Jump to content

Tulsi Gabbard

bernorange

By bernorange
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

housious

housious 468

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Js1 said:

CNN reported that Gabbard worked for her father's organization, the Alliance for Traditional Marriage, which spent money to oppose pro-gay lawmakers and backed a 1998 amendment that reserved marriage for opposite-sex couples. The organization also promoted gay conversion therapy, a practice that is outlawed in many states.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/425177-gabbard-worked-for-anti-lgbtq-group-run-by-her-father-report

Wasn’t pretty much everyone against it 20 years ago? Who gives a shit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UTDD

UTDD 362

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, housious said:

Wasn’t pretty much everyone against it 20 years ago? Who gives a shit. 

The actual organization name was originally Stop Promoting Homosexuality America (trade name was Alliance for Traditional Marriage) and the controversial aspect of the organization by far was the gay conversion therapy advocacy.  The organization also did help pass Hawaii Constitutional Amendment 2, which was the 1998 traditional marriage amendment.  I think if Tulsi has truly disavowed a lot of her past with her father Mike, then that's fine but it's fair to look at her past and how long she took to take certain positions.  Tulsi in my opinion is neither a Democrat or Republican in the traditionalist sense.  I still live in Hawaii three months out of the year for my work and still retain a lot of ties with the political operatives that mostly run Hawaii politics in the Democrat machine.  (Daniel Inouye was the true original godfather of the party and had tremendous clout, and now power has coalesced in new people after his death) 

This is the only candidate I absolutely can speak with some personal confidence on my own direct experience as I have personally met and worked with her and her people numerous times all the way from her time on the Honolulu City Council to her first run as an early underdog for Congress against a more known candidate named Mufi Hanneman.  (former Mayor of Honolulu who also lost for the governor's slot against Neil Abercrombie partially by producing a very stupid brochure highlighting his Iolani/Harvard background against Abercrombie's University of Hawaii credentials -- elitism does NOT play well in Hawaii AT ALL)  She is not trying to become President right now.  Everything she has done even up until right now running for President was already in a long-term strategic plan before 2011 at the very latest as I know this existed at that point.  She is *incredibly* ambitious, and I am very curious to see if she ever gains any traction, but I ultimately her goal isn't to become President in 2020 as a realistic strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
workswithseed

workswithseed 2109

Posted
Posted
Just now, burntorangebongos said:

bullshit, she can be one of them easy. She is a bird of a feather....a fucking loon.

Hey, not going to lie. That last sentence is pretty great. I do have to say if Republicans were a type of bird it'd be a cardinal. "Why?" you ask. It's cause they're red and I'm lazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
berlinerbaer

berlinerbaer 678

Posted
Posted (edited)

Someone who was polling around 2% of the likely Dem primary vote isn't going to play spoiler as an independent, even if Biden is the nominee. She'd be another Jill Stein, at best. Ralph Nader farts in her general direction.

Her only political future is as a Republican in some weird district with a preternatural enrichment of young, disaffected, white males. That said, I expect her to go into media and have a diminutive, but dedicated following of aforementioned incels. She has the looks, but totally lacks the charisma to make it very far.

Edited by berlinerbaer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29360

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

Someone who was polling around 2% of the likely Dem primary vote isn't going to play spoiler as an independent, even if Biden is the nominee. She'd be another Jill Stein, at best. Ralph Nader farts in her general direction.

Her only political future is as a Republican in some weird district with a preternatural enrichment of young, disaffected, white males. That said, I expect her to go into media and have a diminutive, but dedicated following of aforementioned incels. She has the looks, but totally lacks the charisma to make it very far.

Jill Stein got over 50,000 votes in Michigan, where Trump won by roughly 10,000, and she got over 31,000 in Wisconsin, which Trump won by about 22,000.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
berlinerbaer

berlinerbaer 678

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Jill Stein got over 50,000 votes in Michigan, where Trump won by roughly 10,000, and she got over 31,000 in Wisconsin, which Trump won by about 22,000.

Those numbers aren't earth-shattering for a third party candidate in a presidential election and they are not why Clinton lost.

It's moot anyway in the case of Michigan, where sore loser laws would prevent Tulsi from appearing on the ballot as an independent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1953

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

She voted against the NDAA (the Defense Bill) as well. It appears she has had enough the Democratic Party and how it has treated her over the past year.

Tulsi is a victim!!!!?!

lulz you guys with your weird victim complex is such a strange phenomenon. 

Can you relate to the guy in this video?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9939

Posted
Posted (edited)

Rep. Gabbard on her vote:

"A house divided cannot stand. Sadly, our nation is terribly divided. My vote today is a vote for much needed reconciliation and hope that together we can heal our country to usher in a bright future for the American people, our country, and our nation."

The first line, of course, comes from Lincoln's House Divided Speech (and is a Bible verse, Mark 3:25). Here is the Lincoln text:

"A house divided against itself, cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South."

I don't think she understands the strength of the emotions attached to the impeachment vote and how attached the white suburban Democratic voter is to the idea of a symbolic vote in favor of impeachment. She is charging headfirst into the teeth of the zeitgeist. There are times where asking people to call on their better angels to pursue other goals (such as reconciliation and progress on social issues) will not get a hearing. 

Politically, it was safer for her to vote in favor on impeachment. The subset of people in favor of reconciliation to pursue progressive goals is small and likely drowned out by those seeking vengeance, however impotent it is. 

And now we will have Trump voters seeking vengeance in return for the impeachment vote. Escalation.

Edited by washparkhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29360

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Rep. Gabbard on her vote:

"A house divided cannot stand. Sadly, our nation is terribly divided. My vote today is a vote for much needed reconciliation and hope that together we can heal our country to usher in a bright future for the American people, our country, and our nation."

The first line, of course, comes from Lincoln's House Divided Speech (and is a Bible verse, Mark 3:25). Here is the Lincoln text:

"A house divided against itself, cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South."

I don't think she understands the strength of the emotions attached to the impeachment vote and how attached the white suburban Democratic voter is to the idea of a symbolic vote in favor of impeachment. She is charging headfirst into the teeth of the zeitgeist. There are times where asking people to call on their better angels to pursue other goals (such as reconciliation and progress on social issues) will not get a hearing. 

Politically, it was safer for her to vote in favor on impeachment. The subset of people in favor of reconciliation to pursue progressive goals is small and likely drowned out by those seeking vengeance, however impotent it is. 

And now we will have Trump voters seeking vengeance in return for the impeachment vote. Escalation.

At least you posted the entire quote, which shows that Tulsi completely misunderstands it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13515

Posted
Posted

It's easy to be a bomb thrower or a contrarian but the real tough job is actually making changes.

She can't leave the Dem party because she would lose the next election.  She doesn't earn 75+% because of her stance or voting record. It's because she has a D next to her name. Change that to an I, and her result drops to 10% or less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9939

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah, she is a coward

I don't think cowardice is correct. Cowardice would require her to go with the flow in spite of her principles. She is opening herself up to the hate machine (not here, of course, where it is merely reaction and analysis). Cowards back down from hate. She is attempting to bend the curve for a post-impeachment reality. It is not going to work in the present political environment. 

Perhaps - betrayal is a better descriptor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18256

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

At least you posted the entire quote, which shows that Tulsi completely misunderstands it.

Yeah, she basically said “Our house cannot be both a Criminal Autocracy and a Representative Democracy.  So I just stood there with a dumb look on my face and sided with the former.” 
 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9939

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

Yeah, she basically said “Our house cannot be both a Criminal Autocracy and a Representative Democracy.  So I just stood there with a dumb look on my face and sided with the former.” 
 

I don't think that was her intention, but that is the takeaway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29360

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

I don't think cowardice is correct. Cowardice would require her to go with the flow in spite of her principles. She is opening herself up to the hate machine (not here, of course, where it is merely reaction and analysis). Cowards back down from hate. She is attempting to bend the curve for a post-impeachment reality. It is not going to work in the present political environment. 

Perhaps - betrayal is a better descriptor. 

She's auditioning for a FoxNews gig. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Politically, it was safer for her to vote in favor on impeachment. The subset of people in favor of reconciliation to pursue progressive goals is small and likely drowned out by those seeking vengeance, however impotent it is. 

When a team is down by 14 points with 2 minutes left in the game, they need to throw the ball.  It doesn't matter if their strength is running it.  It doesn't matter if the opponent is dropping 8.  You need to throw the ball.  

To say it was "safer" to vote in favor of impeachment, is like saying the losing team should run the ball, because the numbers favor it.  "Percentage players die broke, too, Fats."  She needs to carve out a niche position.  She needs attention.  She needs people to donate to her.  This will get her attention.  Her negatives will go through the roof, but there are some Dems - maybe 5% - who will respect it and donate to her.  And there will be a lot of Republicans who donate to her.  She, like most come-back hopefuls, will lose.  But she needed to do something.   

Maybe long term it nukes her career as a Democrat.  Ok. I'm sure, like Liebermann, she may find some safe haven as a pro-Republican moderate in the future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105180

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

I don't think cowardice is correct. Cowardice would require her to go with the flow in spite of her principles. She is opening herself up to the hate machine (not here, of course, where it is merely reaction and analysis). Cowards back down from hate. She is attempting to bend the curve for a post-impeachment reality. It is not going to work in the present political environment. 

Perhaps - betrayal is a better descriptor. 

Sorry, appeasement is cowardice.

The GOP has no interest in compromise, good faith, dialogue, or anything of the sort.  Negotiating with THIS GOP is only to set yourself up to fail.  Sorry, there are some folks who you don't negotiate with.  

You really think that anyone can elicit the "better angels" of the party of Trump's nature?  THERE ARE NO SUCH ANGELS.  If you offer them your hand, they'll slice it off and gloat about what a stupid libtard you are.

I admire the broader sentiment she raised.  But she's an idiot, because that sentiment can't apply here.  It will just get you killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

She's auditioning for a FoxNews gig. 

That's why she believes the House should censure Trump for violating the War Powers Resolution, his actions in Syria, his support for the KSA's Yemeni genocide, and his abandonment of the INF and JCPOA.  Excellent analysis.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105180

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Yeah, she basically said “Our house cannot be both a Criminal Autocracy and a Representative Democracy.  So I just stood there with a dumb look on my face and sided with the former.” 
 

 

8 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

I don't think that was her intention, but that is the takeaway. 

Then she's fucking stupid, because that's exactly what she did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

That's why she believes the House should censure Trump for violating the War Powers Resolution, his actions in Syria, his support for the KSA's Yemeni genocide, and his abandonment of the INF and JCPOA.  Excellent analysis.  

Actually, there are a lot Trump supporters who will deflect criticism of Trump by saying how horrible the entire system is.  You know, like you. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Actually, there are a lot Trump supporters who will deflect criticism of Trump by saying how horrible the entire system is.  You know, like you. 

There are a lot of Trump supporters who believe Trump acted wrongly by abandoning the JCPOA, of all things? lol.  They wouldn't shut the fuck up about that thing for years.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46000

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

About 17% of Democrats do not favor impeachment. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

That is not insignificant 

Does that surprise you?  Plenty of Dems and disavowed 'pubs here on surly argued against impeachment, with the prevailing theory that there is no need to take a sure loss.  It's a point.  The counterpoint is "because it's the right thing to do".

You also left out the part where 10.2% of Republicans favor impeachment.  That's not insignificant, either.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted (edited)

^^For Sheeit above. 

Remind me again who the Trumpster party called to testify about Constitutional law and impeachment?  They love anyone who is left wing who defends Trump.  Because it's only the last three words that matter. 

 

Edited by Tuco
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11364

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

I don't think cowardice is correct. Cowardice would require her to go with the flow in spite of her principles. She is opening herself up to the hate machine (not here, of course, where it is merely reaction and analysis). Cowards back down from hate. She is attempting to bend the curve for a post-impeachment reality. It is not going to work in the present political environment. 

Perhaps - betrayal is a better descriptor. 

voting present sends no message, as you later note, except paralysis. congrats, you were present for the history making, but you took no hand in it. if she had a strong feeling one way or even the other, she should have voted one way or the other. even if she voted against, it would be courage. voting present is cowardice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13515

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

About 17% of Democrats do not favor impeachment. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

That is not insignificant and there is a myriad of reasons for disfavoring it. I would suspect a love of Trump is less than 1/10 of 1%.  

And 10% of Republicans, in the same report, favor impeachment.  I don't understand your point.

I would guess that many people are extremely uninformed on what is happening. The average American, even those who vote, do not watch cable news at night and stay away from politics except for voting every couple of years.  But those same people are included in polls.

And unfortunately there are people, on both sides, that hear Trump say that he hasn't been given due process or that he didn't break a criminal law, so they go along with that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13220

Posted
Posted

Of the 17% of Dems who do not favor impeachment...

4% think it means a public execution and they think it would be too violent for the kids to watch
8% think it means he would get a literal peach and they don't want the gross Twitter man to have a treat
5% think he's a great guy who is misunderstood
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46000

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

voting present sends no message, as you later note, except paralysis. congrats, you were present for the history making, but you took no hand in it. if she had a strong feeling one way or even the other, she should have voted one way or the other. even if she voted against, it would be courage. voting present is cowardice.

Hell, vote "yes" on one article and "no" on the other.  It's a lot less wishy washy than "present" on both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9939

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Does that surprise you?  Plenty of Dems and disavowed 'pubs here on surly argued against impeachment, with the prevailing theory that there is no need to take a sure loss.  It's a point.  The counterpoint is "because it's the right thing to do".

You also left out the part where 10.2% of Republicans favor impeachment.  That's not insignificant, either.

 

I think your analysis is 100% correct.

Is it brave or wise to vote for a process that will likely inflame the passions of Trump voters and, therefore, more likely lead to his reelection?  

She hates Trump with a passion. She is anti-war. She is very socially liberal.

It is a sure loss in the Senate - if Nancy even sends it to the Senate. I am glad it is over and we can move on to the election - the best shot at replacing Trump we have. 

But impeachment was important to Hilary wing of the Party, so that is done with only 2 voting against (1 of those becoming a Republican) and 1 abstaining because she favors impeachment through a more rigorous process. I hope it was cathartic for those who truly wanted and needed that symbolic act.

Time to stop infighting. Time to pick a candidate who can beat Trump. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...