Madam President

[Revoltingest]

Now I understand just how strong and presidential Tulsi Gabbard really is. I could never be as patient as she is, in addressing this level of ignorance, half truths, and smear misinformation. Firstly, SHE IS NOT A VETERAN.

Oh, good...that is an important distinction which changes everything.
I really appreciate your correcting my lies.
But for one who is truly enlightened, you sure do get testy easily.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I like Tulsi because she's intelligent and professional. She'd be a good leader.
But you won't get many conservatives voting for her, regardless of her record. To them, a woman cannot lead men.
It's a religious thing with people on the right. It's a primal thought process.

Bs. I'm conservative and I'd vote for her. I also voted for Hillary.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You have a serious problem with understanding the written word. Where did I say I disagree with those things? Nowhere. Where did I say I don't care about those things? Nowhere. I just don't think Tulsi is the best person to lead this Country. For one thing, she cannot beat Trump. She and I could agree on everything and I would not change my opinion that she is a minor blip on the screen. She and I could agree on everything and I would still not support her because she cannot beat Trump.

All of your ranting and misrepresenting my views aren't going to change that.

I don't think I have any problems with my comprehension/understanding of the written words. Maybe you can point out an example of my SERIOUS misunderstanding of written English? You could very well be right. So let me restate my position again, before we are taken off on all these tangential distractions. In the OP I talked about Tulsi Gabbards policies and bona fides. Both are impressive on their own merits. I also laid out my argument as to the dangerous implications of smearing, discrediting, lying, labeling as anti-LBGTQ or a socialist, rigging(choosing only the polls you want), giving little media exposure, branding as a traitor or an apologist, or as a religious cultist. No matter how great a fighter is, if he gets punched enough, he will fall. These policies are immoral and unethical. I haven't found a study yet, showing Tulsi losing to Trump. If Tulsi ever debated Trump, the contrast alone would be obvious. Add her composure, confident, intelligence, command of issues, and message, it would be like a mother debating with a 5 year old.

I believe that all candidates should have a voice on the debate stage. I believe that the only criterion that should matter, is how many unique donors are willing to donate money to your campaign(not pac contributions), not by how many people happen to be sitting next to a landline. This is the best barometer to gauge how well your popularity, and grass root following really is. Clearly someone with over 170,000 unique donors, polling at 2-5% in 23 approved DNC polls(they only chose one for her), the clear winner of two debates, having over half a million followers on Twitter, and 400K followers on Facebook, being the most searched candidate on Google(I know, but what prompted them to search?), even with all the smears and lies, deserve a chance to have her voice heard.

I believe that in two more appearances on the debate stage, her powerful message will start resonating more. It is not her message that corporate America fears, because all peace candidates have failed before her. But in her case, it is her gravitas, intelligence, authenticity, facts, simplicity, first-hand experience, and the complete package in which to deliver it, makes her a real threat. That is, if she continues speaking over the airway, people will begin to see, just how corrupt our Democratic system, and government has become. They will begin to see, that what they are being told about her is a lie(easily verified), and begin to question why the DNC and corporate America are constantly attacking this combat veteran officer, with debunked and discredited smears. As long as people are being distracted from Corporates real interests, they win. And, nothing will change, except corporate America's profit margin.

I believe that all campaigns should be allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits. Just like in any free market system. Most candidates will innately know when it is time to throw in the towel. This process will occur naturally, without actively attacking the campaign. This form of surreptitious and blatant interference, usurps our Constitutional right to choose which candidate, and policies we want. This becomes a minority decision. If no one can see the dangers of special interests groups, determining for us, that Biden, Warren, and Harris, should be our choices(all belong to the same club, CAA/UTA). then they are the casualties, and part of the problem.

If you believe that this is an acceptable practice, then they win. They are counting on you to be their talking heads. So don't complain about the homeless, the cost of homes, jobs, the environment, corporate debt(unlimited borrowing), higher taxes, healthcare, crime, wages, our infrastructure, pensions, etc. Have we become so conditioned by corporate media, and the illusion of elitism, that when someone comes along and says stop spending trillions of dollars on illegal regime-change wars, we simply ignore them? Or, when someone says we should use that money to address social and environmental issues, we just stand by and let corporate America, mainstream media, and the DNC, blatantly smear and discredit the messenger, without uttering a sound in protest. Finally, when someone says we should get back into two nuclear treaty deals to stop another nuclear arms race, you call her a cultists and wacko. Maybe wiping ourselves off the face of the earth is just inevitable. I feel that this was our last chance. But it is probably because of my serious problem in understanding the written words.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Oh, good...that is an important distinction which changes everything.
I really appreciate your correcting my lies.
But for one who is truly enlightened, you sure do get testy easily.

It is a very important distinction. As was not explaining that the bill ONLY applied to amputees, the blind, and paralysed veterans, would be included to the TSA program. As well as the fact that non-veterans(civilians) travelers, have other avenues for special care. This is the same type of unfounded propaganda, that Tulsi's campaign is plagued with. Since she is away making a big deal of serving our country, the smearing, lying, discrediting, false accusations, are in full swing.

.

I think you are mistaking being testy, to being passionate. I am no more "truly enlightened", than you are a "revoltingest". So, can we stop referencing my forum name, as a true reflection of who I am, or has anything to do with the topic? I now understand that if truth is relative, that lies must also be relative. I understand why Tulsi has stopped responding to the smears. After 8 months of smearing and lies, it is too late for her to convince people that it is all just a lie.

At least you are intellectually secure enough to admit, learn from, and move on, from the mistakes made. No BS retorts, deflections, feign ignorance, or convenient denials, to try and save face. I respect that, and don't see enough of it on this forum.

 

[ecco]

If THIS is the reason why you truly believe Trump is in the White House then my post about your political opinion being shaped and fed to you is 100% correct. (I voted for Jill Stein in 2016)

Thank you for confirming what I have been stating all along. You pick unelectable candidates and then argue against people who know it makes more sense to support people who are electable.

Tulsi can implement as many wonderful things as President as Jill Stein did - none. For the same reason. Neither was or is going to be President.

 

[ecco]

You failed to notice that he ran in Democrat primaries?
And that the DNC rigged them against him?

Maybe Pete Buttigieg should run for the Presidential nomination on the Republican ticket against Donald Trump. I'm sure the members of the RNC will treat him fairly.

Maybe all the Dems who cannot get into the next Democratic debate should all run against Trump in the Republican primaries.

 

[ecco]

You look solely at "which could potentially do more harm",
I take a broader approach....
What are the likely effects of having each candidate in
office, both good & bad?
I weigh each effect based upon likelihood & importance.

I take into account that candidates often won't
effect an agenda they embody or campaign for.
Examples:
- Bernie wouldn't succeed in making us socialist in any
significant way because Congress wouldn't go along.
- Bernie would be able to declare no new wars, which
would be entirely within his power.
- Trump wouldn't be able to overturn Roe v Wade because
it's settled law, no matter who his nominated justices are
because Congress wouldn't confirm overturning types.

It's sad that you haven't learned by now that there are fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats.

 

[ecco]

I don't think I have any problems with my comprehension/understanding of the written words. Maybe you can point out an example of my SERIOUS misunderstanding of written English? You could very well be right. So let me restate my position again, before we are taken off on all these tangential distractions. In the OP I talked about Tulsi Gabbards policies and bona fides. Both are impressive on their own merits. I also laid out my argument as to the dangerous implications of smearing, discrediting, lying, labeling as anti-LBGTQ or a socialist, rigging(choosing only the polls you want), giving little media exposure, branding as a traitor or an apologist, or as a religious cultist. No matter how great a fighter is, if he gets punched enough, he will fall. These policies are immoral and unethical. I haven't found a study yet, showing Tulsi losing to Trump. If Tulsi ever debated Trump, the contrast alone would be obvious. Add her composure, confident, intelligence, command of issues, and message, it would be like a mother debating with a 5 year old.

I believe that all candidates should have a voice on the debate stage. I believe that the only criterion that should matter, is how many unique donors are willing to donate money to your campaign(not pac contributions), not by how many people happen to be sitting next to a landline. This is the best barometer to gauge how well your popularity, and grass root following really is. Clearly someone with over 170,000 unique donors, polling at 2-5% in 23 approved DNC polls(they only chose one for her), the clear winner of two debates, having over half a million followers on Twitter, and 400K followers on Facebook, being the most searched candidate on Google(I know, but what prompted them to search?), even with all the smears and lies, deserve a chance to have her voice heard.

I believe that in two more appearances on the debate stage, her powerful message will start resonating more. It is not her message that corporate America fears, because all peace candidates have failed before her. But in her case, it is her gravitas, intelligence, authenticity, facts, simplicity, first-hand experience, and the complete package in which to deliver it, makes her a real threat. That is, if she continues speaking over the airway, people will begin to see, just how corrupt our Democratic system, and government has become. They will begin to see, that what they are being told about her is a lie(easily verified), and begin to question why the DNC and corporate America are constantly attacking this combat veteran officer, with debunked and discredited smears. As long as people are being distracted from Corporates real interests, they win. And, nothing will change, except corporate America's profit margin.

I believe that all campaigns should be allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits. Just like in any free market system. Most candidates will innately know when it is time to throw in the towel. This process will occur naturally, without actively attacking the campaign. This form of surreptitious and blatant interference, usurps our Constitutional right to choose which candidate, and policies we want. This becomes a minority decision. If no one can see the dangers of special interests groups, determining for us, that Biden, Warren, and Harris, should be our choices(all belong to the same club, CAA/UTA). then they are the casualties, and part of the problem.

If you believe that this is an acceptable practice, then they win. They are counting on you to be their talking heads. So don't complain about the homeless, the cost of homes, jobs, the environment, corporate debt(unlimited borrowing), higher taxes, healthcare, crime, wages, our infrastructure, pensions, etc. Have we become so conditioned by corporate media, and the illusion of elitism, that when someone comes along and says stop spending trillions of dollars on illegal regime-change wars, we simply ignore them? Or, when someone says we should use that money to address social and environmental issues, we just stand by and let corporate America, mainstream media, and the DNC, blatantly smear and discredit the messenger, without uttering a sound in protest. Finally, when someone says we should get back into two nuclear treaty deals to stop another nuclear arms race, you call her a cultists and wacko. Maybe wiping ourselves off the face of the earth is just inevitable. I feel that this was our last chance. But it is probably because of my serious problem in understanding the written words.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. I can save you a lot of time. I don't read your rants anymore. If anything, I skim them.

Read my comment post #145. It applies to you as well as to your alter ego.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe Pete Buttigieg should run for the Presidential nomination on the Republican ticket against Donald Trump. I'm sure the members of the RNC will treat him fairly.

Maybe all the Dems who cannot get into the next Democratic debate should all run against Trump in the Republican primaries.

Those things don't sound doable.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's sad that you....

Nothing good ever follows an opening like that.

Btw, the difference....
Democrats pretend to like black folk.
Republicans pretend to like small government.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Yadda, yadda, yadda. I can save you a lot of time. I don't read your rants anymore. If anything, I skim them.

Read my comment post #145. It applies to you as well as to your alter ego.

Thank you for confirming what I have been stating all along. You pick unelectable candidates and then argue against people who know it makes more sense to support people who are electable.
Tulsi can implement as many wonderful things as President as Jill Stein did - none. For the same reason. Neither was or is going to be President.

Do you have any policies, ideals, or principles that you believe in? Or, are you just a popularity bandwagon sort of guy? Do you only care about if they are electable or not? I'm sure many people didn't think Trump was electable as well. It's good that you don't read, or skim through my posts. Of course, this only means that NOTHING has changed. Maybe you should apply this strategy to everyone else on my thread, and go troll elsewhere?

Or, maybe you can add something positive to the discussion, and explain WHAT is it that makes Tulsi so unelectable(policies, experience, qualifications, person, ?)? Maybe you can give your opinion regarding, should any candidate become the victim of corporate America, a corporate media, and a DNC relentless campaign of debunked smears, lies, rigged poll choices, attacks on their religious beliefs and their patriotism, to choose the candidate that is in THEIR best interests, not ours? Maybe you could point to even one of her policies that you have a rational problem with, or would makes her unelectable? Maybe you can make an argument why our American Democracy is NOT becoming an Oligarchy, or a Plutocracy? Never mind, I don't expect you to have even the semblance of an informed opinion. I expect you to keep parroting the same political corporate dogma, being packaged, sold, and fed to you. Just type in "Who went to Syria with Tulsi Gabbard", and see all the smears, attacks, and lies Google allows web-searchers to see. Good luck with finding who else went with her. How do you learn the truth about a candidate, if what you are being fed are lies and smears? In fact, the only place that are "smear and lie-free zones", are her Facebook, Twitter accounts, and her political website pages. Even those are intermittently coming under attack(demonetization, interruptions, etc.) Everywhere else are just smears, lies, and attack, without impunity or a social conscience. And we just allow this to happen. Democracy is dying, and we are too stupid to save it. No wonder she wants to make these information giants accountable for their actions.

So to save you from wasting both our times. I agree that whoever wins the election, will receive the highest number of votes(electoral college). I agree that Trump is the current President of the US. I agree that Tulsi is polling lower than the other corporate stooges(except Sanders, and maybe Yang). However, I definitely don't agree that Tulsi would loose to Trump. That would be impossible. Especially after their first debate. Just imagine, a 38 year old combat Major, arguing with a 73 year old narcissistic sociopath, in cognitive decline. The contrast would be so striking, that she could be the first candidate that could win all 50 states. Why do you think Corporate America, the mainstream media, and the DNC, are doing all they can, to make sure that she never makes it to that debate stage. This is not new. Just ask what happen to Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Phil Donahue, Jesse Ventura, and many others that challenged the Status quo?

So, you be a good boy, and keep defending a system that keeps the majority of people, between the "working poor", and below the poverty line. Keep up the good work, and the system will always stay the same. Maybe we can compete with India, in having more beggars, more sick, more uneducated, and more homeless?

The top is Trump's camo. The bottom are Tulsi's camo. She is NOT a wanna-be. She's the real deal. No wonder Corporate America will do anything to stop people from knowing about her. And, as long as there are people like you, this insanity will never end.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The above was posted by someone who consistently failed to properly use the "Quote/Reply" functions.

Pot, Kettle, etc.
Glass houses, stones, etc.

My comment was in response to the subtle arrogant and insulting comment you made to me in post "#102, "You've been on this forum for almost two years. It would be a lot easier to see who you were talking to and what they and you said if you properly used the "quotes" or "reply" facilities of the forum". My comment, "Since you have been on this forum for almost 3 years, you should know exactly who you are replying to. The name is written in the "quote", just before the narrative you begin the type. The name of the poster is also found next to the Avatar, in the post with the "reply" at the bottom.". I was just helping you to avoid getting confused again, knowing who is speaking to you, or who you are speaking to. I'm sure that your intention was the same, right? People who enjoy dishing it our, are usually terrified when it comes back to them. This also happens when people decide to stand up against any bully. They simply go elsewhere to find new victims that won't stand up to them. So don't insult others and then whinge and whine, when it comes back at you. As a so-called intellectual, you are TRULY a disappointment. Now, go troll elsewhere, unless you want to contribute more to the discussion than just common sense.

Oh, and yes I was more than stunned and disappointed when Trump was elected. It clearly demonstrated that there were more people like you in my country, then I thought. It also bothered me how Bernie Sanders was taken out of the race, to give Trump(and his mindless Trumpanzees) the best chance of winning. It also bothered Tulsi so much, that she stepped down from 2nd chair of the DNC to support Bernie. "What was that, you're saying?". "And, look what happened to her?" You will never understand that we are defined by our actions, and not by our beliefs. And, it is our integrity, values, ethics, and leadership standards that define what actions we take. She IS the real deal, and thanks to people like you, we are becoming too stupid to see it.

 

[ecco]

Maybe Pete Buttigieg should run for the Presidential nomination on the Republican ticket against Donald Trump. I'm sure the members of the RNC will treat him fairly.

Maybe all the Dems who cannot get into the next Democratic debate should all run against Trump in the Republican primaries.

Those things don't sound doable.

Why not? An independent was allowed to run in the Democratic primary. You feel he was treated unfairly.

 

[ecco]

Republicans pretend to like small government.

Republicans used to pretend to be concerned about the deficit. You haven't heard much about that in the past 18 months.

 

[ecco]

Do you have any policies, ideals, or principles that you believe in? Or, are you just a popularity bandwagon sort of guy? Do you only care about if they are electable or not? I'm sure many people didn't think Trump was electable as well. It's good that you don't read, or skim through my posts. Of course, this only means that NOTHING has changed. Maybe you should apply this strategy to everyone else on my thread, and go troll elsewhere?

Or, maybe you can add something positive to the discussion, and explain WHAT is it that makes Tulsi so unelectable(policies, experience, qualifications, person, ?)? Maybe you can give your opinion regarding, should any candidate become the victim of corporate America, a corporate media, and a DNC relentless campaign of debunked smears, lies, rigged poll choices, attacks on their religious beliefs and their patriotism, to choose the candidate that is in THEIR best interests, not ours? Maybe you could point to even one of her policies that you have a rational problem with, or would makes her unelectable? Maybe you can make an argument why our American Democracy is NOT becoming an Oligarchy, or a Plutocracy? Never mind, I don't expect you to have even the semblance of an informed opinion. I expect you to keep parroting the same political corporate dogma, being packaged, sold, and fed to you. Just type in "Who went to Syria with Tulsi Gabbard", and see all the smears, attacks, and lies Google allows web-searchers to see. Good luck with finding who else went with her. How do you learn the truth about a candidate, if what you are being fed are lies and smears? In fact, the only place that are "smear and lie-free zones", are her Facebook, Twitter accounts, and her political website pages. Even those are intermittently coming under attack(demonetization, interruptions, etc.) Everywhere else are just smears, lies, and attack, without impunity or a social conscience. And we just allow this to happen. Democracy is dying, and we are too stupid to save it. No wonder she wants to make these information giants accountable for their actions.

So to save you from wasting both our times. I agree that whoever wins the election, will receive the highest number of votes(electoral college). I agree that Trump is the current President of the US. I agree that Tulsi is polling lower than the other corporate stooges(except Sanders, and maybe Yang). However, I definitely don't agree that Tulsi would loose to Trump. That would be impossible. Especially after their first debate. Just imagine, a 38 year old combat Major, arguing with a 73 year old narcissistic sociopath, in cognitive decline. The contrast would be so striking, that she could be the first candidate that could win all 50 states. Why do you think Corporate America, the mainstream media, and the DNC, are doing all they can, to make sure that she never makes it to that debate stage. This is not new. Just ask what happen to Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Phil Donahue, Jesse Ventura, and many others that challenged the Status quo?

So, you be a good boy, and keep defending a system that keeps the majority of people, between the "working poor", and below the poverty line. Keep up the good work, and the system will always stay the same. Maybe we can compete with India, in having more beggars, more sick, more uneducated, and more homeless?

The top is Trump's camo. The bottom are Tulsi's camo. She is NOT a wanna-be. She's the real deal. No wonder Corporate America will do anything to stop people from knowing about her. And, as long as there are people like you, this insanity will never end.

What was it about...

Yadda, yadda, yadda. I can save you a lot of time. I don't read your rants anymore. If anything, I skim them.​

...that you didn't understand?

 

[ecco]

My comment was in response to the subtle arrogant and insulting comment you made to me in post "#102, "You've been on this forum for almost two years. It would be a lot easier to see who you were talking to and what they and you said if you properly used the "quotes" or "reply" facilities of the forum". My comment, "Since you have been on this forum for almost 3 years, you should know exactly who you are replying to. The name is written in the "quote", just before the narrative you begin the type. The name of the poster is also found next to the Avatar, in the post with the "reply" at the bottom.". I was just helping you to avoid getting confused again, knowing who is speaking to you, or who you are speaking to. I'm sure that your intention was the same, right? People who enjoy dishing it our, are usually terrified when it comes back to them. This also happens when people decide to stand up against any bully. They simply go elsewhere to find new victims that won't stand up to them. So don't insult others and then whinge and whine, when it comes back at you. As a so-called intellectual, you are TRULY a disappointment. Now, go troll elsewhere, unless you want to contribute more to the discussion than just common sense.

Oh, and yes I was more than stunned and disappointed when Trump was elected. It clearly demonstrated that there were more people like you in my country, then I thought. It also bothered me how Bernie Sanders was taken out of the race, to give Trump(and his mindless Trumpanzees) the best chance of winning. It also bothered Tulsi so much, that she stepped down from 2nd chair of the DNC to support Bernie. "What was that, you're saying?". "And, look what happened to her?" You will never understand that we are defined by our actions, and not by our beliefs. And, it is our integrity, values, ethics, and leadership standards that define what actions we take. She IS the real deal, and thanks to people like you, we are becoming too stupid to see it.

What was it about...
Yadda, yadda, yadda. I can save you a lot of time. I don't read your rants anymore. If anything, I skim them.
...that you didn't understand?

The last two, I didn't even bother to skim.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

What was it about...
Yadda, yadda, yadda. I can save you a lot of time. I don't read your rants anymore. If anything, I skim them.
...that you didn't understand?

The last two, I didn't even bother to skim.

Here is an opportunity for you to see what a true human being looks like. Here is an opportunity to see what a true President looks like. Oh, by the way, Tulsi just got her SECOND 2% polling in a CNN poll. Just two more to go. That puts me in a happier mood. So take pause, grab a beer, sit back, and witness what real leadership, compassion, and empathy really looks like.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

What was it about...

Yadda, yadda, yadda. I can save you a lot of time. I don't read your rants anymore. If anything, I skim them.​

...that you didn't understand?

Good, I'll keep my rants short, just to match your attention span.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why not? An independent was allowed to run in the Democratic primary. You feel he was treated unfairly.

The DNC rigged the game with super delegates,
who voted with extra power for the anointed one.

I'm curious....would you too have preferred Bernie
to Hillary as the nominee?

 

[Revoltingest]

Republicans used to pretend to be concerned about the deficit. You haven't heard much about that in the past 18 months.

Republicans are largely concerned with the
deficit when their side isn't in the White House.
Haven't you noticed this hypocrisy before?