread about the 2016 Republican Primary.
Is this really relevant?
Campaign finance reform and constitutional amendments limiting campaign donations were brought up.
I think it better be pointed out that the media (which complains the most about contributions to political campaigns) is extremely corrupt (they take advantage of candidates limited special interest donations in order to ignore them IF THEY HAVE UNCONVENIENT VIEWS).
The fact that people have been so climatized (admittedly it might be an issue around since all our respective births) to accept the fact that the media presents an accurate view of the world is evidenced by the complete confusion and general blanks I have gotten after my post(s) on the Larouche blackout.
On the plus side:
I do remember many C-SPAN callers calling in (after the 2000 races) to ask how Al Gore was only getting around 75% of the vote in states when he was supposedly "unopposed", and I do recall many asking why the Gore and Bradley totals were falling fairly short of 100% when they the (ostensibly) the only 2 candidates.
And I do think the Trump phenomenon is a direct result of such media dishonesty. (many things are the result)
quote:
[LamarkNewAge]
The media is extremely dishonest.
[Cat Sci]
I'm not arguing against that, I was just saying yeah on the large quotes thing.
Actually though, I don't really think that we need to:
Yes we do!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2016 5:47 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 349 of 478 (782692)
04-27-2016 5:15 PM


On the Pirmary's and political party nominations.
I just read Parade (the one in the Washington Post) from Sunday and they said parties can set whatever rules they want to select their candidates. The government has no say or rules (if I remember the article correctly).
It was in an article (featured on the cover) of the electoral college. The EC was the main issue. April 23, 2016.
That article text might then (indirectly) explain why and how Democrats have super delegates giving 15% to the "establishment favorite", and how Lyndon Larouche got his delegates "stolen" (erased and unseated at the convention for holding views the party disagrees with) in 1996 and 2000.
On the GOP side.
Ron Paul got enough delegates in 2012, by flooding conventions in many states (that Romney otherwise won the popular vote - which turned out to be "just a beauty contest" with no teeth), that Romney might not have won on the first ballot, but the party changed the rules (late in the summer after primaries were over) saying that the first ballot can only see the Paul voters vote for Paul if he won at least 6 or 8 states. He might not have even been allowed on the ballot, but I forget. His delegates were seated by couldn't vote for him. Somehow, they still gave him a nearly unanimous vote in Minnesota ( though Santorum won and Paul only got about 20% of the popular vote) and Nevada (where Romney won easily, and Gingrich came in 2nd), but other states voted in a (pro-Romney ) way that followed the media narrative that Paul delegates couldn't vote for Paul.
I forget exactly. In 2008 Romney got 50% in Nevada (Paul got 32%) but dropped out. Paul supporters said "McCain and the GOP stole Paul votes at the convention".
Mark Levin was saying (with experts backing his lawyerly opinion up) that the 2012 rules would only allow Trump and Cruz on the first ballot and all other delegates should be "freed" to vote for one or the other.
The party fears that just 2 candidates on the ballot would enable about 300-400 "freed" delegates (Kasich, Rubio, Carson, etc.) to give a few dozen (or so) to Trump on the first ballot, before the Cruz "flood" can vote on the 2nd ballot.
The party says they can change the 2012 rules before the 2016 convention.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 350 of 478 (782694)
04-27-2016 5:20 PM


Why Superdelegates exist.
It seems that 1996 DNC chairman Don Fowler (?) brought in super delegates (where 15% are unelected and support the establishment favorite) because he feared Larouche might win.
Here are the words of his son.
quote:
Why are the superdelegates there, then? They provide a sense of perspective and wisdom and, if ever needed, they could slow down the rise of an unfortunate and dangerous insurgent candidate like a Lyndon Larouche or David Duke. Just to be extra special clear, neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton are what the national party leadership had in mind over twenty years ago when the superdelegates came into being.
My Father the Superdelegate and Why There's Nothing to Fear | HuffPost Latest News

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by AZPaul3, posted 04-27-2016 5:41 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 354 of 478 (782699)
04-27-2016 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by AZPaul3
04-27-2016 5:41 PM


Why Superdelegates exist.
I was on a "fetish" about GOP and Democratic primary rules. (Im off the media coverage issues)
I found out that the Voting Rights Act doesn't apply to the Democratic Primary.
Know how?
Larouche invoked it to be able to keep his won delegates (the DNC rules prevented a felon from having certain rights at the convention). The courts said that the Voting Rights Act (which gives felons certain rights) doesn't apply to party primaries.
I used Larouche and Fowler as a search term to try to learn more about the rules. I actually know more about Fowler than LaRouche. I remember him well from the 1990s. His son wrote that article I linked. I suggest reading it. It uses (poor justification and)excuses to defend a 100% undemocratic selection process.
Whether you like it or not, the Larouche experience provides examples that can educate us.
And I have heard for a long time that the 1990s were the origin of the super delegates. You say 60s/70s?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by AZPaul3, posted 04-27-2016 5:41 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by AZPaul3, posted 04-27-2016 6:26 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 355 of 478 (782701)
04-27-2016 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by AZPaul3
04-27-2016 5:41 PM


Re: Why Superdelegates exist.
quote:
the Democrats instituted the Super Delegate in response to the disastrous 1968 convention in Chicago
The 1968 events were what led to reforms that gave the people (ie voters) a lot more power.
Then, after big looses from 1972 to 1980, a 1982 reform (in time for 1984) brought in super delegates to weaken voters from making "unwise" choices in the primary.
1990s DNC chairman Don Fowler must have made decisions in the 1980s (and held on to them thereafter), which his son was referring to in the 2011 article I quoted.
His son, in 2011, said that Larouche was a concern.
Regardless, the post 1968 reforms should not be confused with the 1982 reforms (which we still have today).
1982 was the reform to bring in super delegates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by AZPaul3, posted 04-27-2016 5:41 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 357 of 478 (782703)
04-27-2016 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by AZPaul3
04-27-2016 5:41 PM


Re: Why Superdelegates exist.
Superdelegates "have never been a determining factor in who our nominee is since they've been in place since 1984."
Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Monday, March 21st, 2016 in an interview on Fox Business News
They sure did influence the media coverage. Bernie was defeated from the start with Hillary and her big super delegate tallies frequently used as a yardstick.
After Wisconsin, Bernie needed 55% of the remaining (non-superdelegate) delegates to lead Hillary among voter chosen delegates. Not bad considering he had already suffered having to deal with 11 southern states. He actually had (post-Wisconsin) beaten her 16 to 7 in non southern states. Now it is 17-12 for Bernie outside the south and he is down 23 to 17 in 40 states total.
But the media kept saying he needed around 70% of remaining delegates. Because of the supers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by AZPaul3, posted 04-27-2016 5:41 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by NoNukes, posted 04-28-2016 3:11 AM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 359 by Pressie, posted 04-28-2016 6:02 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 376 of 478 (782761)
04-28-2016 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by NoNukes
04-28-2016 3:11 AM


Textbook case of quote mining staring NoNukes.
Entire message 358 of NoNukes
quote:
[selective quote of LamarkNewAge]
Not bad considering he had already suffered having to deal with 11 southern states.
[NoNukes]
That's right. Southern states are a Democratic party plot designed to keep Sanders from winning the primary.
[selective quote of LamarkNewAge]
Now it is 17-12 for Bernie outside the south and he is down 23 to 17 in 40 states total.
[NoNukes]
Because southern states don't count despite the fact that southern democrtatic voters represent a diverse cross section of the population that is generally not found in the states Bernie has tended to win. Let's count up victories in Alaska and Wyoming and claim that those wins mean more than victories in Georgia or North Carolina.
I know we like to think that southern states are just redneck red states, but the population that gives southern states that reputation is not the population that Sanders and Clinton are appealing to and competing for in southern states. Or for that matter even in states like New York, Pennsylvania, or Delaware.
I like Bernie, and I appreciate that he has not gotten a fair shake from the Democratic party. But some arguments should not be used by creationists or anyone else.
Now for my actual post (which was #357).
quote:
Superdelegates "have never been a determining factor in who our nominee is since they've been in place since 1984."
Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Monday, March 21st, 2016 in an interview on Fox Business News
They sure did influence the media coverage. Bernie was defeated from the start with Hillary and her big super delegate tallies frequently used as a yardstick.
After Wisconsin, Bernie needed 55% of the remaining (non-superdelegate) delegates to lead Hillary among voter chosen delegates. Not bad considering he had already suffered having to deal with 11 southern states. He actually had (post-Wisconsin) beaten her 16 to 7 in non southern states. Now it is 17-12 for Bernie outside the south and he is down 23 to 17 in 40 states total.
But the media kept saying he needed around 70% of remaining delegates. Because of the supers.
My point is that from the beginning, the media has assured us that Hillary has a "500" delegate lead" and "can't be stopped". After Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada Bernie had gotten more votes but the media was talking like it was nearly over because she has 450 or so more delegates. Then she crushed him in South Carolina and they talked about how Bernie needed 60% of all remaining delegates to win even though there were only 4 states (with 3% of the population) having voted.
Then came Super Tuesday.
Bernie won Oklahoma, Vermont, Colorado, and Minnesota.
Hillary won 7 states (6 southern ones plus Massachusetts).
15 states voted. With about 30% of the population.
Hillary won 10 (Iowa and Massachusetts very narrowly)
Bernie won 5 by at least 11 points each.
But Hillary had this big lead of something like 1000/1100 to 400 because of a 465 to 25 or something lead among the super delegates.
"Bernie needs like 65% of remaining delegates to win, the revolution is over".
It is over they tell us.
Now the nation thinks "silly old Bernie can't win" (people were saying that from the start) Before the race began (way back in September 2015), everybody had been saying the same thing. "He is too old, I'm supporting Trump." "Sanders isn't bad, just too old, I'm voting for Trump". "Only Trump can take on the establishment". "Sanders ain't going to win". "He will die in office". I heard that a trillion times way back before 2016! And all through January.
As soon as the voting started, the Democratic establishment (and the media) was ready to invoke the "Big Hillary delegate lead" and call the race.
Compare this to what Fowler jr. said back in 2011.
quote:
My father Don Fowler is a superdelegate. I love my father, and I trust my father. And I gave up letting my father dictate my life since he determined how late I got to stay up at night.
So, as much as I love and respect him, I don’t trust him and his fellow superdelegates to decide for me and the American people who should be the Democratic nominee.
Truth is, they won’t.
There is a tremendous amount of discussion and even paranoia suggesting that a group of party insiders are already at work cutting some backroom deal to pick the nominee they want ... damn the will of the voters and damn the democratic process.
That’s pretty much hogwash when one looks at who these superdelegates actually are.
Half of them are superdelegates precisely because of the will of the voters all Democratic House members, all Democratic senators (except Lieberman), and all the Democratic governors. The other half are the 450 or so members of the Democratic National Committee a sort of oversized board of directors for the national party. These folks come from every state and represent every wonderful, vibrant piece of cloth that makes up the Democratic electoral quilt.
Establishment, you say? These very same DNC members are the reason Howard Dean is Chairman of the Party ... despite the vocal, aggressive, even nasty opposition of the establishment. One very powerful establishment leader said of Governor Dean’s chase for the chairmanship after Kerry’s 2004 loss, I don’t care who the Chairman of the DNC is, it just can’t be Howard Dean. Oops. That was not a lonely sentiment coming from DC. Yet it was the 450 DNC members superdelegates all who put him exactly where he needed to be.
Let’s take this superdelegate analysis even further. At the end of this nomination process when the voters have spoken, the superdelegates will want what is best for the party (meaning a victory in November) and will almost all resist any temptation to overturn any decision made by a clear majority of voters in the states
....
So the superdelegates are, in fact, super because of their commitment to the Democratic Party and its ideals. And most were elected to that position in one way or another. They are not super because they have extra votes or because one presidential campaign controls them.
....
Why are the superdelegates there, then? They provide a sense of perspective and wisdom and, if ever needed, they could slow down the rise of an unfortunate and dangerous insurgent candidate like a Lyndon Larouche or David Duke. Just to be extra special clear, neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton are what the national party leadership had in mind over twenty years ago when the superdelegates came into being.
....
My Father the Superdelegate and Why There's Nothing to Fear | HuffPost Latest News
How can anybody, no matter how smug, claim that the super delegates didn't slow down (if not trample all over) Bernie Sanders?
This Democratic primary has been about the biggest joke of a "democratic" process one can imagine.
They gave 15% of the delegates (or at least a net of 10% anyway) to Clinton right from the start. The media was happy to sell the narrative (big shock). And even more convenient that the primaries were front loaded with southern states (one can offer a straw-man joke about whether that was a deliberate conspiracy, but understand that the issue should be one of perspective - that being the media preferred perspective is to say "it's all over for any Bernie momentum after Hillary clobbered him early down south" and the non-corrupt perspective that less favorable, to Hillary, non-southern states should have their say without this "it's all over" b.s.)
Fowler claimed that superdelegates would change their minds based on the eventual pledged delegate (Democratic primary/caucus voter decided) outcome, but the media coverage has been to mock Bernie when he suggests that he only needed (till recently) around 55% , and not 73% of remaining delegates because, as he argued, he could get the Hillary supporting (unelected)Super Delegates to change their minds if he won their states (which would essentially be evening the superdelegates and relegating them to a complete wash and neither a net benefit or loss for either candidate).
Here is my google link which shows media reaction to the suggestion of Bernie that the Super Delegates would change their minds.
Google
I guess Bernie was the "unfortunate and dangerous insurgent candidate" Fowler jr. warned us about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by NoNukes, posted 04-28-2016 3:11 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by NoNukes, posted 04-28-2016 4:33 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 379 by AZPaul3, posted 04-28-2016 6:09 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024