Tulsi Gabbard

[Truly Enlightened]

Corporate Americastan, eh.
It's the Democrats who give her the low poll numbers, not corporations
(which aren't represented in the polls). People need to take responsibility
for their own choices. Ask yourself...why do so few Democrats support her?
Why prefer Biden & a hawk like Pocahontas?

Where do you think the DNC receives its funds from(Saban Capital Group, Newsweb Corporation, Shangri-la Entertainment, Goldman Sachs, University of California, Renaissance Technologies, etc)? Both parties are paid for by corporate America. And, corporate centrists like Biden and others will just go along to get along. All the media news is owned by 15 Billionaires These 15 Billionaires Own America's News Media Companies Of course you don't think that Tulsi's low polling could possibly be caused by all the smears, guilt by association, and outright lies, that corporate media, and corporate America keep pointing out, the minute she decided to run. Of course it couldn't be the media black-out she got from the mainstream media, that forced her to use the independent media outlets and platforms, to get her message to the people. It couldn't be the fear that she was telling the truth, and if she were to be president and stop regime-change wars, remove our troops from foreign countries, de-escalate a nuclear cold war, use that "war dividend" to address domestic issues, that it would have no effect on the fossil fuel industry, the military industrial complex, and wall street. Yeah, it must be her own fault for putting service above self. Thanks to all the uninformed corporate clones, a person that actually CAN make a difference, will never get that chance.

They prefer Biden, out of ignorance, and because he was Obama's VP. The fact that his earlier attempt running for President failed miserably, might be a clue. But, if he continues making more cognitive gaffs, he will no longer be the preferred candidate. As long as the information comes from some corporate talking head, most people will believe what they are being fed, without question. The question you should be asking yourself, is why do so few Democrats NOT support her? Was there anything specific about her policies that they should not support? Is it because she does not take pac or Corporate money like them? Is it because she is NOT just another bought-and-paid-for corporate democrat? Could it be that her bona fides alone, make her OVER QUALIFIED to be the President? Maybe it is because when she speaks she commands attention. Or maybe the other candidates don't want to meet the same fate as Ryan and Harris. Finally, maybe she is not interested to pandering by telling people only what they want to hear.

I guess we'll never get the chance to find out those answers, as we settle for maintaining the status quo. It is so true, that it is easier to control the minds of the masses, than it is to control the mind of an individual. I won't see another person like Tulsi in my lifetime, so America is doomed to keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

 

[metis]

Biden has long been strongly pro-labor, so I have strong doubts he'll just be a corporate stooge like Trump and the congressional Republicans.

 

[Revoltingest]

No problem, and I agree with you. Everyone, including Corporations, associations, groups, and individuals, all should be allowed to lobby the government. But there must be a level playing field for all to participate. The only way this can be accomplished, is if money is taken out of politics. Politicians are human, and have human weaknesses. Their first responsibility should be in service to all the people. Not just corporations or special interest groups, but all the people. Decisions should be based on the merits of the issues alone. Large money donors have an obvious advantage. This is not Democracy. This is a Plutocracy. If this is what my America has become, I will gladly take Trumps advice.

Money can be managed, but not removed from politics.
It's required for getting one's message out.

 

[Revoltingest]

Where do you think the DNC receives its funds from(Saban Capital Group, Newsweb Corporation, Shangri-la Entertainment, Goldman Sachs, University of California, Renaissance Technologies, etc)? Both parties are paid for by corporate America. And, corporate centrists like Biden and others will just go along to get along. All the media news is owned by 15 Billionaires These 15 Billionaires Own America's News Media Companies Of course you don't think that Tulsi's low polling could possibly be caused by all the smears, guilt by association, and outright lies, that corporate media, and corporate America keep pointing out, the minute she decided to run. Of course it couldn't be the media black-out she got from the mainstream media, that forced her to use the independent media outlets and platforms, to get her message to the people. It couldn't be the fear that she was telling the truth, and if she were to be president and stop regime-change wars, remove our troops from foreign countries, de-escalate a nuclear cold war, use that "war dividend" to address domestic issues, that it would have no effect on the fossil fuel industry, the military industrial complex, and wall street. Yeah, it must be her own fault for putting service above self. Thanks to all the uninformed corporate clones, a person that actually CAN make a difference, will never get that chance.

They prefer Biden, out of ignorance, and because he was Obama's VP. The fact that his earlier attempt running for President failed miserably, might be a clue. But, if he continues making more cognitive gaffs, he will no longer be the preferred candidate. As long as the information comes from some corporate talking head, most people will believe what they are being fed, without question. The question you should be asking yourself, is why do so few Democrats NOT support her? Was there anything specific about her policies that they should not support? Is it because she does not take pac or Corporate money like them? Is it because she is NOT just another bought-and-paid-for corporate democrat? Could it be that her bona fides alone, make her OVER QUALIFIED to be the President? Maybe it is because when she speaks she commands attention. Or maybe the other candidates don't want to meet the same fate as Ryan and Harris. Finally, maybe she is not interested to pandering by telling people only what they want to hear.

I guess we'll never get the chance to find out those answers, as we settle for maintaining the status quo. It is so true, that it is easier to control the minds of the masses, than it is to control the mind of an individual. I won't see another person like Tulsi in my lifetime, so America is doomed to keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

I don't disagree that the DNC has corruption issues.
But poll numbers are based upon surveying individuals.
They don't want Gabbard.
They like Biden.
This responsibility lies with the people surveyed.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I don't disagree that the DNC has corruption issues.
But poll numbers are based upon surveying individuals.
They don't want Gabbard.
They like Biden.
This responsibility lies with the people surveyed.

Nobody can be this naïve. Do you really think polls can not be skewed or rigged, to get any results you want?

Best Site for Online Promotion Service _Buy Contest Promo
https://democracychronicles.org/rig-online-polls/

She was 2-3% on 8 of the qualifying polls(she only needed 2% on only four polls). However the DNC(not the peoples surveyed), will decide now to choose only the polls where she is polling under 2%. This is just unfair, and a blatant attempt to make sure she doesn't get her message out to a larger audience in the September debates. I know, that the DNC can change the rules whenever they feel like it. It doesn't matter if its purpose is to stifle free speech by using the fine print. When are you going to get it? It is not the person it is the message. Unless you don't mind more dead soldiers, civilians, wars, imperialism poor global reputation, wasting trillions of dollars, or the threat of nuclear war? It is not the message it is the threat. It is not the people that determines the choices, it is corporate America. Don't worry, it will be Biden as the nominee. He is the perfect corporate stooge. And, will go along to get along. Unfortunately, Trump will have him for breakfast. If you think I'm an ageist, Trump will exploit "sleepy Joe" to the max. And another four more years, for us to make the same mistakes, over and over again.

If people like Biden, then why was his own presidential campaign such a failure? If he was not Obama's VP, then he would be judged on his record, like the rest. Obviously, it was his record that contributed to his failed campaign. People are basically stupid, and stop reading after the large prints. It is popularity and familiarity that drives public opinion, for these people.

Also, we are only talking about the use of money gifts, favours, and promises, that would give special interest and corporate lobbyist, an unfair advantage over private citizens. So I'm not talking about the resources necessary to manage the utilities and overheads of the DNC. You might be right. Lets just let the corporate giants and special interest groups decide what are the best policies for the rest of society. I love a Plutocracy. Of course these laws, bills, and legislation, might somehow exclude those that are paying for them, you think? But who cares, I suspect most people are happy with the status quo, right? Remember money is power, and the more money, the more power. If you don't have the money, you don't have the power. What do we need a constitution for anyway? It just gets in the way of the power of money, right?

 

[Revoltingest]

Nobody can be this naïve.

I wouldn’t say such a thing, but since you’re admitting it, that’s what I was thinking about your conspiracy theory.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I wouldn’t say such a thing, but since you’re admitting it, that’s what I was thinking about your conspiracy theory.

The facts speak for themselves. Unlike you, I don't just ignore them. I also wonder why we are still in regime change wars since the Korean War. I still remember the Bay of Tonkin Incident, the WMD, the American attempted coup in Venezuela, and if Assad gassed his own people. Those that questioned these, were also called conspiracists. Anyone who dare questioned the Government's BS, were called non-patriots. Just like those that question the corporate power and influence on our government, are now called "anti-capitalists". Maybe if you can look past all these silly labels, you might not ignore these facts. Maybe the floating of the dollar is not real. Maybe providing arms and protection to Saudi Arabia, is not real. Maybe war with Iran will be over in a week, tops. Maybe all the documented evidence of covert American operations in countries all over the world, is not real. Even if all of it is just imaginary, the trillions of dollar money trail isn't.

Maybe I should be like you, and just ignore the easily verifiable facts, and just keep parroting "corporations are people that are good for business.". That they have nothing to do with shaping public policies. Since you are refusing to address any of the facts I've raised, other than "corporations good and innocent", you are correct, we don't have any common ground. Why should I NOT feel the way I do? Why do the facts I've raised NOT point to an effort by mainstream media to discredit and smear Tulsi Gabbard? Or, do you think that using debunked and discredited lies, to smear a low polling candidate, should be the proper conduct of mainstream media? But to corporate junkies, if the master says it's so, then it must be so. To them, the truth is what their told is the truth.

 

[Revoltingest]

The facts speak for themselves. Unlike you, I don't just ignore them

You certainly have a great deal of confidence in your facts & opinions.
I guess that goes with the moniker, eh.
But certainty of facts doesn't necessarily lead to factuality of opinions.

And you keep trying to make it about my shortcomings.
It would be more "enlightened" to turn that critical eye inwards.
Or we could just stick to the issues.

. I also wonder why we are still in regime change wars since the Korean War. I still remember the Bay of Tonkin Incident, the WMD, the American attempted coup in Venezuela, and if Assad gassed his own people. Those that questioned these, were also called conspiracists.

There have been real conspiracies, eg, the 1953 CIA coup in Iran.
But this doesn't make all conspiracy theories cromulent, eg, faked Moon landings.
You need an evidence based cogent argument.
And no one has presented any to exculpate voters from
the responsibility for their choices in leaders & their policies.
And for this, I have the hard evidence of leaders having been
re-elected based upon their policies implemented, ie, voter approved.

Anyone who dare questioned the Government's BS, were called non-patriots.

Btw, I identify as a non-patriot.
I'm a tax resisting, baseball hating, no Pledge Of Allegiance saying,
no national anthem singing, government hating, felonious draft dodger.

But I do like apple pie, the rarity of good ones notwithstanding.

Just like those that question the corporate power and influence on our government, are now called "anti-capitalists". Maybe if you can look past all these silly labels, you might not ignore these facts. Maybe the floating of the dollar is not real. Maybe providing arms and protection to Saudi Arabia, is not real. Maybe war with Iran will be over in a week, tops. Maybe all the documented evidence of covert American operations in countries all over the world, is not real. Even if all of it is just imaginary, the trillions of dollar money trail isn't.

One ought not criticize others for using "labels", when one is so
fond of cliches, labels, epithets, & ad hominem argumentation,.

Maybe I should be like you, and just ignore the easily verifiable facts, and just keep parroting "corporations are people that are good for business.". That they have nothing to do with shaping public policies. Since you are refusing to address any of the facts I've raised, other than "corporations good and innocent"....

Now you're being downright dishonest with this quote
I have never stated that.
Moreover, I view corporations as diverse...like the voting public,
with some good (IMO), some bad (IMO), & some being other or in between (IMO).

.....you are correct, we don't have any common ground. Why should I NOT feel the way I do? Why do the facts I've raised NOT point to an effort by mainstream media to discredit and smear Tulsi Gabbard? Or, do you think that using debunked and discredited lies, to smear a low polling candidate, should be the proper conduct of mainstream media? But to corporate junkies, if the master says it's so, then it must be so. To them, the truth is what their told is the truth.

I advise less ranting, & more seeking to understand.
This would be a better path to enlightenment for you.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You certainly have a great deal of confidence in your facts & opinions.
I guess that goes with the moniker, eh.
But certainty of facts doesn't necessarily lead to factuality of opinions.

And you keep trying to make it about my shortcomings.
It would be more "enlightened" to turn that critical eye inwards.
Or we could just stick to the issues.

There have been real conspiracies, eg, the 1953 CIA coup in Iran.
But this doesn't make all conspiracy theories cromulent, eg, faked Moon landings.
You need an evidence based cogent argument.
And no one has presented any to exculpate voters from
the responsibility for their choices in leaders & their policies.
And for this, I have the hard evidence of leaders having been
re-elected based upon their policies implemented, ie, voter approved.

Btw, I identify as a non-patriot.
I'm a tax resisting, baseball hating, no Pledge Of Allegiance saying,
no national anthem singing, government hating, felonious draft dodger.

But I do like apple pie, the rarity of good ones notwithstanding.

One ought not criticize others for using "labels", when one is so
fond of cliches, labels, epithets, & ad hominem argumentation,.

Now you're being downright dishonest with this quote
I have never stated that.
Moreover, I view corporations as diverse...like the voting public,
with some good (IMO), some bad (IMO), & some being other or in between (IMO).

I advise less ranting, & more seeking to understand.
This would be a better path to enlightenment for you.

If you have no intentions of addressing my points, or answering my questions, then we don't have any common grounds for discourse. I'm not interested in commenting on all of your straw man. My opinions are based on the facts. And, my facts are not based on my opinions. Since you don't address those facts, or answer my questions, I assume that you agree with me. I'm also not interested in what real conspiracies are. Maybe you have an explanation why this combat veteran is continually called a Putin puppet, and Assad toady, a Russian Bot, Weird, or a Cultist, even when they have all been debunked? Maybe you know why her Google account was suspended for six hrs.? I'm also not interested if you are a patriot or not. That was also taken out of context, and misrepresented. I am not fond of labels. Again, taken out of context and misrepresented. A corporation is not in anyway like the voting public, but you can view it anyway you want.

I have no idea what you are responding to. Again, this is NOT about the validity of people voting in the polls. This is about the DNC changing the rules after the second debate, and my opinion why. I am not asking for you to believe me. I am presenting my case, and providing the facts to support it. If you wish to believe that it is all coincidence, then that is your right. But I cannot ignore the evidence, and the obvious reason it is happening. So, if you're not going to address the facts, or answer my questions, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you have no intentions of addressing my points....

That's a bad way to start off a wall of text.
We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

That's a bad way to start off a wall of text.
We'll have to agree to disagree.

Initially, my request that we "agree to disagree" was only conditional, because you kept avoiding answering or addressing the facts that supported any of my concerns. These facts were also the justification for my conclusions as well. Since this trend is obviously still continuing, my "agree to disagree" is now absolute. Here is another non-corporatist's opinion, that will eventually be too brazen to ignore anymore.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

If you watch only one video in your life, watch this one. This is the either the greatest threat to our democracy, or an endless series of coincidences.