Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party

[GMDino]

(10-20-2022, 04:24 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Reading that link like...

A broken clock is right twice a day. 

But in all seriousness the article is about how DJT was exaggerating (again) and wrong (again).

Quote:Trump is exaggerating Germany’s reliance on Russia for energy
PUBLISHED FRI, JUL 13 20183:02 PM EDTUPDATED FRI, JUL 13 20184:41 PM EDT
Tom DiChristopher@TDICHRISTOPHER
SHAREShare Article via FacebookShare Article via TwitterShare Article via LinkedInShare Article via Email


KEY POINTS

• President Donald Trump claimed Germany could soon rely on Russia for up to 70 percent of its energy.
• While Germany gets about half of its natural gas from Russia, the claim is highly misleading.
• Natural gas is a significant fuel source in Germany, but it only accounts for about 20 percent of Germany’s energy supply and consumption.
  

And, if we're being fair, he only was talking about it because he was criticizing (again) a NATO ally.

Plus Trump wanted Europe to buy more US natural gas.  Not a bad thing, but not exactly him looking out for Germany's future either.  He was just being the salesman he always is.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-19-2022, 07:18 PM)hollodero Wrote: Thanks. I'll be fine. I'd say most people here see the situation as bad, but not quite as catastrophic as some outside observers make it out to be. For sure, heating is going to be expensive, many people like me will have to restrict themselves on many fronts, but most of our countries are still rich and can afford financial support for most people that are in danger of freezing. Not for all of them, apparently, there will be suffering and there's no making light of that. But there might be a positive within the negative as well, at least for us in the west. The long overdue switch to renewables is accelerated greatly, and the end of these Nordstream pipelines and our dependence on Russian gas actually is to be welcomed. I think in the long run we sure need to be concerned, but not overly afraid.

I understand your concern about your friends, but I'd be cautiously optimistic they will get by. Maybe not while in party mode, but still.

I hope it goes as well, if that's the right word, as you believe it will.

Quote:On that I have a different perception. All the witnesses in the impeachment hearing, namely ambassador Taylor, Gordon Sundland and a Mr. Holmes (maybe I forgot some), testified as much. That the already approved military aid was dependent on Ukraine announcing investigations into Biden. That was officially known (everyone was in the loop, said Sundland) and the one known condition, not a secret motive.

The reason stated at the time, not what came out later.

Quote:I can understand why questions about corruption take a backseat given the current situation. Why would anyone slam Selenski with Ukraine's corrupt past right now? I'd say there's a bigger fish to fry currently and going after Selenski about that right now would look quite weird.
Selenski himself might be corrupt or not, but right now that really is of no concern, I'm with the left on that one. And fascism was an issue right after the ill-advised Klitschko revolution, but that was just a certain period of time. Selenski and his staff are distinctly not fascists.

Take a back seat, absolutely.  But, flushed down the memory hole like it never happened?  Also, if you even dare bring it up you're a Putin apologist.  

Quote:It is not. Raising doubts whether Assad really ever used chemical agents, however, is dubious. At one point she seemed to support him staying in power. Well, imho a weird position.

Well, it was absolutely her stated reason.  Also, wanting him to stay in power can be just as simple as not wanting to introduce more instability into a region that is already extremely volatile.  Look what happened after the second Iraq war.  There is definitely an argument to be made that it would have been better to keep Saddam in power.  

Quote:I also have to say that I personally get very angry at folks that blame NATO, the west and Biden's warmongering for the war in Ukraine. Or imply that the US is running secret biolabs in Ukraine, things that Russia TV gladly picks up. Same thing goes for her claiming the restrictions of free speech in Russia are not so different from those in the US. She also called Adam Schiff a "domestic enemy" of the US, which just takes it a thousand steps too far for me, especially when adding that him and Brennan are a bigger threat than the Jan 6 insurrectionists. Oh and she claimed that the Mar-a-Lago search warrant has the hallmarks of dictatorship.

No, Putin shoulders all the blame for this aggression, and the annexation of the Crimea before that.  But US policy definitely contributed heavily to creating the situation that allowed Putin to both thrive and take those actions.  I've said it here numerous times, post cold war policy towards Russia was an utter failure.  We had a once in a century chance to turn a former foe into a fast friend without major bloodshed.  Instead we treated them like a vanquished foe barely worthy of consideration.  Even something as simple as renaming NATO so the alliance wasn't connected to an anti-Russia past would have been helpful.

Quote:But hey, you apparently like her and I'm not inclined to convince you otherwise. It's just difficult to make this an objectifiable appreciation. Eg. I for one don't think Gabbard single-handedly sunk Harris' campaign that possibly started on the bottom of the ocean to begin with. I saw the clip of her takedown and don't really see the brilliance, but sure I don't need to.

I like some of her points/positions.  You're never going to find a politician that you agree with completely.  I do find some of her positions and statements objectionable.  But I am impressed with her willingness to have her own opinion, regardless of how unpopular it was/is with the Dems.  We are constantly lamenting people putting the needs of the party over that of the country.  Well, she is a prime example of rejecting that idea.

Quote:I guess one can see it that way. And yeah the proposal you linked is radical, not just by US standards, but I did not really see AOC coming up there? As far as I know she's not a member of the socialist party. She's affiliated with the democratic socialists, which might be radical enough for you, but I can't quite connect her to the pamphlet you linked.

Yes, forgive the error, you dirty socialists all look alike to me.   

The democratic socialists also advocate for seizing the means of production, so while they may not be as radical as the group I erroneously used they still fit the bill for making my point.

[Dill]

(10-20-2022, 04:24 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Reading that link like...

Um ssf’s link claims trump was misrepresenting, exaggerating, a point about German energy that people have already been making for years. Right?

So not especially strong evidence he was the guy to stand up to the dictator whose word he took over his own intel services, whose invasion of Ukraine trump termed “genius”.

Why even go there, unless there is some need to salvage trump’s rep, even if only to check the libs?

Trump tried to disrupt aid to an ally and Putin opponent for trump’s partisan purposes—but people “forget” he said that one thing everyone was saying, when pushing Germany to pay up. I’ll take this as more evidence he was tough on Germany, but not that he was the guy to face down the “genius”.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-20-2022, 01:28 PM)Dill Wrote: Um ssf’s link claims trump was misrepresenting, exaggerating, a point about German energy that people have already been making for years. Right?

Except current events are proving Trump correct and the article's assertion incorrect.  But we get it, you literally cannot concede a point, ever.

In this thread Professor Dill explains how when Trump warned about being reliant on Russian energy he wasn't warning countries about being reliant on Russian energy.  Don't ever wonder why shows like Tucker Carlson and Joy Reid exist, there are numerous people who literally cannot stand to here anything that shakes their world view.  

[hollodero]

(10-20-2022, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I hope it goes as well, if that's the right word, as you believe it will.

Not the right word :) I'd prefer "survivable", which I think it is.
I'm also fairly certain this will not bring Europe down in the long run. We endured worse. Like two world wars and the Eurovision song contest.

(10-20-2022, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The reason stated at the time, not what came out later.

OK sure. I don't believe for a second that the Donald himself had any concerns about any of that, but some in his admin might have. I just don't feel like giving him credit for pointing to Ukraine corruption when his motives imho quite clearly were totally different ones.

(10-20-2022, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Take a back seat, absolutely.  But, flushed down the memory hole like it never happened?  Also, if you even dare bring it up you're a Putin apologist.  

I don't know what that means, flushing down the memory hole. It's something I don't want addressed right now. It's a gift to Russian propaganda to talk about Ukraine's fascist or corrupt past, it could weaken Selenski's position and I deem it un-smart to do so as a western politician at this moment in time.

(10-20-2022, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, it was absolutely her stated reason.  Also, wanting him to stay in power can be just as simple as not wanting to introduce more instability into a region that is already extremely volatile.  Look what happened after the second Iraq war.  There is definitely an argument to be made that it would have been better to keep Saddam in power.  

It sure would have been better not to attack Iraq and force regime change in this manner. As for keeping him in power, I guess hardly anyone at that time would come out publicly and endorse Saddam's reign.
I just imagine a Democrat in the late '90s saying that Saddam brings stability to the region or anything of that sorts and hence it's good that he remains as Iraq's dictator. I would have had something to say about that and I'd guess you would have too.

(10-20-2022, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, Putin shoulders all the blame for this aggression, and the annexation of the Crimea before that.  But US policy definitely contributed heavily to creating the situation that allowed Putin to both thrive and take those actions.  I've said it here numerous times, post cold war policy towards Russia was an utter failure.  We had a once in a century chance to turn a former foe into a fast friend without major bloodshed.  Instead we treated them like a vanquished foe barely worthy of consideration.  Even something as simple as renaming NATO so the alliance wasn't connected to an anti-Russia past would have been helpful.

There might be truth to that, but then again, I'm not so sure really. I don't think Putin is a product of western policies towards Russia. And I also don't think Putin would be a different sort of leader if we had accomodated him more - renaming NATO or anything. And me not believing any of these two things inevitably leads me to the conclusion that this invasion, or all the other heineous Putin deeds, probably would have happened anyway.
I mean, in a way we did try to come their way. For one, we bought their oil and gas, even though that is a tricky point to make right now for sure. But most saw it as mutually beneficial, also an economic help for Russia of sorts, sadly just filling oligarch's pockets. We gave them soccer championships and olympic games, made them part of the G-7, but in the end we got fooled. I think we would have gotten fooled anyway, it takes two to turn foes into friends and I don't think Russia ever was there. Us trying might just have been naive.

(10-20-2022, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I like some of her points/positions.  You're never going to find a politician that you agree with completely.  I do find some of her positions and statements objectionable.  But I am impressed with her willingness to have her own opinion, regardless of how unpopular it was/is with the Dems.  We are constantly lamenting people putting the needs of the party over that of the country.  Well, she is a prime example of rejecting that idea.

I see her in a different light, as stated. But as also stated, you like her, fair enough. When I get the notion that you try to declare your affiliation as one that objectively others should reach as well or else they're biased, that's where I feel like listing all the maybe comprehensible reasons one could find to see her in said different light.

(10-20-2022, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, forgive the error, you dirty socialists all look alike to me.   

Throwing everyone in one pot... so typical for all Americans. Ninjasmilie.

(10-20-2022, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The democratic socialists also advocate for seizing the means of production, so while they may not be as radical as the group I erroneously used they still fit the bill for making my point.

When it comes to democratic socialism, something that sure shapes many European countries, I feel it's too broad a brush to say they are for seizing the means of production. Our state sure owns or more often co-owns certain companies, usually in connection to critical infrastructure (energy, refineries, road buliding and the like), but that's not "seizing" them. It's the state owning stakes like a business, sure also regarding the possibility to have a say and keep these companies running under any circumstances if need be, but it's not taking these means of production out of the market's hands. The market rules, or say most market rules, still apply.
And I don't know how radical that really is, the government owning stakes in infrastructure companies, or say if it's so radical that it justifies putting AOC on the same level as MTG.

[BengalYankee]

(10-11-2022, 01:42 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Loudmouthed opportunist turning from D to R to rake in the culture war BS and cult mentality?  It's an effective move, but the novelty is damn near 50 years old.

I guess in fairness everyone of note has to be a loudmouth these days. 

She moved to I, not R and she is alot better then the current VP.

[BengalYankee]

(10-11-2022, 05:03 PM)pally Wrote: That's what Republicans say they believe in but the reality is they do nothing to actually solve or deal with these issues long-term.  Their only border plan is a wall...that is breached daily.  Most of their campaigns focus on made-up culture wars designed to further marginalize vulnerable populations and to push them out of the political process.

If you asked most Democrats about Tulsi, they would tell you she wasn't one which is one of the reasons she did so poorly in the 2020 Presidential race.

Kamala sure did poorly in the 2020 Presidential race and dropped out far earlier then Tulsi. 

If you looked at her issues she bleeds Democrat blue. She was a backer of Berny Sanders. 

What you are saying that a Democrat has to be a sheep and follow the others in the party 100%

[BengalYankee]

(10-11-2022, 05:30 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Does it matter?  Im not familiar with her policies but isn't every member of the GOP Just one disagreement with Trump away from being labeled a traitorous RINO?

If she's failed to kiss Trump's ass in the past her time as a welcomed "Republican" could be brief.

Look at mitch McConnell. The guy has been the ultimate GOP ally and solider for damn near 40 years and Trump and his cult want him out and replaced.  RINO!!!!

Exactly, her policies are mostly liberal. What she disagrees with are men playing in women leagues. The latest Justice that could not define what a woman is. The war in Ukraine, the involvement in Syria. 

But she is Green, Pro-Abortion, heavy gun legislation, all the typical liberal views. Not a Conservative at all.  

[BengalYankee]

(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.

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.

You have no idea what you are talking about. She has NOT switched parties. What fake news have you been watching to show that she has? Do you know her policies or you blindly assuming you do. Most of her views are liberal, what distinguishers her is she is an isolationist. 
AOC, when she first ran was against spending money for military ventures, now she did a 180 degree turn and voted for military funding for the Ukraine war. AOC's fans heckled her in a recent town rally for changing and not being consistent as Tulsi. 

Shame on you for assuming Tulsi is a Republican. Learn what her policies are before you write. 

[BengalYankee]

(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. 

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.

I can't believe all the garbage that I am reading. Learn what her policies are before you tout her as Team Trump. 

[hollodero]

(10-20-2022, 02:24 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: I can't believe all the garbage that I am reading. Learn what her policies are before you tout her as Team Trump. 

I can't believe you're so impolite. But whatever. 

I paint her as at least trending towards team Trump because she raised the accusation that the DOJ gets weaponized, that Adam Schiff is a bigger threat to democracy than the Jan 6 insurrectionists and that the Mar-a-Lago warrant has the hallmarks of dictatorship. That's what someone on team Trump would say and no one else really.

And that she's not officially an R, well admittedly that escaped me and hence was a mistake, but to me it's a technicality really. She goes to FOX news et al. and repeats all major GOP talking points there. A Republican in spirit.

[BengalYankee]

(10-17-2022, 02:12 AM)tms Wrote: 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

Democratic National Committee[edit]
On January 22, 2013, Gabbard was unanimously elected to a four-year term as a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee.[147] In September 2015, she criticized chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz's decision to hold only six debates during the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, compared with 26 in 2008 and 15 in 2004,[148][149] and to exclude any candidate who participated in a non-DNC sanctioned debate from all future DNC-sanctioned debates. Gabbard released a statement about the heated and public disagreements surrounding the debates in a Facebook post in 2015.[150][151]
Following her public criticisms of the debate process, Gabbard was reported to have been either "disinvited" or asked to "consider not coming" to the October 13, 2015, Democratic debate in Las Vegas.[152][153] In an interview with The New York Times, she spoke of an unhealthy atmosphere, saying, "no one told me I would be relinquishing my freedom of speech and checking it at the door" in taking the job.[154] Gabbard privately wrote to Wasserman Schultz, accusing her of violating the DNC's duty of neutrality by favoring Hillary Clinton. This letter later became public in leaked emails published by WikiLeaks.[155][156]
Gabbard resigned as DNC vice chair on February 28, 2016, in order to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders for the nomination for President of the United States.[157][158] On that same day, she appeared on Meet the Press and discussed why she was stepping down.[159] She was the first congresswoman to endorse Sanders,[158] and later gave the nominating speech putting his name forward at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[160]
In July 2016, Gabbard launched a petition to end the Democratic Party's process of appointing superdelegates in the nomination process.[161] She endorsed Keith Ellison for DNC chair in the 2017 chairmanship elections.[162]
Gabbard was assigned as Bernie Sanders's running mate in California for any write-in votes for him.[163] Shortly after the election, she was mentioned as a possible presidential candidate for 2020.[164][165] In the 2016 United States presidential election, a Minnesota elector voted for Gabbard for vice president, but had that vote invalidated and given to Tim Kaine.[166]

[BengalYankee]

(10-17-2022, 04:19 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm not terribly impressed with Harris. But yes, less "impressive" than Harris, by the standards and examples I have given.



"Pedantry" is obsessive concern with minor details or rules, according to my online dictionary.
I don't think asking for standards and examples is digressing into "minor details" here any more than
asking for evidence that fits evidentiary protocols in a courtroom would be.  
If we don't do that, then people are just trading impressions, all equally valid.

One of the problems with the current climate of political debate is that people DON"T measure actions and
words against non-partisan standards. I am aware that some don't like going that route of accountability. 
But why should they be in the right about this and I in the wrong? Why is offering impressions and JUST SAYING 
superior to demonstration? You don't find it so when arguing 2nd Amendment issues. Why do you in this case? 


No, JUST SAYING I am "partisan" because I think Tulsi not that smart and you think she is, is not specification.  

I did offer an "example" which led me to question her intelligence and judgment--her decision to switch parties on the grounds that Dems were "weaponizing the security state against their opponents."  To that I could add her claim the Dem party is an "elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness." That's in the same ball park as Guam tipping over. There is no logically consistent, non-partisan path from evidence to her conclusions, as there is to, say, the conclusion that Trump weaponized the executive to go after enemies and keep himself in power. Hers are unsubstantiated impressions. Best you could say here is that Gabbard is "smart" because she knows this is what the CPAC audience wants to hear. But why is it smart to go that route? Because she was dead as a candidate in the Dem party? 

That you listen to Gabbard and think she is intelligent and listen to others and think they are not, doesn't establish that my judgment is "partisan," especially given the effort I've put into appealing to non-partisan standards--or what used to be such standards, pre-Gingrich--and the effort you put into avoiding them as "pedantry," keeping disagreement a battle of impressions.

The best way to refute me, under the standards given, is as I said before--show me the standards for judgment are wrong, or show how they don't apply to Gabbard because she has a deep understanding of policy and principles and shows good judgment, e.g., the ability to recognize and prioritize real problems and policy solutions.  

So far, you are just asking me 1) to trust your ability tell who is or is not intelligent by your hearing them, not by standing what they say against any "pedantic" external measures, and 2) to assume my failure to buy such impressions given their clash with already noted standards indicates partisanship. Just does.  

Did she switch parties? Learn the facts before you say she did. 

[BengalYankee]

(10-20-2022, 02:31 PM)hollodero Wrote: I can't believe you're so impolite. But whatever. 

I paint her as at least trending towards team Trump because she raised the accusation that the DOJ gets weaponized, that Adam Schiff is a bigger threat to democracy than the Jan 6 insurrectionists and that the Mar-a-Lago warrant has the hallmarks of dictatorship. That's what someone on team Trump would say and no one else really.

And that she's not officially an R, well admittedly that escaped me and hence was a mistake, but to me it's a technicality really. She goes to FOX news et al. and repeats all major GOP talking points there. A Republican in spirit.

That "garbage" term was not directed to you, but all the comments from most of the members here that stated she was switching from D to R.
Please tell me all the major GOP talking points. 

I am not a Trump fan, and I don't want to sound impolite but what you wrote makes no sense.
Accusing the DOJ is weaponized makes you lean team Trump????

Multiple Pro-life facilities have been bombed and not one prosecution. On the contrary multiple pro-life people and families are facing fines and up to 11 years jail time for peaceful protesting at abortion clinics. 

I am a I that left the D party years ago and I will never become a R, whether in Spirit or in human form.

So what that she goes to Fox News, is Juan Williams or any of the liberal contributors bad because they go to Fox News.

You do know that Tulsi was a backer of Berny Sanders in 2016 and endorsed Biden in 2020.    

[hollodero]

(10-20-2022, 03:05 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: That "garbage" term was not directed to you, but all the comments from most of the members here that stated she was switching from D to R.
Please tell me all the major GOP talking points. 

I am not a Trump fan, and I don't want to sound impolite but what you wrote makes no sense.
Accusing the DOJ is weaponized makes you lean team Trump????

Yes. The accusation stems from the DOJ going after Trump and his secret documents. Especially seen in context to her other quotes I mentioned, like describing the Trump warrant as having hallmarks of dictatorship or calling Schiff a greater threat to democracy than Jan 6 was. This is all talk on behalf of Donald Trump.
Maybe she isn't so much a Trump apologist, I don't know for sure, but she sure willingly copies the talking points of those who are, possibly to garner their acceptance. And at some point there's no difference.

As for all the major GOP talking points she repeats, her statement is linked on the first page. There's plenty more of her I'd put in the same box, I mentioned some of them already and feel in summation they are sufficient to underline my point.

(10-20-2022, 03:05 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Multiple Pro-life facilities have been bombed and not one prosecution. On the contrary multiple pro-life people and families are facing fines and up to 11 years jail time for peaceful protesting at abortion clinics. 

I am a I that left the D party years ago and I will never become a R, whether in Spirit or in human form.

Of course, not everyone leaving the democrats is a republican in spirit, far from it. My assessment does not stem from her leaving the democratic party, but from her repeating pretty much all the major GOP talking points while doing so.
I don't know you or if you did the same. But if you had said you leave because the democrats are so hostile towards people of faith or are dictators for going after Trump's stolen documents with a search warrant or accuse them of being anti-white racists or call Schiff a domestic threat and all that other GOP jazz that Gabbard mentions, then I'd have an idea who you vote for and you'd be a republican in spirit to me. Which is not meant as a negative, at least not per se.

As for the pro-life facilities and peaceful protesters getting jailed for over a decade, I honestly don't find much about that on google and am not up to a real deep intense search. If things are as you describe them, that would be quite wrong in my book as well.

(10-20-2022, 03:05 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: So what that she goes to Fox News, is Juan Williams or any of the liberal contributors bad because they go to Fox News.

No, of course not. First off, I did not say "bad" and think this term oversimplifies things. You're neither "bad" nor a republican apologist just for appearing on FOX; you'are a republican apologist if you go on FOX and go through all the common GOP talking points the FOX host loves to hear from you. That's the basis of my assessment, not just her appearance there.

(10-20-2022, 03:05 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: You do know that Tulsi was a backer of Berny Sanders in 2016 and endorsed Biden in 2020.    

Yes. It's one of the reasons why I wouldn't consider her consistent.

[BengalYankee]

(10-20-2022, 03:28 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yes. The accusation stems from the DOJ going after Trump and his secret documents. Especially seen in context to her other quotes I mentioned, like describing the Trump warrant as having hallmarks of dictatorship or calling Schiff a greater threat to democracy than Jan 6 was. This is all talk on behalf of Donald Trump.
Maybe she isn't so much a Trump apologist, I don't know for sure, but she sure willingly copies the talking points of those who are, possibly to garner their acceptance. And at some point there's no difference.

As for all the major GOP talking points she repeats, her statement is linked on the first page. There's plenty more of her I'd put in the same box, I mentioned some of them already and feel in summation they are sufficient to underline my point.



Of course, not everyone leaving the democrats is a republican in spirit, far from it. My assessment does not stem from her leaving the democratic party, but from her repeating pretty much all the major GOP talking points while doing so.
I don't know you or if you did the same. But if you had said you leave because the democrats are so hostile towards people of faith or are dictators for going after Trump's stolen documents with a search warrant or accuse them of being anti-white racists or call Schiff a domestic threat and all that other GOP jazz that Gabbard mentions, then I'd have an idea who you vote for and you'd be a republican in spirit to me. Which is not meant as a negative, at least not per se.

As for the pro-life facilities and peaceful protesters getting jailed for over a decade, I honestly don't find much about that on google and am not up to a real deep intense search. If things are as you describe them, that would be quite wrong in my book as well.



No, of course not. First off, I did not say "bad" and think this term oversimplifies things. You're neither "bad" nor a republican apologist just for appearing on FOX; you'are a republican apologist if you go on FOX and go through all the common GOP talking points the FOX host loves to hear from you. That's the basis of my assessment, not just her appearance there.



Yes. It's one of the reasons why I wouldn't consider her consistent.

While a member of Congress, she served as a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) from 2013 to 2016, and resigned to endorse Bernie Sanders' campaign for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.




Gabbard has spoken in favor of a Green New Deal but expressed concerns about vagueness in some proposed versions of the legislation[249] and its inclusion of nuclear energy.[250] She advocates her own "Off Fossil Fuels for a Better Future Act" ("OFF Act") as legislation to transition the United States to renewable energy

[hollodero]

(10-20-2022, 04:22 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: While a member of Congress, she served as a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) from 2013 to 2016, and resigned to endorse Bernie Sanders' campaign for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

What's that to tell me, aside from the observation that she apparently indeed changed quite a bit since then? Things like that are the basis for that assessment.

I mean, Bernie for one didn't change one bit. Has to be her.

[BengalYankee]

(10-20-2022, 04:26 PM)hollodero Wrote: What's that to tell me, aside from the observation that she apparently indeed changed quite a bit since then? Things like that are the basis for that assessment.

I mean, Bernie for one didn't change one bit. Has to be her.

Gabbard has been outspoken against a "broken criminal justice system" that puts "people in prison for smoking marijuana" while allowing pharmaceutical corporations responsible for "opioid-related deaths of thousands to walk away scot-free with their coffers full"

[hollodero]

(10-20-2022, 04:33 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Gabbard has been outspoken against a "broken criminal justice system" that puts "people in prison for smoking marijuana" while allowing pharmaceutical corporations responsible for "opioid-related deaths of thousands to walk away scot-free with their coffers full"

(10-20-2022, 04:22 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Gabbard has spoken in favor of a Green New Deal but expressed concerns about vagueness in some proposed versions of the legislation[249] and its inclusion of nuclear energy.[250] She advocates her own "Off Fossil Fuels for a Better Future Act" ("OFF Act") as legislation to transition the United States to renewable energy

OK, good for her. I might clarify that I didn't mean to claim she's now indistinguishable from any common GOP member. I might have given that impression, but if so, I'd have to modify a bit. Fair enough. For sure republican and republican-leaning politicians are different on certain issues, a Rand Paul is quite different from a Marjorie Taylor Greene on many fronts and so on and so forth.
The one thing they (almost) all apperently have to do is call out Schiff or the DOJ or anyone that is a perceived enemy of Trump. And so does she. I hold those statements against her and against the claim she's consistent. I rather perceive her as sycophantic to the Hannity target audience mainly.

[CKwi88]

(10-20-2022, 04:33 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Gabbard has been outspoken against a "broken criminal justice system" that puts "people in prison for smoking marijuana" while allowing pharmaceutical corporations responsible for "opioid-related deaths of thousands to walk away scot-free with their coffers full"

So she leaves the party that :checks notes: pardoned federal marijuana convictions and requests to review it's status as a schedule 1 drug. :checks notes again: Also the party that just granted $1.6 billion to communities to address addiction and overdose crises.

It's a bold strategy Cotton. 

Sounds like she just knows which audience gives her the best chance at staying relevant.