• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Madam President

ecco

Veteran Member
Your compassion is certainly NOT your strong point....
So, "Either stay content in your ignorance or do some research and get enlightened.".


I don't think "compassion" has a lot to do with getting the right people elected to office. Trump showed no compassion. Trump supporters show no compassion.

The story goes...
After the election...
Reporter: Mr. President Elect Trump, you lost the popular vote by a large margin.
Trump: I was smart. I got the votes I needed in the States I needed to win the electoral college.

If a candidate can't get the needed numbers in the polls that count, then she/he has no chance of beating Trump.

So, it's not a choice between Gabbard or Bernie or Biden or whoever. It's a choice between a Democrat who can get votes and beat Trump or a candidate who could do all kinds of wonderful things except get elected.
 

averageJOE

zombie
I don't think "compassion" has a lot to do with getting the right people elected to office. Trump showed no compassion. Trump supporters show no compassion.

The story goes...
After the election...
Reporter: Mr. President Elect Trump, you lost the popular vote by a large margin.
Trump: I was smart. I got the votes I needed in the States I needed to win the electoral college.

If a candidate can't get the needed numbers in the polls that count, then she/he has no chance of beating Trump.

So, it's not a choice between Gabbard or Bernie or Biden or whoever. It's a choice between a Democrat who can get votes and beat Trump or a candidate who could do all kinds of wonderful things except get elected.
And again...polls are not a reflection of actual votes. Polls are manufactured.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
These are the people who are hell bent on silencing and smearing Tulsi Gabbard. She is suing Google for $50 million for election interference.
Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic Presidential Candidate, Sues Google for $50 Million
Well, you certainly know a lot more about all this than I do. I had never even heard of Gabbard until the debates and then this thread. I watch quite a bit of news. I'm not aware of your allegations. However...

This is from your own link...
Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic Presidential Candidate, Sues Google for $50 Million
Google has automated systems that flag unusual activity on advertiser accounts — including large spending changes — to prevent fraud, said Jose Castaneda, a spokesman for the company.

“In this case, our system triggered a suspension and the account was reinstated shortly thereafter,” he said. “We are proud to offer ad products that help campaigns connect directly with voters, and we do so without bias toward any party or political ideology.”​

If the above is true, then she has no reason to sue. If it is not correct, then either Google and/or NY Times and or other sites are lying. Is that your assertion?

If she had anticipated that her first public debate would have increased the public's interest in her, she could have made arrangements with Google before the debate. But she didn't. That's not how you win nominations or elections and that's not a good sign that she has the competence to deal with complex real-world matters.
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
I don't think "compassion" has a lot to do with getting the right people elected to office. Trump showed no compassion. Trump supporters show no compassion.

The story goes...
After the election...
Reporter: Mr. President Elect Trump, you lost the popular vote by a large margin.
Trump: I was smart. I got the votes I needed in the States I needed to win the electoral college.

If a candidate can't get the needed numbers in the polls that count, then she/he has no chance of beating Trump.

So, it's not a choice between Gabbard or Bernie or Biden or whoever. It's a choice between a Democrat who can get votes and beat Trump or a candidate who could do all kinds of wonderful things except get elected.


Obviously, I wasn't referring to getting the right people elected to office, when I used the word compassion. But nice straw man. Your Trump analogy is probably the most cynical thing I have ever heard. Although, I suspect you believe that the ends will always justify the means. How could Tulsi know which polls the DNC would choose to count? Especially, when she was told by the DNC that she only needed to poll 2% in only four of the approved polls. She polled 2% or more in 7 of the approved polls. Don't you get it, THEY CHANGED THE RULES AFTER THEY SAW THE RESULTS. Are you saying that it is HER fault for not knowing, that the DNC would change the rules? Really, out of the 7 the DNC just picked one?

Let me ask you a few rational thought questions. Do you think that a candidate would be polling high or low, if they are constantly being smeared by debunked claims that they are a Putin Puppet, a Russian Bot, a disguised Republican, a Socialists, a Cultist, an Assad Apologist, an anti-LGBTQQIAAP proponent, a Modi toady, an anti-Semitic, or a White Supremist? Do you think that manufacturing hit pieces attacking their loyalty, or their religious beliefs, would have any effect on how they are polling? Do you think that inviting a candidate onto mainstream media programs, under one pretence(speak about Ryan and Harris), and then begin raising the same debunked smears, for millions of their viewers to see and hear? This deception is done in plain view of millions of viewers, like you. Do you think this would have any effect on how a candidate is polling?

I asked you for an informed opinion, and the best you can do is, "It's a choice between a Democrat who can get votes and beat Trump or a candidate who could do all kinds of wonderful things except get elected.". I had hoped you had spend more time, taking your own advice. I'm curious, did you laugh at the Afghan woman with tears of hope? Did you disagree with any of Tulsi's policies? Do you think she is a fake and disingenuous? Other than clearly winning both debates, the most Google searched candidate, and topped numerous polls, why do you think that she would still be polling low? Do you think that if Corporate America, the DNC, and mainstream media, would stop smearing her, changing the rules arbitrarily, citing debunked articles, closing her Google account, or questioning her patriotism, do you think her poll numbers would be different? Finally do you think our Founding Fathers had a Plutocracy, or an Oligarchy in mind when they framed our Constitution?

Your cynicism, apathy and political ignorance is clearly noted. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution. I've been around a long time. Biden will win the nomination. Not because he can get the votes, and certainly not because he can beat Trump, but because Corporate America, and the DNC considers him no threat to the status quo. This of course means 4 more years under a madman(Trump) dividing us all, just to keep the worst parts of America happy. God help us all. God help all the soldiers that will die in the future, protecting Corporate America's profit margin. Like Tulsi said, "It doesn't have to be this way.".
 

ecco

Veteran Member
The main stream media is 100% controlling how people think. They are controlling the information, and sadly, most people still rely on mainstream media as their only source. Read this article:
Tulsi Gabbard Has Enemies In High Places



I don't put much trust in Opinion articles on Blog sites - which is what you are linking to.
From your link

Tulsi Gabbard Has Enemies In High Places
Instead, many turn to cable news outlets and social media pundits for their research and information. People look to the press because, let’s face it, they’re supposed to know more than us about what goes on behind the curtain. Make no mistake, they certainly do. They also know that most people will believe what they’re told by the mainstream media.​

That's a rather interesting comment. I guess the author thinks that it's better that most people will get their information from the alternate OP media.

However, that same article discusses her support of Independent candidate Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential candidate. That right there disqualifies her from any further consideration of my supporting her. The inclusion of Sanders in the 2016 race went a long way toward Hillary losing.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I don't think "compassion" has a lot to do with getting the right people elected to office. Trump showed no compassion. Trump supporters show no compassion.

The story goes...
After the election...
Reporter: Mr. President Elect Trump, you lost the popular vote by a large margin.
Trump: I was smart. I got the votes I needed in the States I needed to win the electoral college.

If a candidate can't get the needed numbers in the polls that count, then she/he has no chance of beating Trump.

So, it's not a choice between Gabbard or Bernie or Biden or whoever. It's a choice between a Democrat who can get votes and beat Trump or a candidate who could do all kinds of wonderful things except get elected.

And again...polls are not a reflection of actual votes. Polls are manufactured.

Well, there ya go. The polls are manufactured. Gabbard cannot get the required polls to show the required number of interested voters. I guess it's all over for Ms. Gabbard.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
The story goes...
After the election...
Reporter: Mr. President Elect Trump, you lost the popular vote by a large margin.
Trump: I was smart. I got the votes I needed in the States I needed to win the electoral college.
Your Trump analogy is probably the most cynical thing I have ever heard. Although, I suspect you believe that the ends will always justify the means.

Cynical? Or a reflection of the real world? Maybe what you see as cynicism is really pragmatism.

Hillary Clinton (D)
232Total
Electoral Votes


62,523,126 Popular Votes




Donald Trump (R) Winner
306Total
Electoral Votes


61,201,031 Popular Votes

Clinton won by more than 1.3 million votes. Trump is President.

Do you really want to talk about my lack of compassion and my overt cynicism?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Let me ask you a few rational thought questions. Do you think that a candidate would be polling high or low, if they are constantly being smeared by debunked claims that they are a Putin Puppet, a Russian Bot, a disguised Republican, a Socialists, a Cultist, an Assad Apologist, an anti-LGBTQQIAAP proponent, a Modi toady, an anti-Semitic, or a White Supremist?


I guess it depends on the Candidate. Trump did (does) very well with a lot of those charges hurled at him.


There's an old saying in show business which applies to politics as well. There's no such thing as bad publicity. Now, for the record, I take that with a huge grain of salt - just ask Anthony Weiner. Nevertheless, l it's very probable that Gabbard is polling low not because of bad publicity but because no one has ever heard of her.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I had hoped you had spend more time, taking your own advice. I'm curious, did you laugh at the Afghan woman with tears of hope? Did you disagree with any of Tulsi's policies? Do you think she is a fake and disingenuous? Other than clearly winning both debates, the most Google searched candidate, and topped numerous polls, why do you think that she would still be polling low? Do you think that if Corporate America, the DNC, and mainstream media, would stop smearing her, changing the rules arbitrarily, citing debunked articles, closing her Google account, or questioning her patriotism, do you think her poll numbers would be different?

See my post # 90 above.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Finally do you think our Founding Fathers had a Plutocracy, or an Oligarchy in mind when they framed our Constitution?

No. I also don't think the Founding Fathers thought everyone would be allowed to own a "rifle" that can fire 100s of rounds per minute. What's your point?

Do you honestly believe that any President will be able to take "wealth" out of politics?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Your cynicism, apathy and political ignorance is clearly noted.
Perhaps, compared to you I am ignorant of politics. Perhaps there are many people on this forum who are more involved with politics than me. However, I am much more into politics and news than most people I know. Many voters have no idea what the name of the Vice President is. Perhaps to your dismay, many people do not have the time to watch even one nightly news show.

Please point to something that I posted that is reflective of my cynicism.

You are part of the problem, not part of the solution. I've been around a long time.

If you've been around a long time you should know that blind optimism solves no problems. In the last election, people like you believed Bernie could change the world. When he (the Independent running in the Democratic primaries) didn't get nominated, a lot of people, perhaps like you, sulked, didn't vote, or out of pique, voted for Trump. Who is really part of the problem?
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Well, who would you suggest? Perhaps all the old guys just need to move on?

That won't happen as working in government is Bernie's meal ticket. The voter should look at Bernies employment record in order to realize he is one of the last people that should be in charge of running anything.

I really like Tulsi and I want her to be strong enough to do this. England, and India had women leaders. Pakistan Murdered theirs. Hawaii had a woman Queen but then the evil men came. I've heard various stories but some say the Missionaries ruined Hawaii.

Tulsi is the only Dem I support.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
That won't happen as working in government is Bernie's meal ticket. The voter should look at Bernies employment record in order to realize he is one of the last people that should be in charge of running anything.



Tulsi is the only Dem I support.

Me too. She is 38, so perhaps her time is yet to come??? The youngest so far was 42, Teddy Roosevelt. I'm at least hoping she gets VP, so that will put her in line?
I would vote for a Republican if he was a good man and knew his own mind. The American Family Association and those like them are pressing a very radical pseudo "Christian" stance. It feels like they would like to bring back burning at the stake.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Me too. She is 38, so perhaps her time is yet to come???

I dislike any hint that someone is due or time has come. Hillary and the DNC thought that. Look at what happened after that.

The youngest so far was 42, Teddy Roosevelt. I'm at least hoping she gets VP, so that will put her in line?

Being VP means nothing to me. Biden was VP. His political career is still a joke. He lost the nomination like 4 times. The VP these days is used to gain traction with voters the POTUS candidate has issue with. Biden was VP to get middle America on board. Pence is VP for the Christian vote.

I would vote for a Republican if he was a good man and knew his own mind. The American Family Association and those like them are pressing a very radical pseudo "Christian" stance. It feels like they would like to bring back burning at the stake.

Fat chance of finding many such people in the GOP and politics in general. Politicians pander like you and I breathe.
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
ECCO,

Pointing out your lack of compassion was not a sly remark, or a cheap shot, it was a clear observation about your comment to another poster. "Why address that to me? Either stay content in your ignorance or do some research and get enlightened". Clearly this demonstrates your lack of compassion for her moral and justified outrage. Also, "...]people like you believed Bernie could change the world. When he (the Independent running in the Democratic primaries) didn't get nominated, a lot of people, perhaps like you, sulked, didn't vote, or out of pique, voted for Trump.". These are the reasons I stated, and still do, that compassion, and sensitivity are not your strong suits. Now let's address all your deflections, conflations, non-sequiturs, false analogies, insinuations, and false equivalencies.

It is YOUR blind optimism that is part of the problem. That is, the ends will always justify the means. This is Trumpism 101.
None of these specific smears and hit pieces levelled at Tulsi, were levelled at Trump, on the 1st day he announce he was going to run. But nice deflection.
This is not about the level of political literacy, this is about the level of gullibility of the people, in believing whatever mainstream media spews out.
This is not about the validity of polls(although they can be easily rigged). This is about changing the rules to protect the interests of the party, and its donors.
This is not about what our Founding Fathers, envisioned about types of guns we should own(straw man), it is about a Government that is ruled by the people. and not by the Rich or the Few.
This is not about taking all money out of politics. This is about taking legalized bribery out of politics, and not giving Corporate America an unfair advantage at the political table.

Clearly, you are a dichotomous thinker. You see nothing between the cause and the effect. She looses because she couldn't get the votes. If she can't get the votes, then she looses. Tough luck, so get over it. I'm afraid I'm more of a lateral thinker. I question how she could win both debates, affect everyone that she meets on a personal level, have talent, intelligence, experience, authenticity, have a practical message and solution, and still be low on the polls? I also wonder who would be most affected if the Commander and Chief, decided to bring our soldiers home, and stop all regime-change wars. Then I research the Fossil Fuel Industries, and the military Industrial Complex's influence on Corporate and mainstream media, and the donors to the DNC. Clearly, having Tulsi's message heard by a wider audience, would not be in their best interest. And, Corporate America knows it. They know,

that most Americans don't want America to be the policemen of the world.
that most Americans want the social issues at home to be addressed, not the problems in other countries
that most American don't want to see soldiers, civilians, and children dying or being wounded, although it would raise ratings for Corporate media.
that most American would be outraged over how Corporate America can manufacture consent(WMD's), or manufacture choice.
that most Americans take the opinions of mainstream media as gospel, and never read past the headlines
that most Americans will respond the same, when they hear words like "Socialism, "Cultism" "Putin or Russia", "White Supremist", "Assad", etc.

Clearly, we have a difference of opinion. I believe that our political system should not be rigged/influenced by those with power and money, and you don't seem to care. And, since I'm not interested in jumping in one irrelevant rabbit hole after another, or am unwilling to accept your cynical brand of fatalism and realism about our Democracy, we really don't have any common ground. I gave you my opinion, and the facts supporting them. These facts are still happening today, even though this traitor is commanding troops on exercise in Indonesia. She is unfortunately not here to defend herself against these smears. Wonder how these smears will effect her polling? You do know that debunked smears, are really LIES, don't you? You do know that just because it is a conspiracy theory, doesn't mean that it is not true, right? Or do you not care either way? It seems that doing the right thing, will cost her everything.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I would vote for a Republican if he was a good man and knew his own mind.
You seem to be of the opinion that some Republicans may be better than some Democrats. How many Republicans have voted for things you consider important? How many Congressional Republicans have spoken out about the outrageous things Trump says and does? The answer to that is none.

Party affiliation is the single most important way to identify the true political leanings of candidates.
 
Top