Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

SECOND: I see you are stuck to your Superman theory of how to fix the Federal government: If only the right President, a Superman, is elected he will lead the country out of all its problems -- fixing the Senate, the Supreme Court, the gridlock in Congress to finding solutions to the two and a half century long problems in America that were designed by the writers of the Constitution. You might just as well call for God to solve all our problems.

SIGNY: I see that you're doubling down on Trump NOT being The Problem. Does that mean we can count on you to stop obssessing about Trump?? Seriously, I doubt it, because your obssession will take over in 3... 2... 1...

SECOND: I think the solution is Jefferson, Adams, and James Madison coming to 21st Century America.

---

Once they looked at our gargantuan military sprawled all over the world and sucking up half of the budget, the stranglehold that corporate money has on politics (and the overwhelming size and scope of corporations) and the two-party system which causes such a meaningless but sharp partisan divide, I think they would have a lot more to talk about than Trump. Some of the early Presidents were pretty intemperate people - hard-drinkin', hard figthin' men. One got shot in a duel and then killed the other duelist, remember? I doubt that Trump isn't anything they wouldn't have seen before.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

SECOND: I see you are stuck to your Superman theory of how to fix the Federal government: If only the right President, a Superman, is elected he will lead the country out of all its problems -- fixing the Senate, the Supreme Court, the gridlock in Congress to finding solutions to the two and a half century long problems in America that were designed by the writers of the Constitution. You might just as well call for God to solve all our problems.

SIGNY: I see that you're doubling down on Trump NOT being The Problem. Does that mean we can count on you to stop obssessing about Trump?? Seriously, I doubt it, because your obssession will take over in 3... 2... 1...

SECOND: I think the solution is Jefferson, Adams, and James Madison coming to 21st Century America.

---

Once they looked at our gargantuan military sprawled all over the world and sucking up half of the budget, the stranglehold that corporate money has on politics (and the overwhelming size and scope of corporations) and the two-party system which causes such a meaningless but sharp partisan divide, I think they would have a lot more to talk about than Trump. Some of the early Presidents were pretty intemperate people - hard-drinkin', hard figthin' men. One got shot in a duel and then killed the other duelist, remember? I doubt that Trump isn't anything they wouldn't have seen before.

---

If they were here in the 21st Century, Jefferson, Adams, and James Madison could easily fix the Constitution they wrote by revising it to take into account Duverger's law, which makes a two party system inevitable. All that Jefferson, Adams, and James Madison have to do is change the election rules. It is dead simple. And while they are at it, fix the rules limiting campaign donations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Oh, also while the Founding Fathers are visiting the 21st Century, they can make the Constitution even more plainly clear that only Congress, never the President, not even because of a sneak attack in a nuclear war, can declare war.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I'm sure if one were to look in your post history it would show you bitching endlessly when Obama did it, right?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:


Go to the same search engine (it's free) and type in Tulsi Gabbard - what's the first suggestion?

---

Quote:

---

Who is this Obama you speak of? Are you worried I am a hypocrite?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I'm sure if one were to look in your post history it would show you bitching endlessly when Obama did it, right?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Who is this Obama you speak of? Are you worried I am a hypocrite? I'll give you things to accuse me of being hypocritical about (I don't see the hypocrisy but I also don't have your overactive imagination nor your generalized hostility toward "inconsistency" in adults since I'm not a child anymore.):

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

Kiki's latest "thing" here is to nitpick you to death about wording or split hairs unto insanity as a distraction. If everyone is focused on those little things no one is talking about the bigger picture

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
I would LOVE to put her in a room with my mo-in-law. The vortex of attempted manipulation would rip a whole in the fabric of the Bitch-Time Continuum

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Anyway, I won't reply to this anymore, beyond reposting the image you so thoughtfully provided that proves you
wrong, and wrong, and wrong, and wrong, and wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
When I search on Tulsi Gabbard, the first thing that pops up is an ad for her campaign. The second thing is bio of her terms as representative. The third thing is "top stories" which - today- is winning a pushup contest at her townhall. Following that are a lot of Twitter feeds on topical issues.

I suggest you stop using Google, because Google notoriously jiggers search results.

It's not like google would try to bury Gabbard, is it?

---

Quote:

---

SECOND:The big problem with the Federal government ... is Congress.

SIGNY: Oh, wait! Now The Problem is NOT Trump, it's Congress???
And worse than that, The Problem was

Quote:

---

designed into the Constitution

---

So The Problem really isn't Trump, and it's not Congress, it's the Founding Fathers and the Constitution???

Jeez, SECONDRATE, you sound unhinged. You can't figure out if the target of your rage is Texas Republicans, or Republicans, or Congress, or Trump, or Americans in general, or the Constitution! You're flailing around in all directions because you can't figure out who to be mad at, you're just mad because you didn't get your way (whatever that "way" is)? Yanno, you and the rest of the liberaloids here have been such assholes, it would be a pleasure to have Trump re-elected, just to watch your heads explode online all over again.

SIX: He's not unhinged. He just has zero moral compass or any core beliefs from which his other beliefs are derived. He wanders aimlessly from thread to thread, changing his belief to fit whatever narrative of whatever argument he's getting into that second, completely disregarding what he's said not only in the distant past, but 15 minutes ago. Oh wait... "unhinged" kind of perfectly sums that up, doesn't it? Clinging to nothing, Second is like a fart in the wind.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Avarice... Good word.

Don't forget my haiku:

Clinging to nothing
Second, a fart in the wind
Evanesced... no more.



Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

When I search on Tulsi Gabbard, the first thing that pops up is an ad for her campaign. The second thing is bio of her terms as representative. The third thing is "top stories" which - today- is winning a pushup contest at her townhall. Following that are a lot of Twitter feeds on topical issues.
I suggest you stop using Google, because Google notoriously jiggers search results.
It's not like google would try to bury Gabbard, is it?


CC: Thanks for reminding me!
So why do you keep running away from answering this simple question: Why do you think she's a viable candidate if she only gets 1.8% polling? Why should the DNC invest in her with such bad numbers?

---

Quote:

---

So why do you keep running away from answering this simple question: Why do you (or anyone) think she's a viable candidate if she only gets 1.8% polling

---

Quote:

---

Your silence suggests a lack of intelligence...

---

Quote:

---

... reposting of my graphic in 1... 2... 3...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Sig, 6ix, and Kiki
Brain pans- a little leaky
Neuronal decay

6ix, things that he says
I'm "non-partisan" today
Sucks Trumps dirty dick

Kiki just distracts
Tries to push people off track
Weak, and pathetic

Sig feigns she's a queen
Puts freedom in a latrine
Communist smokescreen

I'll wait for people
that have better things to say
Less insanity

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Sucks Trumps dirty dick




Cute, trite... and inaccurate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:No, I have a better one to illustrate you, on this board.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
How about NOT torpedoing her? yanno, telling google et al not to put a thumb on the scale, including her in debates, giving her more than 1% of debate time, etc? Evening the playing field instead of giving her an uphill battle? I understand that - as propagandized as Dems are these days- that Gabbard isn't everyone's cup of tea. But like all candidates, she deserves an even chance to get her ideas "out there" instead of being squashed, literally, by the M$M and tech giants AND the DNC. (Not that they have CIA and military contracts to worry about or, anything...)


Yanno, you should wonder why it is that the Dems failed in 2016. Maybe they should have run a more viable candidate, instead of themselves putting such a heavy thumb on the scale that a loser like Hillary would become the standard-bearer.

---

Quote:

---

SIGNY: How about NOT torpedoing her? yanno, telling google et al not to put a thumb on the scale, including her in debates, giving her more than 1% of debate time, etc? Evening the playing field instead of giving her an uphill battle? I understand that - as propagandized as Dems are these days- that Gabbard isn't everyone's cup of tea. But like all candidates, she deserves an even chance to get her ideas "out there" instead of being squashed, literally, by the M$M and tech giants AND the DNC. (Not that they have CIA and military contracts to worry about or, anything...)


Yanno, you should wonder why it is that the Dems failed in 2016. Maybe they should have run a more viable candidate, instead of themselves putting such a heavy thumb on the scale that a loser like Hillary would become the standard-bearer.


CC: But why her? Why not any of the others that aren't in the top 4?

---

Quote:

---

But like all candidates, she deserves an even chance to get her ideas "out there" instead of being squashed

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

SIGNY: How about NOT torpedoing her? yanno, telling google et al not to put a thumb on the scale, including her in debates, giving her more than 1% of debate time, etc? Evening the playing field instead of giving her an uphill battle? I understand that - as propagandized as Dems are these days- that Gabbard isn't everyone's cup of tea. But like all candidates, she deserves an even chance to get her ideas "out there" instead of being squashed, literally, by the M$M and tech giants AND the DNC. (Not that they have CIA and military contracts to worry about or, anything...)


Yanno, you should wonder why it is that the Dems failed in 2016. Maybe they should have run a more viable candidate, instead of themselves putting such a heavy thumb on the scale that a loser like Hillary would become the standard-bearer.


CC: But why her? Why not any of the others that aren't in the top 4?

---

Maybe if I repeat myself, you'll "get it" this time ...

Quote:

---

But like all candidates, she deserves an even chance to get her ideas "out there" instead of being squashed

---

I don't have any indications that Klobuchar or Yang or Harris or any of them are being deliberately squashed. I DO have evidence that Gabbard was being squashed. (Feel free to look it up, just don't use Google since Google suspended Gabbard's ad campaign and Gabbard has filed a lawsuit against them.)

https://medium.com/citizensource/new-data-media-ignoring-tulsi-gabbard
-and-mike-gravel-2020-campaigns-bfc4787aca59
https://mauiindependent.org/the-ramped-up-smear-campaign-against-hawai
is-congresswoman-tulsi-gabbard/
https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/25/8930373/google-tulsi-gabbard-democr
atic-candidate-lawsuit-ad-search-ban-political-bias-debates

The media and tech giants are anything but objective. They have run giant smear campaigns, just look at the RUSSIAN COLLUSION! campaign in which they ran "stories" that they knew were false. I mean, I can point to any number of instances where the media and tech giants landed, hard, on the wrong side of truth including the Covington student incident.

The tech giants should stop controlling content, OR they should be counted as PUBLISHERS (not platforms) with all of the attached liabilities (like, among other things, being sued for defamation)

The M$M should step up and provide equal access to campaigners ... it's in their broadcast license, for god's sake. They got the bandwidth because it serves the public good. So the FCC should make them serve the public good. (among other things, a level access to "the media" would eliminate SOME of the importance of campaign contributions and reduce the role of money in elections since most of that money goes to buying advertising time)

You can't argue that any of the platforms/broadcasters have ever been responsible news outlets - in fact, you've often argued the opposite, that they're all money-driven.

In any case, I don't have any indication that other candidates are being squashed, but if they were, I wouldn't be surprised. They shouldn't be. Media needs to be more truthful and less biased, as should the DNC.

---