Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise
Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - Printable Version

+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+--- Thread: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party (/Thread-Tulsi-Gabbard-I%E2%80%99m-leaving-the-Democratic-Party)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - Dill - 11-03-2022

(11-02-2022, 09:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Like Obama?  Maybe she had a "conversation" with a teenager that changed her viewpoint?  See, I can call Obama's bullshit out as I've been pro same sex marriage since well before 2000.  Your Dem heroes?  Not so much.

I see you can call out Obama's bullshit. but Gabbard's not so much.

Meantime Obama is still on the same sex marriage side, right? 

RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 11-04-2022

(11-03-2022, 10:40 PM)Dill Wrote: I see you can call out Obama's bullshit. but Gabbard's not so much.

Again, you fail to see the self own.  

Quote:Meantime Obama is still on the same sex marriage side, right? 

Is Gabbard still opposed to same sex marriage?

RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - pally - 11-04-2022

(11-04-2022, 01:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, you fail to see the self own.  


Is Gabbard still opposed to same sex marriage?

She has not publicly said one way or the other since her MAGA conversion. She had however, said that DeSantis’s “don’t say gay” law didn’t go far enough and should extend to all grades

RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - Dill - 11-04-2022

(11-04-2022, 01:24 AM)pally Wrote: She has not publicly said one way or the other since her MAGA conversion.  She had however, said that DeSantis’s “don’t say gay” law didn’t go far enough and should extend to all grades

LOL, that's what I'm sayin.'  Let's wait and see.

What she said to run as a Dem for president way back then is no more indication of her positions now 

than is her eventual endorsement of Biden an indication of her current stance towards him or Dems in general.

The "real" conservatives in the GOP will hold her feet to the fire on previous Dem issues.

If she wants political relevance and visibility now, she'll not get it outside MAGA venues. 

She'll likely struggle to adapt, reframing some of her "Dem" positions while rivals remind her of them.
The MAGA crowd accepts 180 degree turns, though. That's an incentive.

If she rejects that attention to keep her principles, that will indicate "integrity." 

RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - BengalYankee - 11-04-2022

(11-04-2022, 01:24 AM)"pally Wrote: She has not publicly said one way or the other since her MAGA conversion.  She had however, said that DeSantis’s “don’t say gay” law didn’t go far enough and should extend to all grades

OMG, you too with this crap.

Once and for all it was not a "Don't say gay" law, but this ...

"The legislation, officially called the "Parental Rights in Education" bill, seeks to restrict the discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity with public school children, primarily from kindergarten to the third grade. The text of the bill, which was filed on Jan. 11 by Florida state Rep. Joe Harding ®, stipulates that "[c]lassroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate."


I challenge you to find the word gay, homosexual, or even straight or normal in the bill. You can't because you have been fooled.
I am a parent and I don't want strangers[teachers] talking about sex with my child. It is as the bill stated my right to restrict the discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity especially from K to 3rd grader. 

RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - BengalYankee - 11-04-2022

(11-02-2022, 08:49 PM)Dill Wrote: Can't be any harder than leading opposition to gay marriage one year,

then "growing" out of it when running on a Dem ticket. 

It's all about INTEGRITY!  Hilarious LMAO Hilarious





RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - Dill - 11-04-2022

Sounds like a plausible evolution to a new position, followed by many in his generation.

Let's revisit this if he in the future he does a 180 on this issue.

RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - BengalYankee - 11-04-2022

(11-04-2022, 05:16 PM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like a plausible evolution to a new position, followed by many in his generation.

Let's revisit this if he in the future he does a 180 on this issue.

Seems like the Democratic Party "evolved" and Tulsi decided to leave. 


[Image: quote-i-didn-t-leave-the-democratic-part...-45-62.jpg]

Elon Musk


[Image: FRcu9TeXEAMjvTM.jpg]

RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - Dill - 11-04-2022

(11-04-2022, 05:42 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Seems like the Democratic Party "evolved" and Tulsi decided to leave. 

The Dem party is known for that.

And for people leaving because of it.

RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - pally - 11-05-2022

(11-04-2022, 05:42 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Seems like the Democratic Party "evolved" and Tulsi decided to leave. 


[Image: quote-i-didn-t-leave-the-democratic-part...-45-62.jpg]

Elon Musk


[Image: FRcu9TeXEAMjvTM.jpg]

Interesting perspective considering the party is essentially where it was when she endorsed Joe Biden 2 years ago. But if anything it has moved slightly closer to the positions of Bernie Sanders whom she endorsed 6 years ago. Her current endorsements are some of the most extreme MAGA candidates running this cycle. Polar opposite of her political opinions of just 6 years ago. Since the party hasn’t changed but she has moved on, we can only assume that Tulsi’s political opinions are like a hairdo that is changed based on a whim. They seem to move towards whichever will garner her the most publicity and potential power.
As someone who has changed political parties and who has become more liberal over time, it doesn’t happen seemingly overnight and it doesn’t move you from one extreme to another. I went from the liberal end of Republicanism to Democratic. It began with watching the Party embrace more and more conservative religiously driven positions coupled with the cowtowing to extreme hate groups throughout the 90s and 2000s. Their extreme right wing positions left me in their wake. I formally resigned from the Party when Mitch McConnell blocked Merrick Garland from even having a hearing for the Supreme Court. I thought that move was the antithesis of our Founding Fathers intended which was the President nominates and the Senate votes. Not the Senate majority leader unilaterally deciding. I held my nose and voted Democratic for the first time in my adult life in 2016. I though Hillary Clinton would be bad for America. However, I believed, correctly, as it turned out, that Donald Trump would be far worse. I grew more and more disgusted my the blatant abuse of American political traditions and behaviors by Trump and the acceptance of that corruption by Republicans all in the name of power. I became scared as I watched the once proud GOP evolve into a Party that stands for whatever Trump wants and doing whatever it can to permanently consolidate their political power. I formally joined the Democratic Party in Jan 2021. I can no longer watch today’s Republican Party destroy American democracy and the ideals America supposedly was founded on.
All this was a very long winded way of explaining that why, in my opinion, Tulsi’s “evolution” isn’t believable. It isn’t rooted in the reality of how most people’s political stances changed.

RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - hollodero - 11-05-2022

(11-04-2022, 05:42 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: [Image: FRcu9TeXEAMjvTM.jpg]

I find this chart to be misleading, in that it pictures the conservative position unaltered throughout the years. I couldn't possibly compare the McCain party with the current Trump party. If any, the stick man on the right also should be pictured running straight towards crazytown.

Of course, as always the two-party system is to blame in the end. How people on all aisles don't band together and relentlessly attack this toxic system, the one common ground almost all Americans seem to find when asked about, is pretty weird.

RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - Dill - 11-05-2022

(11-04-2022, 05:42 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Seems like the Democratic Party "evolved" and Tulsi decided to leave. 


Elon Musk


[Image: FRcu9TeXEAMjvTM.jpg]


This is a napkin drawing by Elon Musk. A Twitter meme which represents Musk's mindscape with no relation to history or current political reality. It does not "show" or prove how the GOP stayed the same while Dems "evolved" leftward.

What does the historical record tell us about the "evolution" of the GOP?

With the Gingrich revolution of the 90s began the refusal to compromise which drove moderate Republicans out of the party. Far right commentary of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin was still fringe but ascendant. The term "RINO" as applied by the farther right Republicans to moderates and traditionalists became widespread. The Fox definition of "the Left" replaced historically grounded social science definitions, and VOILA! Neo liberal Bill Clinton, tacking rightward on crime and the economy, became a "leftist." Lenin with a cheery smile and a southern drawl.

The traditional governing, compromise-ready GOP were replaced by the new "radicals" like John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Eric Cantor. Still economic conservatives, but further right.

The Iraq War turned many rank and file against the establishment. McCain wouldn't say Obama was an "Arab," but picked the incompetent Palin as a running mate, drawing in the Evangelical right. A black "leftist," born in Kenya with an Arab name, was elected president, and the great battle to save us from "socialism" and "replacement" ramped up, along with scorn for "traditional" compromising-governing GOP.

Where is the first "radical" wave today? Replaced by anti-Democratic MAGA candidates, who now dominate the party, directly beholden to the de facto party leader.  The fringe is now mainstream, steeped in conspiracy theories and election lies, its power based on fear of minorities, trans-ready bathrooms, "globalists," immigrants and "socialists'. Beside these has developed a mass of IiNOs--Independents in Name Only--who say they dislike Trump, but run constant interference for him as anti-anti-racists and anti-anti-Trumpers. The Capitol insurrectionists, whom Trump wants to pardon, are a meaningless fringe, despite the rally crowds who cheer. IiNO votes could tip the balance in favor of democracy but, buying into the Fox spectrum, they still see "socialism" everywhere and BLM as the more serious problem ("AOC! That's Dem party now! BLM--"mostly peaceful" RIOTS!") , or still see politics in "both sides do it" terms, making it "partisan" to flag the GOP for its authoritarian turn. "Dems will do the same when they are in power!"

That's the party Tulsi is stumping for now, as former GOP stalwarts like Cheney, unable to do a 180 against their principles, campaign with Dems to keep democracy. The party has swung so far rightward away from traditional conservatism and towards anti-democratic politics that even former Tea Party conservatives like Joe Walsh have denounced it, and now claim that to keep our democracy, true conservatives MUST vote Dem. 
Tea Party Ex-Congressman Joe Walsh Apologizes For Helping Elect ‘Unfit Con Man’ Trump
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-walsh-apology-trump-support_n_5d54b573e4b0d8840fee7d75

RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - Dill - 11-05-2022

(11-05-2022, 05:13 AM)hollodero Wrote: I find this chart to be misleading, in that it pictures the conservative position unaltered throughout the years. I couldn't possibly compare the McCain party with the current Trump party. If any, the stick man on the right also should be pictured running straight towards crazytown.

Of course, as always the two-party system is to blame in the end. How people on all aisles don't band together and relentlessly attack this toxic system, the one common ground almost all Americans seem to find when asked about, is pretty weird.

Still don't really get this. So three points.

1. I see the positives in a multiparty system. The political spectrum and the range of choice is clearer. No one would be calling Centrist Obama a "socialist" with real leftists two parties left of him. 

2. But to say the two-party system is to blame for the current divisions? I ask myself, would Italy have gone fascist had they a two-party system in 1920, or Germany in 1930? I have some doubts. Authoritarians have seized power from (small "d") democrats in many places because they were in a system which enabled governance with pluralities/superminorities.

3. The current divisions have much more to do with 1) economic conditions--decades of flat wages amidst dramatically rising worker productivity, and workers aren't pocketing all that extra value they are creating (neoliberalism), 2) shrinking union membership, and the political socialization that went with such membership, 3) an economic elite with a long tradition of ruling through fear (of working masses, a black underclass, immigration, socialists from Europe, and Muslims straining to impose Sharia on us all), and 4) new communication technology which advantages 3 over traditional political debate/discussion subject to civil norms and standards of evidence. So that 3 elite is able to control the "narrative" about why the U.S. is going in the wrong direction--though their success also undermines their control, as millions believe the uncontrollable MJT and DJT speak their pain.

RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - hollodero - 11-06-2022

(11-05-2022, 03:09 PM)Dill Wrote: 2. But to say the two-party system is to blame for the current divisions?

I mean, it's of course not just as easy an answer as that, there are additional factors in play. But yeah, the two-party system creates a huge divide, by design and so clearly visible that I find it difficult to even start somewhere. So I won't. Would be worth a thread sometimes.

I will say that you lived in Germany for quite some time. So you know that we (well, I'm Austria, but similar thing) have political alternatives, we don't have to go along with everything because the only alternative would be a total betrayal to our political beliefs, we have new parties gaining influence, old parties crashing down, a vote that actually counts for the party one votes for, and we have the extremists contained in extreme parties instead of infecting the more moderate ones. As you said, you know the advantages of that. For one we're less extremely polarized.


(11-05-2022, 03:09 PM)Dill Wrote: I ask myself, would Italy have gone fascist had they a two-party system in 1920, or Germany in 1930? I have some doubts. Authoritarians have seized power from (small "d") democrats in many places because they were in a system which enabled governance with pluralities/superminorities.

Now that is comparing apples to oranges. I'd argue the authoritarians would have risen up no matter which democratic system. The Weimar Republic was a young and hence very vulnerable, widely unsupported democracy forced upon the country through a devastating defeat in a devastating war. And then the global depression, the huge reparations. There was poverty, suffering, desperation (and a constant sense of humiliation) on a level that does not compare to modern times.
That's of course not meant as an excuse for history. But no, I wouldn't know how a two-party system would have prevented Hitler. My reasoning is one of my grievances with this system actually. To gain power, one only has to get a hold of one of the parties. Enough hold that the rest falls in line. Similar to what Trump did, with maybe say around 20% (something around that) of voters actually liking him initially (and quite many more that still vote for him over the democrat anyways and of course quite some more who don't vote at all). And as soon as you're there. You just have to wait. The party in power does not get reelected too often, especially when the world is as grim as it was in Germany in the 20s and 30s. Once, maybe twice if the other side is real scary, but at some not too distant point the swing is bound to happen. You got 20% of devout followers and time, you get there, even if you're a monster.


(11-05-2022, 03:09 PM)Dill Wrote: 3. The current divisions have much more to do with 1) economic conditions--decades of flat wages amidst dramatically rising worker productivity, and workers aren't pocketing all that extra value they are creating (neoliberalism), 2) shrinking union membership, and the political socialization that went with such membership, 3) an economic elite with a long tradition of ruling through fear (of working masses, a black underclass, immigration, socialists from Europe, and Muslims straining to impose Sharia on us all), and 4) new communication technology which advantages 3 over traditional political debate/discussion subject to civil norms and standards of evidence. So that 3 elite is able to control the "narrative" about why the U.S. is going in the wrong direction--though their success also undermines their control, as millions believe the uncontrollable MJT and DJT speak their pain.

That's it? 1, 2, 3, 4, explanation done? Yeah I want to add 5) a two party system that kills the middle ground, forces everone to pick sides, divides even the news in left and right, turns people to messengers of talking points and designed controversies to get the wheel of disdain spinning, two sides that can't even listen to each other any more with any sense of earnesty, it's only about shooting holes in someone else's opinion, make him look as crazy, stupid and immoral as possible. An atmosphere where hateful messages can rise and truth isn't important and 6) a whole lot of other awful consequences of a dualistic system, like both parties being bought by big money and engaging in open bribery and then some. As stated, worth a thread sometimes. And of course 7) a whole lot of other things, you haven't even mentioned social media for example.


We widely agree on Tulsi though.

RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - BengalYankee - 11-06-2022

(11-05-2022, 03:30 AM)pally Wrote: Interesting perspective considering the party is essentially where it was when she endorsed Joe Biden 2 years ago.  But if anything it has moved slightly closer to the positions of Bernie Sanders whom she endorsed 6 years ago.  Her current endorsements are some of the most extreme MAGA candidates running this cycle. Polar opposite of her political opinions of just 6 years ago.  Since the party hasn’t changed but she has moved on, we can only assume that Tulsi’s political opinions are like a hairdo that is changed based on a whim.  They seem to move towards whichever will garner her the most publicity and potential power.
So what policy has Tulsi switched from liberal to conservative?
Please don't start talking stupidly about endorsing MAGA candidates, this or that.
I am talking about pure policies, like going Green, weed reform, Cuba policy, etc.
From what I heard she harp about was Freedom of Speech and Religious Faith, men in women's sports, and open borders without government retaliation.   
I want you to tell me what POLICIES has she done a 180-degree turn? 

RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - GMDino - 11-07-2022

I wish I had time to research how many times Tusli railed against the "woke" people before she went full MAGA.

 







RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - GMDino - 11-07-2022

Fixing

RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - Dill - 11-07-2022

(11-06-2022, 05:05 AM)hollodero Wrote: I mean, it's of course not just as easy an answer as that, there are additional factors in play. But yeah, the two-party system creates a huge divide, by design and so clearly visible that I find it difficult to even start somewhere. So I won't. Would be worth a thread sometimes.

I will say that you lived in Germany for quite some time. So you know that we (well, I'm Austria, but similar thing) have political alternatives, we don't have to go along with everything because the only alternative would be a total betrayal to our political beliefs, we have new parties gaining influence, old parties crashing down, a vote that actually counts for the party one votes for, and we have the extremists contained in extreme parties instead of infecting the more moderate ones. As you said, you know the advantages of that. For one we're less extremely polarized.

Just a quick note on this. I don't want to argue the two-party system is "better." Everything you say about the advantages of your multi-party democracy is true, and counts in favor of your "2-party system leads to more polarization" thesis.  

I remember how amazed and interested I was to open magazines and newspapers to see huge charts with a list of parties down the left side and of issues across the top (Energie, Frauenpolitik etc.). You could pick your primary interest and then run your finger down the page and at a glance see each party's stance. The difference between a conservative party like the CDU-CSU and an ultranationalist like the Republikaner was clear, as was their difference from the Liberal party (more like our traditional economic Republicans). There were actual social democrats (SPD) and actual democratic socialists (PDS), differentiated from the Greens. That made for much less confusion about who was really a "socialist." Conservatives were on the right, certainly, but very stable and quite distinct from then versions of the alt-right. Party leaders were more accountable to party voters. People were more interested in politics and voting, because parties more directly expressed their values.

A disadvantage of our system is that it is less transparent, and e.g., encourages fuzzy, malleable definitions of "socialism" and "leftist" which invite fear mongering, manipulation and confusion. That lends itself to division, certainly.

But as I'll argue below, it's quite a step too far to suppose the two-party system accounts for current U.S. divisions, when other more direct causes are so ready at hand.

RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - Dill - 11-07-2022

Gosh, what happened to that post?

How does one fix that? 

RE: Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party - Dill - 11-07-2022

(11-06-2022, 05:59 AM)BengalYankee Wrote: So what policy has Tulsi switched from liberal to conservative?
Please don't start talking stupidly about endorsing MAGA candidates, this or that.
I am talking about pure policies, like going Green, weed reform, Cuba policy, etc.
From what I heard she harp about was Freedom of Speech and Religious Faith, men in women's sports, and open borders without government retaliation.   
I want you to tell me what POLICIES has she done a 180-degree turn? 

Sure, she hasn't changed her POLICIES on abortion rights or assault-weapon bans just because she endorsed
MAGA candidates who will oppose them. She is for "freedom" and always will be.

The Biden Democrat "pure" policy on Ukraine is that they are a sovereign nation, a democracy, and the 
U.S. should back them against Putin's aggression. 

Where does Gabbard stand on that? And by the way, where do you?