Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party
|
Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party
|
10-11-2022, 06:12 PM
(10-11-2022, 05:40 PM)Dill Wrote: Today on Kilmeade (a Fox radio talk show) a Republican caller complained that NYC Dems are putting up "illegals" in hotels while they let Vets go homeless on the streets! If im elected president I'll bus all the homeless vets to red states and bus all the immigrants to blue states. ![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png) 
10-11-2022, 09:04 PM
(10-11-2022, 03:56 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Her name's already out there. She was a candidate for President. The masses, aha. Well last time I checked, the masses of US citizens are divided between the left and the conservative side, pretty equally. Trump won an election in 2016. What was that, a majority standing up to the masses? I don't really get it. You can make your bed on either side with basically equal support, there's no David or Goliath here, no matter how much conservatives want to paint themselves as David fighting a juggernaut. And that she has no principles, well she switched parties overnight. How strong must her liberal principles have been if she can just change to the party of blind Trump loyalty instead. Of course her statement reads like a best of FOX and Breitbart headlines and is just shamelessly pandering to conservatives. Not even trying to be anything less than a mouthpiece for common places. You really think a person with principles and convictions could just so say she's suddenly with those she fought her whole political life? In these times of extreme division? Nah, most certainly not. She just realized she will never become a big shot on the blue team, so she tries for the read team now. Saying all the things you like, things that I could have written for her in five minutes. Hostile to people of faith and spirituality, when I hear that hollow stupid line alone, I could puke. 
10-11-2022, 09:49 PM
She’s too good lookin’ to be a lib politician anyway.
10-12-2022, 01:35 AM
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
10-12-2022, 11:09 AM
(10-11-2022, 09:49 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: She’s too good lookin’ to be a lib politician anyway. Heeyyyyyy gooood loookin What kinda culture war have ya got cookin? How's about cookin up some conspiracies with me? Side note, has Andrew Cuomo seen the light and switched over to the GOP yet? Dude got canceled by big tech and the liberal media for just being an old school alpha male. 
10-12-2022, 12:20 PM
(10-11-2022, 06:12 PM)Nately120 Wrote: If im elected president I'll bus all the homeless vets to red states and bus all the immigrants to blue states. Wish someone would suggest this, non seriously, in the national media. Promise white homeless vets jobs in Texas and Florida, then drop them off at the governors' mansions claiming they "signed a paper" and went willingly. Just calling attention to the problem. . . . More people might be able better able to guess why it is wrong to do that to brown asylum seekers.
10-12-2022, 12:32 PM
(10-12-2022, 12:20 PM)Dill Wrote: Wish someone would suggest this, non seriously, in the national media. There are more homeless vets in Florida and Texas than in NY, so the idea that red states roll out the red carpets for veterans and make sure they have jobs and healthcare and other stuff that falls under "Why should I pay for someone else to be lazy?" is more political blathering that allows us to spend more time arguing and assuming one side is as fault than actually fixing things. As other have pointed out, being "pro troops" can apparently coincide with cutting or denying benefits for veterans much like being "pro freedom" can coincide with making all sorts of stuff illegal. Bah. Back to the initial point, switching sides is pretty common I guess. You have the three republican gods of Lincoln, Reagan, and Trump being either completely misconstrued (Lincoln) by the GOP or blue state democrats who switched to the GOP to push talking points about religion and freedom while enriching themselves and their elite circles. Currently off the top of my head there are two governor races where you have a republican incumbent against a republican turned democrat in Oklahoma and Florida, too. 
10-13-2022, 05:21 PM
(10-11-2022, 09:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: The masses, aha. Well last time I checked, the masses of US citizens are divided between the left and the conservative side, pretty equally. Trump won an election in 2016. What was that, a majority standing up to the masses? I don't really get it. You can make your bed on either side with basically equal support, there's no David or Goliath here, no matter how much conservatives want to paint themselves as David fighting a juggernaut. It's easy when someone is switching from the Democratic Party to Republican Party because the Republican Party is one of common sense, decency, and truth. The Dems cater to the masses and any idea, no matter how crazy it is. She probably just realized that she was buying into all the lies that she was being fed by the rest of the Democratic Party. 
10-13-2022, 05:27 PM
Decency and truth. Thanks for the laugh.
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 
10-13-2022, 06:16 PM
I get disagreeing with her politics, but I really don't understand the vitriol she generates from people. She's intelligent and articulate. She's not a raving nutjob like MGT or AOC. She's also consistent, which is a rarity in today's political world. Hell, she should be given a modicum of respect just for tearing Kamala Harris's phony ass a new one during the presidential debates.
10-13-2022, 06:34 PM
(10-13-2022, 06:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get disagreeing with her politics, but I really don't understand the vitriol she generates from people. She's intelligent and articulate. She's not a raving nutjob like MGT or AOC. She's also consistent, which is a rarity in today's political world. I think she is intelligent and articulate. But consistent is just a weird word for someone changing from team Trump is the worst to team Trump is a genius. As much as I hate it that it's about him, it is. As GOP member, defending him on every turn is just as adamant as was attacking him on every turn for every democrat. But even aside of him, these parties are so hostile towards each other these days, and such polar opposites in so many respects. I can't help myself. When I hear her say Democrats are so hostile towards people of faith and spirituality, one of the most hollow talking points ever made up against them, I do not believe her to be genuine. Not that the other phrases were all that more convincing, as I said it's a best of from FOX show headliners and I could have come up with these points in a second. Fur sure I cannot look inside her head, but I deem it way more likely than not that she's leaving team blue not because of any principle or conviction, but because her ambitions are capped there and selling herself saying all the right things might come easier to her on the other team. Especially with the very popular "I fled the horrible and woke-infested Democrats" storyline going for her. Also, equating MTG to AOC in regard to their nutjobbyness? I mean, I get the latter is a bit of a weirdo at times, but MTG might be legitimately crazy. 
10-13-2022, 07:46 PM
(10-13-2022, 06:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: Also, equating MTG to AOC in regard to their nutjobbyness? I mean, I get the latter is a bit of a weirdo at times, but MTG might be legitimately crazy. You have to understand, Hollo, the average American thinks that AOC is like radical left-wing rather than the center-left she would be in most of the rest of the world.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR 
10-13-2022, 08:47 PM
(10-13-2022, 06:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: I think she is intelligent and articulate. But consistent is just a weird word for someone changing from team Trump is the worst to team Trump is a genius. As much as I hate it that it's about him, it is. As GOP member, defending him on every turn is just as adamant as was attacking him on every turn for every democrat. But even aside of him, these parties are so hostile towards each other these days, and such polar opposites in so many respects. I can't help myself. When I hear her say Democrats are so hostile towards people of faith and spirituality, one of the most hollow talking points ever made up against them, I do not believe her to be genuine. Not that the other phrases were all that more convincing, as I said it's a best of from FOX show headliners and I could have come up with these points in a second. I really don't see her as a Trump apologist. I do see her as someone who can admit that Trump had some good points in some areas. Recall his warning Germany about being dependent on Russia for energy and also warning about the dangers of Russian aggression. I really do not see her as an opportunist and she certainly comes off as more genuine than the vast majority of politicians. Quote:Fur sure I cannot look inside her head, but I deem it way more likely than not that she's leaving team blue not because of any principle or conviction, but because her ambitions are capped there and selling herself saying all the right things might come easier to her on the other team. Especially with the very popular "I fled the horrible and woke-infested Democrats" storyline going for her. I am again handicapped by really only having direct exposure to the most far left people the Dems have to offer. As Bel and I have discussed I'd probably be much more inline with Dems from more moderate states such as Virginia. But my experience with the Democratic party the past six to eight years has been abysmal. They trip over each other to be the most progressive and cater to the worst elements of the left. Hawaii is definitely in that category, so it's very likely Gabbard suffers from the same perceptions that I do. Quote:Also, equating MTG to AOC in regard to their nutjobbyness? I mean, I get the latter is a bit of a weirdo at times, but MTG might be legitimately crazy. Yeah, AOC is much more subtle about it, but she's no less a radical. They're both profoundly unintelligent and beholden to ideological talking points. A rational counterpoint is not something either is prepared to tolerate. (10-13-2022, 07:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You have to understand, Hollo, the average American thinks that AOC is like radical left-wing rather than the center-left she would be in most of the rest of the world. Eh, she lost any credibility she could have had with me with the "green new deal" bullet point that we will provide for those unable or "unwilling" to work. Plus I have no tolerance for the people who have damaged the criminal justice system and law enforcement to the point that the effects will be felt for decades. She's hardly alone in this, her whole "squad" (dumbest nickname ever) bears the same burden.
10-13-2022, 11:08 PM
I mean Tulsi was OBVIOUSLY right leaning even as a Democrat. When she lost she said eff it and started telling ppl how she really felt.
She should’ve raked Kamala over the coals at that debate and somehow messed that up. ThTs when i knew she wasn’t cut out for it. You gotta be savage in a debate. Ironically Kamala was most savage and ended up working with Biden
-Housh
 
10-15-2022, 05:54 PM
(10-15-2022, 05:11 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: Good. The problem if Manchin leaves the party is that WV is NEVER going to elect a Democrat to replace him. At least right now he votes for Democratic leadership, judges, and cabinet officials and appointees. The goal is to pick up seats to negate his Republican tendencies. Manchin hasn't changed his voting pattern this session, it simply stands out because he stands alone or with Sinema. I have far more respect for him than I do her. Sinema flat-out lied to her constituents about how she would vote once elected. She does need to go. Ruben Gallego is going to primary her in 2024 and he has a real chance of becoming the first person of Hispanic descent to be elected to the Senate from Arizona. Fueled by the pursuit of greatness.
10-17-2022, 02:12 AM
If she was never in the party to begin with, can she really leave? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it... lol
I remember during the Dem debates she was just parroting Putin's lines. I kinda work in that sector so they're easy to spot. It seemed like her #1 priority. Then at the beginning of the Ukraine war, she posted a video urging Putin to stop the bombings/invasion: "Alright you've made your point! You're going too far now!" kinda thing. I was like, wtf is going on here?! Obviously her denials are disingenuous. Why does she think he's listening to her?! It must be because he is! I assume she finally recognized that she had been pawned to start a war. My only questions revolve around the logistics of it. How are those relationships born? Who contacts whom? To what end? Are there always people in government (or in her case, formerly in but still around government) who act as mouthpieces for Russia/China, and vice versa (i.e., that we do the same thing out there)? Are both parties doing it? I imagine the answer to the last few questions is YES, if for no other reason than that they don't call each other out for it. Like it's an accepted- albeit unfortunate- reality of our system. Heck, nobody called Tulsi out for it at the debates and it would have been the easiest place to do it. Maybe they didn't want the headache. Maybe they knew she stood no chance and it would have been a waste of time. But I wish someone like Buttigieg or Inslee had just cut her off, "Enough already, Vladimir Gabbard! We have enough problems here without having to worry about your propaganda too!" Ah well, maybe next time. Lol
10-17-2022, 12:15 PM
(10-11-2022, 09:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: These are definitely words...not sure they form a coherent thought though. I mean she said woke twice. The responses to Gabbard's "awakening" got me thinking--how does one decide whether politicians are "intelligent and articulate" or not? Are there standards beyond "agree with me = intelligent" and "disagrees with me = unintelligent"? E.g., I think McConnell is very intelligent, though I hate the guy. Why, if he disagrees with me? Because understands the workings of law and government so well that he is often a step or two ahead of his opponents. He walks the edge of legality, understanding just how far he can go, and the degree to which his own party will fall in line, or at least before Jan. 6 he could do that well. I view him with equal parts fear and respect. Another standard is how well a politician can articulate complex policy positions. The baseline here is the ability to deliver a focused policy speech with a recognizable intro, body, and conclusion, in which the beginning elements illuminate or set the basis for what is to come. Politicians go beyond that when they can deep dive into stats and policy history. Clinton and Obama were like that. This quality shows up especially in interviews. Trump was not able to do that. His speeches wove free-associative connections between hated people and events--Chinese with COVID, Dems with brown refugees, Hillary with "crookedness" and greed and mishandling of emails. They began with stereotypes and ended with soundbites. Perhaps there is something "intelligent" in being able to play one's audience like an organ with negative stereotypes. But still, the guy seriously suggested that cleaning agents and ultraviolet life could be fruitful lines of COVID research, since we know they kill the virus on open surfaces. Is there a Dem I think "unintelligent"? Gabbard would have been my example, had she stuck with the party. So far as I know, she has never done more than offer sound bit opinions, which people cheer or boo. The quote above sounds like a summary of any Hannity show. LOL "weaponize the national security state to go after opponents"! What does that claim mean if you embrace the party of coup, whose de facto leader wanted to order the seizure of ballot machines, and sought to replace people in the DOJ and DOD with "his people"? I know what Hannity et al. mean when they speak of "weaponizing the state against opponents"--they don't want Trump investigated. Were anyone to press her for answers, I don't think should could offer examples that float outside the RWNM. So I would add "judgment" as a criterion, meaning, among other things, the ability to correctly recognize and prioritize problems/threats from among the multitude of issues that crowd the national agenda, and to posit responses with some chances of successfully managing them. McConnell does that VERY well, though for the wrong side. Finally, outside of intelligence I like "character" criteria. One would concern 180 degree turns of the sort we commonly see now in one party, e.g. the sudden shift from pro-choice to pro-life. Or the sudden support of Trump on the part of his primary opponents, once he had won the election. Hard not to look like one is just interested in keeping power, when one does that.
10-17-2022, 12:54 PM
(10-17-2022, 12:15 PM)Dill Wrote: Is there a Dem I think "unintelligent"? Gabbard would have been my example, had she stuck with the party. Finding Gabbard to be not only unintelligent, but the most unintelligent national Democrat casts serious doubts as to your own intelligence. Anyone whose heard Cori Bush and Gabbard speak and could come to the conclusion you have has serious partisanship clouding what passes for their judgment. Again, I can understand not agreeing with her positions, but she's unintelligent? 
10-17-2022, 02:23 PM
(10-17-2022, 12:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Finding Gabbard to be not only unintelligent, but the most unintelligent national Democrat casts serious doubts as to your own intelligence. Anyone whose heard Cori Bush and Gabbard speak and could come to the conclusion you have has serious partisanship clouding what passes for their judgment. Perhaps "unintelligent" was too strong a term. I'm sure she is at least average, did her job in the military. I found her the least impressive during the primary debates, and her interviews with Carlson after that did not improve my sense of her judgment. And I don't recall ever hearing Cori Bush speak, but there could very well be Democrats I'd consider less intelligent if I heard them. If you want to make your point effective, then you could 1) disagree with the criteria that I have put forth, and post other independent standards to show she meets them. 2) or explain how she fits the standards I have put forth--e.g., knowledge of policy/law, and judgment. e.g., where is the good judgment in joining the party currently weaponizing the state against opponents, on grounds the party holding their leaders responsible is actually weaponizing the state for political purposes? If there is "partisanship" in my judgement, you should be able to specify it, not just SAY it's there because I disagree with yours. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
![[Image: 7LNf.gif]](https://i.gifer.com/7LNf.gif)
