Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party

[BengalYankee]

(10-11-2022, 09:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: Not that she was really much of a Democrat to begin with, but when she runs as DeSantis' VP choice maybe she'll have better words and thought.  

[GMDino]

(11-10-2022, 04:52 PM)BengalYankee Wrote:

Yeah?  

Our rights, including freedom of religion, are given to us by God—not by any man, woman or govt. As such, no one has the authority to infringe upon these rights. ACLU no longer stands up for our rights; ACLJ does. Join conversation with @JaySekulow: https://t.co/01s8Hi07Ls pic.twitter.com/6iPU2a2QQq

— Tulsi Gabbard ? (@TulsiGabbard) November 10, 2022

 


But anyway that was before the "woke" democrats "forced" her to endorse all Republicans.  I guess when she's DeSantis' VP running mate we'll see how she stands.

[Dill]

(11-08-2022, 10:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: But here's what you most certainly do, for starters. You engage. And I don't get that. If I come across someone I consider a particularly unpleasant fellow, I will cut down on my interactions or stop them eventually. You, however, grinded your teeth into one another, pages over pages in threads over threads. And sure, I noticed things that could make you legitimately angry, but I could quite often also understand what made SSF or maybe also others angry. And no you don't call people racists, I know, but you might equate something they say to something someone said in defense of racism, or things like that. And I know you don't want to be condescending, but people tend to get that impression when you put their words in quotes and then try to pick them apart. But actually, I have no intention of presenting you my insignificant thoughts on your conduct. You're a nice person and a fine poster and most certainly don't represent the worst of the liberal side.

So. My explanation.

I’ve long been interested in how rational discourse is defined and limited by social conditions. E.g., the essentials of our current models thereof were elaborated 2400 years ago in the chaos of Greek democracy, where the legitimation of political authority depended on forging a way between arguments based on force and (flipside of the same coin) on claims that “it’s all opinion.”
 
Our (U.S. and Austrian) modern protocols for separating truth from falsehood across a range of institutions are a product of the empirical, secular turn which stabilized the multiple crises of religious and political authority affecting 17th century Europe. Those protocols were on display in Nov. 2020, when Trumpists brought 62 suits against state elections, only to have 61 dismissed outright by both conservative and liberal judges, given their foundation in hearsay and innuendo.
 
A triumph of civilization, sure. But I’d feel more secure in that if there weren’t still 50+ million Trump voters who ignore massive counter-evidence to hold fast to the word of their charismatic leader, who says "his" election was stolen and inclines them to anti-democratic politics.
 
They exist as a mass political power now because our current institutions, like those of Athens and 17th century Europe, are undergoing a crisis of authority.  Irrational critique is directed at the government, science, free press, and universities to produce the kind of social and political instability in which demagoguery can thrive. The cutting edge of this irrational critique is the Cohn-Hannity-Trump style of controlling the ground of political debate through aggressive misconstruction of opponents’ arguments and motives—accuse them first of what you are doing, fog, gaslight, and false equivalence. “Silver wit” is good shorthand for this. When they get political power, we have learned, there are no moderators to delete their statements or ban/impeach them for bad behavior. One can’t simply “disengage” then.
 
It's through the above lens that I view our spats in this little forum, a small part of that larger crisis. In the smack forum if someone calls me a “stupid liar” for saying the Steelers will take an OL in the first draft round, I might indeed disengage. Certainly I’m not going to throw up a lot of data and draft history to support my point for post after post.  But in this forum if someone calls climate change a “hoax” or insists that CRT teaches racism, or that Tulsi has good judgment, I don’t decide that he cannot be reasoned with. I’ll raise questions and offer counterpoint to the required depth and remain open to counter evidence.
 
If someone turns to “silver wit,” that’s a different tack. This is not the only venue in which I engage politics, and I need practice managing debate terrain with people who break the rules in the most disconcerting ways. I’m getting better at it through practice. Notice that the longest and most "grinding" exchanges between me and our friend are about standards or rational discourse, what they should  be, whether even needed. 

Anyway, that's why I engage. 

[Dill]

(11-08-2022, 10:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: But have you ever wondered why I (and Bels, though that guy actually knows stuff, so this is a bit different) got along with SSF so much better? We both sure did not pander to him, I disagreed with him almost as often as you did and sure did not hide that. And yet there were no harsh words. I'd assume the reason was that I did not try to prove him wrong, I tried to explain why I saw things differently. We didn't make it personal. But when people (not you) jump to clever retorts like pointing out how a policeman can have no moral compass or how he is a coveted Trump fan or doesn't care about racists or things of that kind, I can understand why his feelings towards liberals are getting worse. And at times I even understand how not saying anything about any of that gave an impression of complicity, aka I don't attack my fellow liberal no matter what.

Not really, though he as asked me the same question.  I seem to have a better memory.

He respects you two and wants to keep your good will. Bels is a fellow 2A advocate.
But have either of you engaged him on the really risky issues? I think you came close with the post on "balance." 

The main difference here is that if you think I implied you made a Hitler comparison, you don't blow up the dialogue. The misunderstanding is cleared up quickly and we move on. It doesn't become a false card to be played against me on future threads. All dialogue about politics is going to involve misunderstanding and misconstruction. You and I work, in good faith, to make sure we understand what the other is saying. That remains, even if I try to "prove you wrong."  

That said, I grant that your rhetorical skills are much more nuanced and your "emotional intelligence" better than mine. You negotiate the pitfalls of these discussions with more skill than anyone here. I quite agree with SSF that I have something to learn from you on that score, though at the risk of sounding combative, I'm not the only one who could.
 
As to the last bolded, several times I have come to a thread after a great dust up involving him and some unnamed person, not me.
The posts are deleted and no one tells me what really happened. Once after such an event, he called me a "hypocrite" for not defending him, skeptical I hadn't witnessed it. You must be alluding to something like that. 

So . . .  onward to new themes: will the two-party system shoehorn Gabbard into the Republican party now, perhaps in the newly forming "DeSanctimonius" branch of it, partially shed of Trump's personal baggage, but not Trumpism?

[Dill]

(11-10-2022, 04:52 PM)BengalYankee Wrote:

Genuine question, don't get mad--

Have you seen her argue any of those points on Tucker? 

I honestly don't know the answer and don't want to look up all her
appearances. I figured you might know, though.

[BengalYankee]

(11-10-2022, 09:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah?  

Our rights, including freedom of religion, are given to us by God—not by any man, woman or govt. As such, no one has the authority to infringe upon these rights. ACLU no longer stands up for our rights; ACLJ does. Join conversation with @JaySekulow: https://t.co/01s8Hi07Ls pic.twitter.com/6iPU2a2QQq

— Tulsi Gabbard ? (@TulsiGabbard) November 10, 2022

 


But anyway that was before the "woke" democrats "forced" her to endorse all Republicans.  I guess when she's DeSantis' VP running mate we'll see how she stands.

When she goes 180 degrees with her policies reach out to me.

I see nothing wrong with her with the audio clip you provided. Et tu???

[BengalYankee]

(11-11-2022, 09:37 PM)Dill Wrote: Genuine question, don't get mad--

Have you seen her argue any of those points on Tucker? 

I honestly don't know the answer and don't want to look up all her
appearances. I figured you might know, though.

[Dill]

(11-12-2022, 01:40 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: When she goes 180 degrees with her policies reach out to me.

I see nothing wrong with her with the audio clip you provided. Et tu???

What do you think she means by "God"?

[GMDino]

(11-12-2022, 01:40 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: When she goes 180 degrees with her policies reach out to me.

I see nothing wrong with her with the audio clip you provided. Et tu???

Someone will have to ask her if she still wants to ban assault weapons I guess.

Most gun-related crimes are committed by criminals using stolen guns, so taking guns away from law-abiding Americans is useless/counterproductive. Rather, we must enforce existing gun laws and get repeat criminals off our streets with stiff penalties for crimes involving guns

— Tulsi Gabbard ? (@TulsiGabbard) November 13, 2022

 

[Dill]

(11-13-2022, 12:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: Someone will have to ask her if she still wants to ban assault weapons I guess.

Maybe that is the way to slowly blend into the Trump party.

Don't reference past positions, just affirm the right's current policies and arguments,

with a casual tweet every week or two.  

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-12-2022, 01:35 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Oh so she broke this news on the debut of her new podcast.

Another talking head competing for your precious clicks and views. She ain’t no dummy. All those Fox News appearances will pay off in no time.

Right wing darling in 3..2..1

Damn good post Nati you must be a genius.

Tulsi to Fox News. 

https://www.yahoo.com/now/ex-democrat-tulsi-gabbard-signs-051447728.html

[Dill]

(11-15-2022, 03:28 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Damn good post Nati you must be a genius.

Tulsi to Fox News. 

https://www.yahoo.com/now/ex-democrat-tulsi-gabbard-signs-051447728.html

She has grouped herself with the election deniers, who mostly lost last Tuesday. Kari fell yesterday, finally (though she has not conceded). 

And Fox seems to be downplaying, if not turning against Trump--even Ingraham now touts "Trumpism" without Trump.

So it will be interesting to see how she maneuvers in this division between

the hard core election-denying Trumpers and the DeSantis pragmatists.

Which "flow" will Ms. Integrity go with now? 

[*Nately120*]

(11-15-2022, 01:01 PM)Dill Wrote: She has grouped herself with the election deniers, who mostly lost last Tuesday. Kari fell yesterday, finally (though she has not conceded). 

And Fox seems to be downplaying, if not turning against Trump--even Ingraham now touts "Trumpism" without Trump.

So it will be interesting to see how she maneuvers in this division between

the hard core election-denying Trumpers and the DeSantis pragmatists.

Which "flow" will Ms. Integrity go with now? 

Yeah, the new candidates who were election deniers got shellacked.  It's not a position you can start a political career on, it seems.

Side note, I keep getting ads on this page that ask if I'm going to vote for Trump a 3rd time.  Stupid internet, I'm only looking up Kari Lake to see how terribly she's going to handle this loss.

[Dill]

(11-15-2022, 01:07 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Yeah, the new candidates who were election deniers got shellacked.  It's not a position you can start a political career on, it seems.

Side note, I keep getting ads on this page that ask if I'm going to vote for Trump a 3rd time.  Stupid internet, I'm only looking up Kari Lake to see how terribly she's going to handle this loss.

Reply immediately--"YES I WILL VOTE FOR TRUMP!"

Give them hope. Get Trump in the GOP primary with 20-30% hard-liners behind him.

[*Nately120*]

(11-15-2022, 05:30 PM)Dill Wrote: Reply immediately--"YES I WILL VOTE FOR TRUMP!"

Give them hope. Get Trump in the GOP primary with 20-30% hard-liners behind him.

Well, I haven't voted for him yet, but sure in 2024 I'll vote for him a 3rd time.  I may as well, lord know the libs are cheating too, right?

[GMDino]

(11-15-2022, 01:01 PM)Dill Wrote: She has grouped herself with the election deniers, who mostly lost last Tuesday. Kari fell yesterday, finally (though she has not conceded). 

And Fox seems to be downplaying, if not turning against Trump--even Ingraham now touts "Trumpism" without Trump.

So it will be interesting to see how she maneuvers in this division between

the hard core election-denying Trumpers and the DeSantis pragmatists.

Which "flow" will Ms. Integrity go with now? 

Was election denying part of her Democrat ideals or did do a 180 on that?