HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » LiberalFighter » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

LiberalFighter

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Wisconsin
Current location: NE Indiana
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 43,939

About Me

Member since 3/21/2002. I have been interested in politics since the early 70's. I registered to vote by riding my bicycle to the nearest registration site while still in high school. The first time I voted was with my parents. By the general election, I was in college and voted absentee. During the Watergate hearing I was in college and watched the hearings. I have only voted for a Republican once. And it was due to the endorsement of the local union's political group. It was for the position of the county sheriff. I have never missed voting in an election. Both primary and general. I have voted in at least 69 elections. Political Science and History was my focus in college. I became more involved in politics in 1987 with the mayor's campaign helping at headquarters. It was at this time that I became a precinct committee person. In a couple of years I was involved in setting up the database for a congressional campaign due to Quayle becoming VP and Dan Coats was appointed as Quayle's replacement. I have attended many Democratic State Conventions and other Democratic fundraisers and events.

Journal Archives

Found this about a 1935 Hoover letter while doing family tree.

It was published in the The Telegraph-Herald and Times-Journal (Dubuque, Iowa) on 24 March 1935. Under the title "Ex-President's Letter Makes Tongues Wage"

It consists of 938 words in 37 paragraphs.

First, Hoover served as President (March 4, 1929 – March 4, 1933).

What is happening now with TFG seems reminiscence of that time period.

The letter by Hoover was a criticism of Roosevelt's New Deal.

Excerpts (Since it is not over 95 years old I don't believe I can include the whole article.)
The thread of Mr. Hoover's platform, running throughout his letter, is that the New Deal is "un-American" and that individual liberty has been restrained to an unconstitutional degree by its operation.

The solution of the many problems now confronting the government, he said. rests first upon "orderly individual liberty and responsible constitutional government as opposed to un-American regimentation and bureaucratic domination." This followed a general indictment of Roosevelt policies. which he said had failed.


Still Party Head
Mr. Hoover still is titular leader of the party and will be until his successor is named by the republican national convention next year. His letter on current issues way interpreted today as an effort to make that leadership a little more than merely titular.

Judging from the tone of the republican comment in congress, that effort-- if such it was--was not conspicuously successful.


The following unless in quotes are rewritten from article.
One Republican senator stated, "I have no comment to make upon anything that gentleman might have to say."

Another Republican senator that had supported Hoover twice said, "I feel sorry for him. He once tasted power and failed. He dreams of coming back. It is only a dream."

Comments by Democrats
They generally agreed they would like nothing better than to see another Roosevelt-Hoover contest in ’36.

"I want to talk about live subjects." he said, "not dead ones."

"Mr. Hoover certainly ought to know a sink when he sees one. for he led us into one."
Posted by LiberalFighter | Tue Feb 15, 2022, 08:52 PM (3 replies)

Republican Electors - Fake Documents

Below are the Republicans that signed the fake elector documents. I included any additional detail about the person and what district they represented. Was not able to completely do that though.

Arizona (11)
Nancy Cottle (Chair)
Loraine B. Pellegrino (Secretary)
Tyler Bowyer (COO Turning Point USA)
Jake Hoffman (Representative Hoffman)
Anthony T. Kern
James Lamon
Robert Montgomery
Samuel I Moorhead
Greg Safsten
Dr. Kelli Ward
Dr. Michael Ward
Signed also by 22 Republican state lawmakers

Georgia (16)
David J Shafer (Republican Party Chair)
Shawn Still (Secretary)
Joseph Brannan
James "Ken" Carroll
Vikki Townsend Consiglio
Carolyn Hall Fisher
Hon Burt Jones (CJ Pearson - No Show)
Gloria Kay Godwin
David G. Hanna
Mark W. Hennessy
Mark Amick (Patrick Gartland - No Show)
John Downey (John A Isakson - No Show)
Cathleen Alston Latham
Daryl Moody
Brad Carver (Susan Holmes - No Show)
David Shafer
Shawn Still
C.B. Yadav

Michigan (16)
Kathy Berden (Chair)
Mayra Rodriguez (Secretary)
Meshawn Maddock
John Haggard
Kent Vanderwood
Marian Sheridan (MIGOP Grassroots Vice Chair)
James Renner (James Renner - No Show)
Amy Facchinello
Rose Rook
Hank Choate
Mari-Ann Henry
Clifford Frost
Stanley Grot
Timothy King
Michele Lundgren
Ken Thompson (Terri Lynn Land - No Show - Former Secretary of State)

New Mexico (5)
Jewll Powdrell (Chair)
Deborah W Maestas (Secretary)
Lupe Garcia
Rosie Tripp
Anissa Ford-Tinnin (Harvey Yates - No Show)

Nevada (6)
Michael J McDonald (Chair)
James DeGraffenreid (Secretary)
Duward James Hindle III
Jesse Law
Shawn Meehan
Eileen Rice

Pennsylvania (20)
Bill Bachenberg (Chair)
Lisa Patton (Secretary)
Tom Carroll (Robert Asher - No Show)
Chuck Coccodrilli
Sam DeMarco III
Christie DiEsposti (Robert Gleason - No Show)
Charlie Gerow (Thomas Marino - No Show)
Leah Hoopos (Lawrence Tabas - No Show)
Andre McCoy (Christine Toretti - No Show)
Pat Poprik
Suk Smith (Carolyn Welsh - No Show)
Lou Barletta
Ted Christian
Bernadette Comfort
Marcela Diaz-Myers
Josephine Ferro
Kevin Harley (Lance Stange - No Show)
Ash Khare
Andy Reilly
Calvin Tucker


Wisconsin (10)
Andrew Hitt (At Large Chair)
Kelly Ruh (8 Secretary)
Carol Brunner (1)
Edward Scott Grabins (2)
Bill Feehan (3)
Robert F Spindell Jr (4)
Kathy Kiernen (5 Tom Schreibel - No Show)
Darryl Carlson (6)
Pam Travis (7)
Mary Buestrin (At Large)
Posted by LiberalFighter | Tue Jan 18, 2022, 11:03 AM (9 replies)

2016 Votes Trump won by in following states:

Votes Trump won by in following states:

By less than 1%
Michigan -- 10,704
Pennsylvania -- 44,292
Wisconsin -- 22,748

Less than 5%
Arizona -- 91,234
Florida -- 112,911
North Carolina -- 173,315

Less than 10%
Georgia -- 211,141
Iowa -- 147,314
Ohio -- 446,841
Texas -- 807,179

Some or all of these states could be won by Biden.

In 2016, Hillary could had won any of the above states if the vote difference was 50% +1. As an example. she did not need all 10,704 votes that went to Trump to go to her. She only needed 5,353 of those votes.

There will be many that voted Republican in 2016 that either not vote, vote for Biden, or someone else. For the no vote or other vote Trump will have a negative 1 vote difference. BUT for any that vote for Biden that is a 2 vote differential. As an example. Trump 10 Biden 10 --> Trump 9 Biden 11.

You know if Trump saw this he would say Biden is stealing the votes.
Posted by LiberalFighter | Mon Nov 2, 2020, 11:27 PM (3 replies)

What are the odds that the outcome will change?

Even though the outcome won't change the votes still need to be counted.

Election Results on June 12
Clinton : 2,128,194
Sanders: 1,653,416
Others : 36,103
--Total : 3,817,713

Election Results on June 23
Clinton : 2,582,052 (+ 453,858)
Sanders: 2,137,532 (+ 484,116)
Others: 43,045
--Total: 4,762,629 (Increased 944,916)


Unprocessed ballots as of June 13
1,506,952 -- Mail
717,862 -- Provisional
78,825 -- Other
2,303,639 -- Totals

Unprocessed ballots as of June 22
176,546 -- Mail
474,233 -- Provisional
29,699 -- Other
680,478 -- Totals


Total processed since June 13
1,330,406 -- Mail
243,629 -- Provisional
49,126 -- Other
1,623,161 -- Totals (678,245 not included in Democratic count)

June 12
1,741,297 -- Republican
[font color="white"]x,x[/font]32,399 -- American Independent
[font color="white"]x,x[/font]10,943 -- Green
[font color="white"]x,x[/font]22,971 -- Libertarian
[font color="white"]x,xx[/font]3,847 -- Peace and Freedom
1,811,457 -- Totals not including Dems

June 22
2,119,442 -- Republican
[font color="white"]x,x[/font]38,916 -- American Independent
[font color="white"]x,x[/font]13,607 -- Green
[font color="white"]x,x[/font]28,709 -- Libertarian
[font color="white"]x,xx[/font]4,669 -- Peace and Freedom
2,205,343 -- Totals not including Dems


393,886 -- Votes since June 12 not including Dems

284,359 -- Not included Numbers are totals of all 58 counties.

Ratio of the 1,623,161 processed votes
58.2% -- Democratic ballots
23.3% -- Republican ballots
00.9% -- Third Party ballots
17.5% -- Not included


60% of the remaining 680,478 unprocessed ballots is 408,286.
Rough split of remaining votes without knowing who benefits county by county.
Clinton: 329,351 -- Sanders: 351,127
Posted by LiberalFighter | Thu Jun 23, 2016, 11:50 AM (1 replies)

A Final Debunking of Progressive Attacks on Hillary Rodham Clinton

DailyKos

If Bernie thought the Iraq war was such a mistake on Hillary’s part, why did he confirm her as Secretary of State?


Trade Agreements:

Though Hillary supported her husbands trade agreements, as Senator of New York, the only trade agreement Hillary ever had the opportunity to vote on was CAFTA [Central American Trade Agreement]. Hillary voted *AGAINST* CAFTA. This important fact is often overlooked by the media and I’m not sure why.


Many of the videos you see of Hillary opposing gay marriage were posted by right-wing groups to turn liberals against her. Ironically, the clip most commonly used is from a speech Hillary was giving *AGAINST* amending our constitution to ban gay marriage — saying that though she opposes gay marriage in principle, she opposes amending our constitution. Context is everything.

Let us also remember President Obama, Vice President Biden, *AND* Bernie Sanders evolved on gay marriage. Bernie officially evolved on gay marriage in 2009. For Hillary to be vilified for her gay marriage evolution more than her male counterparts is the very definition of sexism. It is also proof Karl Rove is hurting Hillary among the very people that should be enthusiastically supporting her:
Posted by LiberalFighter | Sat Jun 11, 2016, 02:50 PM (8 replies)

A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What Next?

It might be a good idea to bookmark this to help rebut accusations against Hillary Clinton.
NY Times
The story – a Times exclusive — appeared high on the home page and the mobile app late Thursday and on Friday and then was displayed with a three-column headline on the front page in Friday’s paper. The online headline read “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email,” very similar to the one in print.

But aspects of it began to unravel soon after it first went online. The first major change was this: It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.

Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.


The writers responsible for the inaccuracies were Michael S Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo.

NY Times Public Editor: Clinton Email Story Had "Major Journalistic Problems" That Damaged The Paper's Reputation
New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan published a column examining the problems with the Times' error-riddled story about Hillary Clinton's emails. Sullivan strongly criticized the paper for running a "sensational" story before it was ready and for not being transparent with readers about revising it.

On July 23, the Times published a story by Michael S. Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo claiming that two federal inspectors general had requested a "criminal" referral about whether Clinton had sent classified information via a personal email server. Over the next few days, the paper revised the story numerous times, pulling back on several of its main allegations. In the most recent version of the story, the criminal allegation has been removed, as has the impression that Clinton herself was personally under a probe.


Strike Two for Pair of New York Times Reporters
Assuming Comey is telling the truth, that's two strikes. Schmidt and Apuzzo either have some bad sources somewhere, or else they have one really bad source somewhere. And coincidentally or not, their source(s) have provided them with two dramatic but untrue scoops that make prominent Democrats look either corrupt or incompetent. For the time being, Schmidt and Apuzzo should be considered on probation. That's at least one big mistake too many.
Posted by LiberalFighter | Sat Jun 11, 2016, 02:29 PM (2 replies)

Yes he did.

He had a pet peeve. "That the superdelegates haven't cast a vote yet. Neither have the pledged delegates. The pledged delegates are pledged to do that. Superdelegates pledged to do that too. By the way nobody has cast a vote."
Posted by LiberalFighter | Tue Jun 7, 2016, 07:21 PM (2 replies)

Breakdown of delegates not committed

The first group when not identified are delegates from states that have not completed their primary election.
Representatives (11 out of 173)
CA Alan Lowenthal
MT Steve Bullock
NJ Donald Norcross

AZ Mark Pocan
GA Sanford Bishop
HI David Ige
IN Pete Visclosky
MN Betty McCollum
OR Peter DeFazio
TX Beto O'Rourke
WI Mark Pocan

Are considered DNC members for voting purposes
CA Barbara Lee
FL Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Senators (4 out of 47)
DC Paul Strauss
MT Jon Tester

MA Elizabeth Warren
VT Patrick Leahy

Governors (2 out of 21)
MT Steve Bullock

HI David Ige

Distinguished Party Leaders (4 out of 20)
Former Presidents
GA Jimmy Carter
TN Al Gore

Former DNC Chairs
MD Joe Andrew
FL Kenneth M Curtis


There are 103 DNC members not committed out of 296.
Posted by LiberalFighter | Tue Jun 7, 2016, 07:13 PM (0 replies)

Analysis Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton in a tight race in California as the campaign batters

LA Times

Among Latino voters under age 50, Sanders led, 58%-31%, not much different from his 62%-27% lead among younger white voters. The views of other ethnic and racial groups were too small to break out separately by age, but when all younger minority voters were considered, Sanders led, 59%-32%.

On the other side of the age divide, Clinton’s lead was no less impressive. She led by 56%-32% among white voters over 50, 69%-16% among older Latinos and 64%-20% among older minority voters.

The same generational splits were visible when it came to gender: Clinton led by 33 points among women over 50 and by 31 points among older men. But Sanders led by 31 points among younger men and 25 points among younger women.

Clinton’s campaign has been careful not to over-emphasize the historic nature of her candidacy, but she is reaping some benefit nonetheless. Among likely Democratic primary voters, two-thirds of men had a favorable view of her, while 76% of women shared that view. (Three-quarters of both men and women had a favorable impression of Sanders.)


Younger voters tend not to turnout as older voters do. Voters over 60 tend to voted 70%.
Posted by LiberalFighter | Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:39 AM (1 replies)

Sanders received 3,686,221 votes less than Clinton did in 2008.

Using only states and territories that have completed their elections.

2008
Obama: 14,448,931
Clinton: 14,132,014
Other : 1,409,811
Total : 29,990,756


2016
Clinton : 13,368,151 (- 1,080,780)*
Sanders: 10,445,793 (- 3,686,221)*
Other : 439,979 (- 969,832)*
Total : 24,253,923 (- 5,736,833)*


* (vote difference between 2008 and 2016)
Posted by LiberalFighter | Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:52 AM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »