Tulsi Gabbard on Trump impeachment: 'I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no'

  
Via:  just-jim-nc-ttth  •  one month ago  •  231 comments

By:   Bart Jansen, Nicholas Wu and Savannah Behrmann

Tulsi Gabbard on Trump impeachment: 'I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no'
The only Democrat or Republican to vote "present" to impeach President Donald Trump in the House on Tuesday on both articles of impeachment was Hawaiian Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. In a statement after her vote, Gabbard, who is also running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, released a statement, claiming that after doing her "due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.”

Obviously wasn't convinced.........beyond a shadow of a doubt either way. Actually used her head instead of "feelings". 


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


“I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing. I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country,” Gabbard said.

Earlier Wednesday, she introduced a resolution to instead censure Trump, which expresses strong disapproval of conduct, whereas impeachment could result in removal from office. 
Gabbard said she worked for the best interests of the country whether in the military or in Congress.
'He gave us no choice': Nancy Pelosi's glare and more top impeachment moments from a historic day
Hawaiian State Sen. Kai Kahele, who is running mostly uncontested to replace Gabbard in the U.S. House, slammed her “present” votes.
“Clearly her vote is unacceptable. It’s disappointing,” he told USA TODAY on a call. “The two most consequential votes a member of Congress will ever take are to send our troops into harm’s way...and a vote to impeach the president of the United States”
“That’s not what the taxpayers of Hawaii sent her here for,” Kahele added.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH    one month ago

Seems the dems are overlooking and poo pooing the only level headed, governing minded candidate they may have. Perhaps that is what they can't stand her. She isn't leftist enough. Depending on how this pans out, I think Ms. Gabbard would garner a second look for me next November.................

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    one month ago

giphy.gif

 
 
 
bccrane
1.1.1  bccrane  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    one month ago

You are right, she should've voted no on both articles of impeachment.  To her it wasn't proven beyond a shadow of doubt, in a case or situation like that you vote no.  She took the chickens way out, IMO not presidential material.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1.2  Raven Wing  replied to  bccrane @1.1.1    4 weeks ago
She took the chickens way out, IMO not presidential material.

Totally agree. And she thinks intelligent Americans want her to be in charge of the Red phone? Bad enough with the mentally deranged orange man in the Oval office now. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    one month ago

You got that right. Progressives feel she is not pure enough. She should run as an INDEPENDENT.

 
 
 
CB
1.2.1  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    4 weeks ago

Maybe you can consider her as a 'shoe-in' replacement for nasty, vulgar, lying, arrogant Donald Trump? Too much? Are is she still not republican enough for you unless she can learn fast?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.3  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2  Ed-NavDoc    one month ago

My respect for the lady just went up a notch.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3  Tessylo    one month ago

She's toast now.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @3    one month ago

Why would you think that?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.1.1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1    one month ago

Wishful thinking of course. A strong Democrat woman is a threat if she doesn't tow the dem/lib/liv line. And she is pretty decent to look at. That alone is..............never mind.

jrSmiley_34_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kavika
3.1.2  Kavika   replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1    one month ago

She is not running for re election in 2020.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.1    one month ago

What do her good looks have to do with it?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.1.4  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.3    one month ago

It was an afterthought thus the "and". 

Tough to be green for some folks.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.4    one month ago

Exactly,  had nothing to do with it.  

Got it.  

I'm not jealous of her good looks.

Meow Jim, MEOW

.

 
 
 
lib50
3.1.6  lib50  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.5    one month ago

The first thing the guy does is go to the 'you are jealous of a good looking woman'.  And they wonder why the party is full of old white men and women call out their sexism.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
3.1.7  Raven Wing  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.1    4 weeks ago
And she is pretty decent to look at. That alone is..............never mind.

If looks alone is a primary criteria for the position of President of the US, then how the Hell did that orange buffoon now sitting in the Oval office get elected? He is neither intelligent, nor intelligent looking. Except to the Repubs, who obviously set the bar very very low.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.2  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @3    one month ago
She's toast now.  

Maybe she will turn Republican too.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @3.2    one month ago

She already is, she's a DINO.  

 
 
 
The People's Fish
3.2.2  The People's Fish  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.1    one month ago

She is actually a liberal and you are correct, not much of a democrat. Foreign policy of non-intervention would be the first sign of not being a democrat.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The People's Fish @3.2.2    one month ago
Foreign policy of non-intervention would be the first sign of not being a democrat.

Really? Who got us into the last couple of wars?

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.2.4  Ronin2  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.3    one month ago

Just because something isn't called a war, doesn't mean it isn't one.

Iraq part II Obama

Syria Obama

Libya Obama

Democrats and Republicans are equally moronic when it comes to sending troops into foreign quagmires.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.2.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.4    one month ago

Democrats and Republicans are equally moronic when it comes to sending troops into foreign quagmires.

Get real.

President Cheney takes the fake cake award as Bush swallowed his sordid sword and invaded Iraq and attemptedto rebuild Afghanastan, all while Cheneys' "former" company Haliburton made BILLIONS

,

That is why Obama was forced into the other messes, also known as the big MESS, known as the Middle East or  ME   short for  MEss

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.4    one month ago

Democrats and Republicans are equally moronic when it comes to sending troops into foreign quagmires.

and yet you only state the Dems. 

Kuwait first Gulf war-Bush

Afganastan and Iraq- Bush 2

My point is that both parties have neo-cons.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.7  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.6    one month ago

Sending troops to Afghanistan isn’t moronic either is sending troops to Iraq to kill foreign fighters or as we in the military call them terrorist.Now how Bush handled the aftermath is a different story.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.2.8  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.1    one month ago

Good for her if she does!

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.5    one month ago
'President Cheney takes the fake cake award as Bush swallowed his sordid sword and invaded Iraq and attemptedto rebuild Afghanastan, all while Cheneys' "former" company Haliburton made BILLIONS'

Which was the only reason for this now 18-19 year fiasco, FUBAR, SNAFU

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.2.10  Ronin2  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.6    one month ago

Per your question I responded to.

Really? Who got us into the last couple of wars?

That would be Barack Obama. A couple is two or three. If you wanted us to go further back you should have stated several.

And to my point.

Democrats and Republicans are equally moronic when it comes to sending troops into foreign quagmires.

Which everyone in their conservatives are pure evil rush to judgement seemed to ignore. Anyone that has read a single comment of mine knows that I blame Bush for allowing the US to get roped into nation building in Afghanistan; and invading Iraq instead of extending his father's and Clinton's policy of embargo and containment.

To use another quote I like, "US foreign policy is stuck on stupid". Notice it doesn't have a party attached to that statement either.

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.2.11  Ronin2  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.5    one month ago

No one held a gun to Obama's head to send troops back into Iraq to support a government loyal to Iran; or join NATO's quest in protecting Libyan oil rights for France and Britain by removing their government; or entering Syria under the misguided war on terror.

Also, no one forced him to keep troops in Afghanistan. 

Obama owns his mistakes.

Trump is at least trying to end the quagmires we are in. Unfortunately, he caved to the military and intelligence agencies in Syria; but the left still acts like we are out.

The neocons on both sides, and newly minted Democrat chicken hawks, act like once US troops are deployed they can never leave- no matter how hopeless the situation. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.2.12  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.11    one month ago
Trump is at least trying to end the quagmires we are in. Unfortunately, he caved to the military and intelligence agencies in Syria; but the left still acts like we are out.

Trump did WHAT ?

He didn't even consult with our Military and Intelligence agencies about Syria

He did what was best for the Putin him in office, as usual.

Try a dose of reality once in a while.

 
 
 
CB
3.2.13  CB   replied to  Sunshine @3.2    4 weeks ago

Should she? Maybe she can get lost, too.

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.2.14  Ronin2  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.12    4 weeks ago

Really, so the US doesn't have troops still in Syria?

Right.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/25/no-end-date-for-u-s-troops-in-syria/

Less than two months after U.S. President Donald Trump demanded all U.S. troops withdraw from northeastern Syria for the second time, the general in charge of all U.S. forces in the Middle East now says he has no orders to leave the region.

“I don’t have an end date,” Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the commander of U.S. Central Command, told a small group of reporters in Bahrain on Saturday.

Roughly 500 U.S. forces will remain in northeastern Syria with their Kurdish-led partners, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), to continue fighting the remnants of the Islamic State, McKenzie said during a visit to Bahrain for the Manama Dialogue security summit. Under Trump’s directive, the troops will primarily be stationed in the Deir Ezzor province to guard the region’s rich oil fields, but the Defense Department insists that the mission is part of the broader campaign to defeat the terrorist group.

Maybe pay attention to the news sometime. The US killed the head of ISIS/ISIL well after their supposed departure date from Syria.

He did what was best for the Putin him in office, as usual.

Try a dose of reality once in a while.

Stop chugging the Democratic Kool-aid, and reality will be a whole lot clearer. Assad will not be removed from power, period. The whole reason Obama put US troops in Syria to begin with under the War on Terror; protecting the "moderate Sunni" rebels in the process. That hope died the second that Russian, Chinese, and Iranian troops enter the country at Syria's behest. ISIS/ISIL is no longer a military force in the country. It has gone back to it's roots of a terrorist/guerilla operations.  We could stay Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq forever and never defeat it.

As for our so called Syrian Kurdish allies. They jumped to Syria/Russia/China/Iranian side very quickly when the US troops were supposed to withdraw.

So what purpose is our presence in Syria serving? Outside of making it easier for Russia backed Syria to secure the rest of their country.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.3  Krishna  replied to  Tessylo @3    one month ago

She's toast now. 

Do you think she ever had a chance before?

 
 
 
Tacos!
4  Tacos!    one month ago

She's running for president, so she shouldn't be voting anyway.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tacos! @4    one month ago

Bingo.......................

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4    one month ago

Why not? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2    one month ago

It's a clear conflict of interest.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.2.2  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.1    one month ago

That you even had to explain that is quite puzzling..............and funny as hell

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.1    one month ago

Again, WHY? 

The RW has insisted that Biden isn't Trump's political rival because he's 'just' running in the primary against other Democrats. Based on that scenario, Gabbard has no conflict of interest in voting for or against impeaching Trump, right? 

Presidents are required to make decisions based on incomplete information on a daily basis. Some of those decisions can be life or death. 

Gabbard has proven that after even after almost 2 weeks to review all of the available evidence she is STILL be incapable of coming to a cogent decision. That disqualifies her for the office of POTUS, or at least it did before Trumpism.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
4.2.4  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @4.2.3    one month ago
Gabbard has proven that after even after almost 2 weeks to review all of the available evidence she is STILL be incapable of coming to a cogent decision. That disqualifies her for the office of POTUS, or at least it did before Trumpism.  

Obama voted present over 100 times while serving as a Senator....do you think it disqualified him?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.2.5  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @4.2.3    one month ago
The RW has insisted that Biden isn't Trump's political rival because he's 'just' running in the primary against other Democrats.

But the left wing poo pooed that insistence and said it didn't matter. He was still an opponent. Tacos!'s point stands.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.6  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.3    one month ago
The RW has insisted that Biden isn't Trump's political rival because he's 'just' running in the primary against other Democrats.

First, I'm not "The RW" and I have never tried to make that argument. Someone else's argument is not relevant to my point of view.

Second, Since the Democratic party's argument has been that Biden is Trump's political rival, they should be expected to act in accordance with their own point of view.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.7  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @4.2.4    one month ago
Obama voted present over 100 times while serving as a Senator....do you think it disqualified him?

Gaslighting becomes you. 

Would you like to go back and review Gabbard's record while she was a state elected official? 

That's some weak shit...

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.2.5    one month ago
But the left wing poo pooed that insistence and said it didn't matter.

Oh so you're accepting a left wing posit. Well done. 

He was still an opponent. Tacos!'s point stands.

But it's still moot. It's not like Gabbard's vote would have changed the result. The only effect her vote has it to prove that she's indecisive. 

Oh and did you or your fellow travelers have an issue with Ron Paul or Michelle Bachmann voting while they were  candidates? 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.6    one month ago
Second, Since the Democratic party's argument has been that Biden is Trump's political rival, they should be expected to act in accordance with their own point of view.

So is it your posit that none of the Congressmen or Senators that are Candidates should be allowed to represent their constituents during impeachment proceedings? 

Oh and since the outcome is merely that Pence becomes POTUS, what conflict of interest exists? There will still be a 'top level' Republican to run against Gabbard when she wins the nomination. /s

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.10  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.9    one month ago
So is it your posit that none of the Congressmen or Senators that are Candidates should be allowed to represent their constituents during impeachment proceedings?

Nope. I am asserting that they have an obvious bias in voting to impeach the guy whose job they are running for. Their votes on any other legislation are not a concern.

Oh and since the outcome is merely that Pence becomes POTUS, what conflict of interest exists?

It doesn't matter who replaces him. He is still being removed. The particular identity of his replacement doesn't change that.

Any replacement is inherently in a weaker position to be elected next year than the incumbent Trump would have been. Incumbents win reelection at a very high rate. Late term replacements? Not so much.

This also places the the congress members running for president in a stronger position than they would otherwise have enjoyed. In short, voting against Trump in the House or Senate has the potential to boost their own political fortunes. That makes their vote for impeachment a conflict of interest.

There will still be a 'top level' Republican

As I have just illustrated, Republicans are not equally interchangeable any more than Democrats are. Although perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that someone who probably embraces identity politics more than I would might tend to see people of a certain classification as being all the same. This is also called "prejudice."

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.2.11  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @4.2.8    one month ago
Oh and did you or your fellow travelers have an issue with Ron Paul or Michelle Bachmann voting while they were  candidates?

Oh and were they voting on high impact items such as impeachment? Nope. But Paul. But Bachman. Next. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
4.2.12  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @4.2.7    one month ago
That's some weak shit...

A present vote is the same regardless....

Yes voting present is some weak shit.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.13  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.10    one month ago
Nope. I am asserting that they have an obvious bias in voting to impeach the guy whose job they are running for. 

It's called 'prejudice' not to recognize that there is a possibility that they are voting to impeach based on their oath of office and the evidence before them. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.14  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.13    one month ago

No it isn't. Words have definitions. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.15  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.14    one month ago

No shit Sherlock. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @4.2.12    one month ago
A present vote is the same regardless.... Yes voting present is some weak shit.

Actually, it isn't. In the Illinois Senate, there are procedural reasons to vote 'present', especially for Senators that are leading on a piece of legislation. 

But hey, context and facts don't play into your agenda. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
4.2.17  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @4.2.16    one month ago
there are procedural reasons to vote 'present', especially for Senators that are leading on a piece of legislation. 

Sure Einstein...130 times, Obama is a weasel.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.18  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @4.2.17    4 weeks ago
Sure Einstein...130 times, Obama is a weasel.

The obtuseness of your comment is galactic. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.2.16    4 weeks ago
isn't. In the Illinois Senate, there are procedural reasons to vote 'present', especially for Senators that are leading on a piece of legislation. 

I sincerely hope you get paid for these...

 
 
 
CB
4.2.20  CB   replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.2.5    4 weeks ago

What in context of, "I am announcing my candidacy. . . . " confuses you?

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.21  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.19    4 weeks ago
I sincerely hope you get paid for these...

I sincerely hope that you aren't...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5  JohnRussell    one month ago

Tulsi Gabbard has no future in American politics.  She is trying to create a brand though, which may work in some sort of alternative media career down the road. I could see her working with Glenn Greenwald and  Julian Assange and  Edward Snowden on some projects in the future. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @5    one month ago
Tulsi Gabbard has no future in American politics.

She'd be perfect if she could get nominated. She's centrist enough that she could easily win. The problem is getting past the extremism that dominates the primaries.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
5.1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tacos! @5.1    one month ago

As a Independent, I could consider voting for her. To me, the fact that she is currently serving military reservist is also a plus. 

 
 
 
Krishna
5.1.2  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @5.1    one month ago
She'd be perfect if she could get nominated. She's centrist enough that she could easily win.

What do you mean by "Centrist"?

She was a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2013 to 2016, when she resigned to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Gabbard's domestic policy platform in her campaign for the 2020 Democratic nomination is economically and socially progressive and has been described as "similar to Bernie Sanders in many respects"

 She supports Medicare for All[ and strengthening the reproductive rights framework of Roe v Wade by codifying it into federal law. 

Her decision to meet Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and expressions of skepticism about his use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War attracted controversy.

I suppose you feel that Bernie Sanders...and Bashar Assad-- are "Centrist" as well? 

Welcome to The Newstalkers-- where actual facts are usually ignored-- if not considered downright annoying! 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Krishna @5.1.2    one month ago
I suppose you feel that

Suppose whatever you like. It seems to be what you're inclined to do anyway.

What do you mean by "Centrist"?

It's my opinion of her positions on most issues relative to several of the other candidates.

 
 
 
Krishna
5.1.4  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.3    one month ago

It's my opinion of her positions on most issues relative to several of the other candidates.

Well, guess who she chose to back in 2013?

She was a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2013 to 2016, when she resigned to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Of course you might be right-- if in your opinion Bernie's views are more moderate than the other candidates. 

 
 
 
Krishna
5.1.5  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.3    one month ago

What do you mean by "Centrist"?

It's my opinion of her positions on most issues relative to several of the other candidates

What about this:

 She supports Medicare for All[ and strengthening the reproductive rights framework of Roe v Wade by codifying it into federal law. 

Personally In my opinion "medicare for All" is not a "Centrist" position. (And some other Dems oppose it including IIRC the frontrunner). But my opinion could be wrong-- and perhaps you are right (that "medicare for All" is a Centrist position).

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  Krishna @5.1.5    one month ago

You’re really missing that such judgments are always relative to whatever other candidates are available. You seem to be arguing against me for a point of view I don’t hold. I never said she was centrist compared to all possible candidates. I said she was centrist enough to win.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
5.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @5    one month ago

Then obviously, you are very short sighted.

 
 
 
Sunshine
6  Sunshine    one month ago

Although I admire many qualities of her, I do not like those whose job it is to vote using present.  They are in positions where they should be able to make a choice either way and stand by that decision.  I did not like the many times Obama did it either.  If one is on the fence, I would think a nay vote would be the appropriate decision.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7  Dismayed Patriot    one month ago

I like about 85% of what Ms. Gabbard has to say, it's the other 15% where she's shooting herself in the foot and then stuffing that foot in her mouth that make her unqualified for the job of President. Though it's fair to point out that she's about a thousand times more qualified than the current bone spur dip shit occupying the office.

 
 
 
Dulay
8  Dulay    one month ago
I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. 

Thereby disqualifying you for the position of POTUS. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
8.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dulay @8    one month ago

Only to progressive leftist liberals!

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @8.1    one month ago
Only to progressive leftist liberals!

So is it your posit that regressive rightist conservatives support another indecisive POTUS? 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
8.1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dulay @8.1.1    one month ago

Nope. Nice try though

 
 
 
KDMichigan
8.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @8    4 weeks ago
Thereby disqualifying you for the position of POTUS. 

How does it disqualify her? 

I hate to inform you but not towing the butt hurt liberal line does not disqualify one from running for President. 

Now did her present vote trigger some? More than likely.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.1  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @8.2    4 weeks ago
How does it disqualify her? 

I for one would never vote for anyone that can't make a fucking decision. You be you. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @8.2.1    4 weeks ago
can't make a fucking decision

That seems to presume that everyone voting soberly and objectively analyzed the evidence and reached a fair conclusion to some reasonable standard of proof, rather than just voting with their party. 

Gabbard did make a decision. Apparently, she looked at the evidence and decided there wasn't enough there to reach a firm conclusion one way or the other. Sometimes the honest answer is "I don't know."

 
 
 
KDMichigan
8.2.3  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @8.2.1    4 weeks ago

I didn't ask about how you feel, I don't give a shit. 

How does it disqualify her?

 
 
 
CB
8.2.4  CB   replied to  Tacos! @8.2.2    4 weeks ago
Gabbard did make a decision. Apparently, she looked at the evidence and decided there wasn't enough there to reach a firm conclusion one way or the other. Sometimes the honest answer is "I don't know."

Her firm decision should have been to Request More Information and to decide based on its lack of straightforward attending. Her fellow democrats withheld nothing from her (that I know of); Donald Trump did. It was her duty and responsibility to make him own that: obstruction. She did not.

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2.5  Tacos!  replied to  CB @8.2.4    4 weeks ago

Perhaps the rest of the House should have waited until issues of witnesses and evidence had been resolved in the courts. Clearly it wasn’t urgent to take the vote because the Speaker isn’t even sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.6  CB   replied to  Tacos! @8.2.5    4 weeks ago

Clearly, the President has been non-stop tweeting that he has done nothing wrong, ergo why the blanket need for court clearance of documents and witnesses under presidential control of release?

No, there is an urgency. The president of the United States is using seasoned politicians and all who are willing to listen to his specious argument about documents and witnesses as rubes.

Any part of Congress, the second and people's 'branch' of government is right to persist in moving ahead and defining "urgency" for itself—not to benefit an obvious set of lies and set of liars.

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2.7  Tacos!  replied to  CB @8.2.6    4 weeks ago

None of that resolved for me the obvious contradiction in rushing to approve articles of impeachment only to hold on to them so the Senate can't try the matter.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.8  CB   replied to  Tacos! @8.2.7    4 weeks ago

Well now, I am not responsible for 'fake' contradictions. Perhaps, you can coyly ask Majority Leader Mitch McConnell about the blatant contradiction of lunching with the man and his lawyers whom he is about to try (in plain sight of sharing with the media).

You're owed no resolve to your problem. Provide a proper impeachment trial with "weightier matters" that is, witnesses and documents, and stop supporting a planned bungled charade, and all dilemmas surrounding this will simply disappear.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.2.8    4 weeks ago
 Perhaps, you can coyly ask Majority Leader Mitch McConnell about the blatant contradiction of lunching with the man and his lawyers whom he is about to try (in plain sight of sharing with the media). 

No contradiction at all. The House managers are the prosecutors.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
8.2.10  Freedom Warrior  replied to  CB @8.2.8    4 weeks ago

Everybody knows that the whole trial thing is a travesty of a mockery of a sham.

Trampling the constitution with maniacal hatred in pursuit of an individual that is merely uniquely unapologetic in his demeanor while pursuing the business of the state disrupting a disreputable establishment with his bull in the China shop style while playing a marvelously loose impression of an insult comic has cast the resistance as unhinged and unprincipled hypocritical losers entirely lacking in self awareness.

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2.11  Tacos!  replied to  CB @8.2.8    4 weeks ago
Provide a proper impeachment trial with "weightier matters"

It's not up to the Senate to give us an impeachment with weighty matters. That was the duty of the House and they failed. Instead of impeaching the president on weighty matters, they impeached him on hate, hysteria, and invented crimes.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.12  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.9    4 weeks ago

And,the Majority Leader of the Senate and his senate majority comprising underlings are what? Please reply. What roles awaits them in these proceedings?

 
 
 
CB
8.2.13  CB   replied to  Freedom Warrior @8.2.10    4 weeks ago

Merely? There is nothing merely occurring here.

  1. This record of impeachment can not be expunged.  Why has President Donald Trump chosen impeachment over document and witness sharing in the House?
  2. Why did Trump impeach himself—what do you know about it?
 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.2.12    4 weeks ago

The Senate acts as jury.

And?

 
 
 
CB
8.2.15  CB   replied to  Tacos! @8.2.11    4 weeks ago

You are arguing in vain. You can not get the Senate off the hook. I will not waste my energy on cavalier dodges. Senators should not either. I hope and pray the people en masse demand the senate to honor their oaths of office and when the time comes their distinct impeachment oaths. The nation will watch; the nations will watch; congresses not yet convened will watch.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.16  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.14    4 weeks ago

And what?

Shall all the Senate state:

"I solemnly swear [or affirm, as the case may be] that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [the person being impeached], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God."  —Rule XXV of Senate Rules for Impeachment

All things? All things? All things impeachment? And then lie before God when the Majority Leader of the Senate and its Judiciary Chair merely 'mouth' the oath. Both men have mocked the impartiality quotient of the proceedings ahead of its occurring.

Shall evangelical republicans now MOCK God? The day they do, we will all know what Trump has become.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.17  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.2.16    4 weeks ago

My, my, how very melodramatic of you.

The House will have every opportunity to make their case.

Provided Nancy sends it to the Senate.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8.2.18  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.17    4 weeks ago
Provided Nancy sends it to the Senate.

I will be very surprised if she does...

odds are it dies in the round file.

cheers :)

 
 
 
CB
8.2.19  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.17    4 weeks ago

If I am melodramatic, what is this:

McConnell: "We will be working with the White House in total coordination with the White House and the people representing the President in the well of the Senate."

Texan: I trust you are clear on what the meaning is for, "total."

You are free to scour up Senator Graham's, 'I'm doing my best to demonstrate I am not an impartial witness for impeachment.' On your own.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.20  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.2.19    4 weeks ago

Like I said, the House will have its chance to present their evidence IF Nancy sends it to the Senate.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.21  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.20    4 weeks ago

You are trying to redirect from what McConnell has actually stated. McConnell is a partisan hack based on his statements to Sean Hannity. His oath of office is a tool. His "So help me God" a mockery before trial even begins.

I shall not labor long with you over lies, misinformation, and omissions, Texan1211.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.22  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @8.2.2    4 weeks ago
That seems to presume that everyone voting soberly and objectively analyzed the evidence and reached a fair conclusion to some reasonable standard of proof, rather than just voting with their party.

That would be a Nay vote. 

Gabbard did make a decision.

Nope. 

Apparently, she looked at the evidence and decided there wasn't enough there to reach a firm conclusion one way or the other.

POTUS NEED to make conclusions one way or the other every fucking day. 

Sometimes the honest answer is "I don't know."

One doesn't indict someone if they 'don't know' so her vote should have been Nay. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2.23  Tacos!  replied to  CB @8.2.15    4 weeks ago
demand the senate to honor their oaths of office

I fear you're assuming that if a senator disagrees with you and votes to acquit the president, that senator must be violating their oath. Are you prepared to concede that a reasonable senator could acquit the president?

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.24  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @8.2.3    4 weeks ago
I didn't ask about how you feel, I don't give a shit. 
How does it disqualify her?

Actually you DID. How it disqualifies her is my opinion which is how I feel. 

So pound sand. 

 
 
 
katrix
8.2.25  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @8.2.23    4 weeks ago
I fear you're assuming that if a senator disagrees with you and votes to acquit the president, that senator must be violating their oath

When GOP senators state that they will not be impartial jurors - that doesn't cause you any concern? Even though they will have to swear an oath to be impartial?

Trump fans seem to just trample all over the constitution and don't even give a crap.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.26  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.2.21    4 weeks ago
You are trying to redirect from what McConnell has actually stated. McConnell is a partisan hack based on his statements to Sean Hannity. His oath of office is a tool. His "So help me God" a mockery before trial even begins.

No, what I am doing is simply stating facts.

The House will have its chance--IF Nancy chooses to send the Articles to the Senate. Then the trial will happen, and most likely will result in Trump remaining in office.

You and others will just have to learn to accept it.

I shall not labor long with you over lies, misinformation, and omissions, Texan1211.

That is your choice, but I resent your insidious insinuations. I haven't lied about a thing, and CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVE WHAT YOU NOW CLAIM----IF YOU CAN!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.2.27  Sean Treacy  replied to  katrix @8.2.25    4 weeks ago

Have you paid attention to what's come out of the Democratic Senators' mouths? Do you think they will be impartial jurors?

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.28  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2.27    4 weeks ago

Apparently Trump haters are immune from criticism about impartiality.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
KDMichigan
8.2.29  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @8.2.24    4 weeks ago
How it disqualifies her is my opinion

Your post was as a statement of fact. 

Actually you DID.

Actually I DIDN'T. I never asked how you felt. I stated her present vote may have triggered some but it does not disqualify her.

So pound sand. 

Now go lick a window.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.30  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @8.2.25    4 weeks ago

The GOP Senators appear to be just as unbiased (or biased, if you prefer) as Democratic Senators.

 
 
 
loki12
8.2.31  loki12  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.30    4 weeks ago

Doug Jones is indicating that he will vote against the articles, If he does, the only thing bipartisan will be the rebuke of the democrat shit show.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.32  CB   replied to  Tacos! @8.2.23    4 weeks ago

Your presumption is in error. @8.2.15 the context is the senate trial opening where republican players have come out biased at the outset—including its 'ring-leader' republican Majority Leader McConnell.

This is a 'first-base' discussion about rules, documents, and witnesses, we are having ahead of moving on to 'second, third, and home.'

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.33  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.2.32    4 weeks ago
 
 
 
CB
8.2.34  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.26    4 weeks ago

Spare me. You misinterpreted what I wrote @ I shall not labor long with you over lies, misinformation, and omissions, Texan1211.

As you should know well by now, NT are not permitted to call out each other as liars. My true meaning is as it is stated but I will make it more plain: I will not spend anything resembling 'hours' of back and forth parsing republican talking points, Trump's lies, Russian (or anybody's) misinformation, and gaping  omissions of factual points which are striving to receive their proper place in any discussion.

Now can you return to the discussion at hand? @8.2.19 Majority Leader McConnell, republican, Kentucky speaks as a partisan hack set to take a second oath compounding his clear abuse of the process when he does. He will not be impartial. That is a lie to the office of Majority Leader, the Constitution, and in this case, God.

What say you?

 
 
 
CB
8.2.35  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.28    4 weeks ago

You say, "Trump haters" like somebody owes Trump there love. Why?

Moreover, how are say  so-called, "Trump haters' any different than a so-called, "Obama haters"?

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.36  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.2.34    4 weeks ago
What say you?

I say you basically called me a liar and then backpedaled as fast as you could once I called you out on it.

I encourage you to call on Pelosi to finish what she started and send the Articles to the Senate ASAP.

remember when Democrats said a Trump Presidency was a Constitutional crisis? Well, what is the delay then??

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.37  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.2.35    4 weeks ago
You say, "Trump haters" like somebody owes Trump there love. Why?

Merely YOUR "interpretation" of what was stated and meant.

Doesn't concern me at all.

Moreover, how are say  so-called, "Trump haters' any different than a so-called, "Obama haters"?

I didn't claim that. I claim that both sides are biased, and you keep wanting to skirt that fact by pretending Democrats are pure in heart!

 
 
 
CB
8.2.38  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.30    4 weeks ago

How can you conclude either unless you demand an impartial trial in the Senate? And, an honoring of the two oaths of office and impeachment. The second oath by the way, meant to call all to attention and putting down of the regular bullshit politics of the day.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.39  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.2.38    4 weeks ago
How can you conclude either

Pretty simple. I read. I watch the news. I am on the internet. I don't live in a cocoon, pretending one side is perfect and the other is evil.

I gave you specific links so that you could become more aware of what is going on with Democrats ALSO showing their bias, but all you want to do is whine about Republicans.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.40  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.33    4 weeks ago

Jonathan Turley makes a good point. However, I do not know how meaningful or valuable it is quote senators who have observed the activities in the house and come to the mike to express various degrees of outrage.

By the way, Texan1211 Democratic outrage is not cover to avoid getting at the facts. For example, as it stands right now the democrats and some republican senators can have a point or points of view about the direction of the senate trial. Upon hearing proper witnesses and 'touching' proper documents those points of view can modulate, mitigate, or suspend.

That is not what Majority Leader McConnell has stated.

McConnell: "We will be working with the White House in total coordination with the White House and the people representing the President in the well of the Senate.

"Total" means "all." "In the well" in context means calls and actions taken between the White House by Senate leaders, white house staff, in real-time. That is the very definitional meaning of a 'staged political exercise.'

Jonathan Turley, needs to find the wisdom in sufficient comparison before he mounts his white steed yet again.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.41  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.36    4 weeks ago

@ 8.2.19 Majority Leader McConnell, republican, Kentucky speaks as a partisan hack set to take a second oath compounding his clear abuse of the process when he does. He will not be impartial. That is a lie to the office of Majority Leader, the Constitution, and in this case, God.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.42  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.39    4 weeks ago

Clearly we are done here. Because here come the vagaries. . . .

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2.43  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @8.2.25    4 weeks ago
When GOP senators state that they will not be impartial jurors - that doesn't cause you any concern?

It might, sure. Depends on the circumstances. Here, I think the Senators have heard the evidence already. How could they not? It’s been all over TV. You know the evidence and have already formed an opinion, so why should it be any different for them? It’s not as if they are genuinely coming into the process with no information. It’s kind of impossible that they haven’t formed an opinion already.

But ok, let’s go with your idea. Let’s apply that same idea to the Democrats. Do you think Democrats in the House have been impartial investigators? How could they be? They’ve been promising to impeach the president for three years. Several of them campaigned on it. But the events justifying it only happened within the last few months.

Democratic Senators are campaigning on it now, both the ones running for president and the ones merely seeking reelection. How can they be impartial jurors?

Trump fans seem to just trample all over the constitution and don't even give a crap.

Maybe. I think we have three years worth of ample evidence that Democrats seem to just trample all over the constitution and don't even give a crap.

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.2.44  Sparty On  replied to  CB @8.2.41    4 weeks ago

He's just following the example set by the House ...... not sure why you'd have a problem with what Mitch said if you accepted the job done by the House.

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2.45  Tacos!  replied to  CB @8.2.32    4 weeks ago
republican players have come out biased at the outset

Define “outset.” If you’re going to try to claim that the “outset” of all of this will be the beginning of some trial in January, you’re out of your mind. The outset of this bullshit circus was in 2016, when - before Trump was even sworn into office - Democrats were promising to impeach him. This shit has gone on non-stop for over three years, but the events allegedly “justifying” the removal of Trump from office only developed over the last few months.

So don’t talk to me about “bias” and “outset” unless you’re willing to address the outset of three years ago and the OBVIOUS bias of promising to impeach a president before he has even done anything as president.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.46  CB   replied to  Sparty On @8.2.44    4 weeks ago

Context can be your friend too. . . . Go ahead, try it. You will like it.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.47  CB   replied to  Tacos! @8.2.45    4 weeks ago

Tacos! Don't try to fake us out!  The whole roster of senators are due to take a second oath specifically to imbue them with power to act on the most grave circumstances confronting this country's leader.

Shall all the Senate state:

"I solemnly swear [or affirm, as the case may be] that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [Donald J. Trump], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God." 
—Rule XXV of Senate Rules for Impeachment

This is the Senate. These oaths are for now and have no bearing on the House. Deal with that.

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.2.48  Sparty On  replied to  CB @8.2.46    4 weeks ago

The "context" i'm pointing out is clear to those willing to listen but there you go .....

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.49  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.2.42    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

Why do so many on here wish to tell OTHERS what the others are thinking and going to say? And then attempt to argue THAT nonsense?

It is intellectually LAZY and DISHONEST.

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2.50  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @8.2.22    4 weeks ago
POTUS NEED to make conclusions one way or the other every fucking day. 

Yes, and sometimes that decision is to wait for more information.

One doesn't indict someone if they 'don't know' so her vote should have been Nay. 

One also doesn't vow to impeach a president before he has actually done anything worth impeaching him over. Yet, here we are.

so her vote should have been Nay

And yet the option of voting "present" was available to her, so other actual members of Congress must have thought it was an option worth having. I guess you know better than they do, though.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.2.51  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @8.2.50    4 weeks ago
One also doesn't vow to impeach a president before he has actually done anything worth impeaching him over. Yet, here we are.

Donald Trump has never been fit to hold office. He has been a KNOWN serial liar, crook, bigot and moron since PRIOR to the 2016 election. It doesnt sound unusual or out of the ordinary for people to suppose he would be up for impeachment at some point if he got elected. 

Conservatives screech "they wanted to impeach him before he took office".   What they dont screech is that plenty of people knew what Donald Trump is all about and that it would lend itself to what we see happening today.  The only way Trump wasnt going to eventually face the music was if he changed into a 180 degree opposite of what he has been all his life. Needless to say that didnt happen. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.52  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.51    4 weeks ago

Are you still sad that the very best the Democratic Party could offer America somehow couldn't beat someone YOU personally find so reprehensible?

How does that make you feel about your party? Confident that THIS time they can really, really win--just in case impeachment and removal doesn't happen as you dream so fervently of?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.2.53  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.52    4 weeks ago

Someone wondered why there was an assumption that Trump should be impeached. Given his history and his character (lack of) it would have been strange if people were not assuming he would be impeached at some point. 

 
 
 
MUVA
8.2.54  MUVA  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.52    4 weeks ago

Bingo it's the whole point Trump be damned you didn't vote for who he wanted  so he's mad.Like there was a choice the most corrupt women probably in history or a businessman that is going to lower my taxes and get people off their fucking couches and back to work. 

 
 
 
MUVA
8.2.55  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.53    4 weeks ago

So you are saying he should be impeached for something he did before he was in office? Or  is YOUR'S a self fulling prophecy so no matter what he did he was going to be impeached or should be in your opinion?   

 
 
 
JBB
8.2.56  JBB  replied to  MUVA @8.2.55    4 weeks ago

Trump was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress...

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2.57  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @8.2.56    4 weeks ago

Democrats have been promising to impeach him for three years. But Trump was impeached for things he did in July and things he didn’t do in October/November. You don’t see a problem in that?

 
 
 
MUVA
8.2.58  MUVA  replied to  JBB @8.2.56    4 weeks ago

He will never be convicted of those crap charges neither hold up to someone with a functioning brain he will be acquitted as soon as miss poligrip send it to senate.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.2.59  JohnRussell  replied to  MUVA @8.2.54    4 weeks ago

There is PROOF that Donald Trump is corrupt , and still you go on and on about Hillary. 

MATTHEW 7:3 KJV "And why beholdest thou the mote that is ...

5   Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own   eye ; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out   the mote   out of   thy brother's eye

 
 
 
MUVA
8.2.60  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.59    4 weeks ago

I'm not the slightest bit religious I don't care what the bible says.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.61  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.53    4 weeks ago

That might actually be true--if someone had absolutely no clue as to what impeachment is or why it is used.

Or that person couldn't look it up somewhere--like the internet.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
8.2.62  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.61    4 weeks ago

You have to remember that Trump could walk on water across the Potomac and someone would seed an article claiming he couldn't swim.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.63  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.62    4 weeks ago
You have to remember that Trump could walk on water across the Potomac and someone would seed an article claiming he couldn't swim.

Too true.

I'll give you 3 guesses who would seed that article here, and the first 2 won't even count!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
8.2.64  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.63    4 weeks ago

Probably all three......

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.65  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @8.2.56    4 weeks ago
Trump was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress...

Trump was impeached because he beat Clinton and Democrats have yet to accept the results of the election--hence the IMMEDIATE calls for impeachment that Nancy Pelosi admitted has been ongoing for at least 2 years.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
8.2.66  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.65    4 weeks ago

The hypocrisy abounds. Remember the "No one is above the law" mantra? Our Dem friends need to tell the sanctuary cities and states that little bit of information..................but but Trump.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.67  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @8.2.50    4 weeks ago
Yes, and sometimes that decision is to wait for more information.

Oh you are so right and that was what her moving speech on the House floor was all about.

Oh wait...she didn't make a peep. 

One also doesn't vow to impeach a president before he has actually done anything worth impeaching him over. Yet, here we are.

Trump has done plenty to be impeached over. 

And yet the option of voting "present" was available to her, so other actual members of Congress must have thought it was an option worth having. I guess you know better than they do, though.

While that 'option or voting present' may be appropriate for 1 of 435,  it isn't for the POTUS. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2.68  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @8.2.67    4 weeks ago
While that 'option or voting present' may be appropriate for 1 of 435,  it isn't for the POTUS. 

So she should pretend like she's the president even though she's still 1 of 435?

it isn't for the POTUS

Of course it is. Every day, every president holds off on making some decision pending more information. The president - a good president - doesn't say "yes" or "no" just because someone else is demanding it.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.69  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @8.2.68    4 weeks ago
So she should pretend like she's the president even though she's still 1 of 435?

Why not, she's pretending to be qualified to be POTUS. 

Of course it is. Every day, every president holds off on making some decision pending more information. The president - a good president - doesn't say "yes" or "no" just because someone else is demanding it.

Oh and HOW is everyone supposed to know that the POTUS, or in this case Gabbard, wanted and/or needed MORE information. Sure as fuck not by her floor speech or her statements since the vote. I sure as fuck haven't heard a word from her about needing to hear from MORE witnesses or about getting documents. 

Face it, Gabbard is a lightweight. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
8.2.70  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.63    3 weeks ago

Actually said people would whine and complain because instead of walking on the water, he treaded 6 inches!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
9  XDm9mm    one month ago

Move on over the the right side Tulsi.  Hell those asswipes on the left think you're a Russian asset anyway and essentially despise you because you don't tow the party line.

 
 
 
Krishna
9.1  Krishna  replied to  XDm9mm @9    one month ago
essentially despise you because you don't tow the party line.

You mean because she is a Bernie supporter?

She was a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2013 to 2016, when she resigned to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Or is it her support of "medicare for all" that you are referring to when you claim that "she doesn't support the Party line"? Or wanting to strengthen Roe v Wade even more?

She supports Medicare for All[ and strengthening the reproductive rights framework of Roe v Wade by codifying it into federal law. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
9.1.1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Krishna @9.1    one month ago
She was a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2013 to 2016, when she resigned to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

More than likely because Bernie was getting the shaft from the DNC and the anointed one.............and quite possibly didn't care for Mrs. Clinton at all. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
9.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @9.1    one month ago

She isn't toing the party line regarding impeachment. 

Also, she hasn't jumped on the neocon/chicken hawk band wagon. Which I can get on board with for anyone.

But you are correct with healthcare, environment, and energy program she is definitely a liberal. (More than likely a Democrat as it would be hard to be a fiscal conservative and accomplish her plans.)

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
9.1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Krishna @9.1    one month ago

People are entitled make and realize their mistakes. Perhaps Tulsi did. 

 
 
 
Krishna
9.1.4  Krishna  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.1    one month ago
More than likely because Bernie was getting the shaft from the DNC and the anointed one.............and quite possibly didn't care for Mrs. Clinton at all. 

And her support of "Medicare for All"? I could be wrong, but IMO thsat's one of the most far left positions of Democrats. 

 
 
 
Krishna
10  Krishna    one month ago

I think she may be thinking of retiring. Here's why:

She represents Hawaii, which is one of the most liberal if not the single most liberal state in the country!

(In the last presidential election, Trump got the lowest percentage of votes of any of the 50 states in..Hawaii!!).

So my guess is that being so liberal, most Hawaiins would want their representative not only to vote for Impeachment-- but say they're strongly for it!

In Hawaii, taking any position that isn't far left would put any politician at risk of losing the primary. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
10.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Krishna @10    4 weeks ago

I think a better reason to believe that is because she announced two months ago she wasn’t running for re-election. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
11  Raven Wing    4 weeks ago

I have no use for Gabbard.  She seems to like to play like she is the only real candidate in the crowd. If she can't make up her mind with a simple Yes or No vote on something like the impeachment, then I would not trust her to make a logical decision in the event of a nuclear war. 

It is not her being against the impeachment that I object to, it is her either her inability or reluctance to make a definite decision or Yes or No instead of simply saying 'Present', which is the same as not voting at all. To me, that is cowardice, and not something I want to see in a President from either party that is supposed to be the ultimate decision maker for our country and its people under the most dire circumstances.

For me, she is a non-starter for Presidential material. 

JMOO

 
 
 
PJ
11.1  PJ  replied to  Raven Wing @11    4 weeks ago

She's a russian asset so I'm not surprised those who support trump would also consider her a worthy candidate.  jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Raven Wing
11.1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  PJ @11.1    4 weeks ago

I don't know about her Russian connections, if any, but, I find her far too self absorbed to be really that concerned about the people and their real needs. There are far more important needs of the people other than just Medicare. While agree that good health care is important, other things such as good education, a solid economy that is not subject to the whims of our enemies, and protection of our environment not only for now, but, for our future generations. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
11.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  PJ @11.1    4 weeks ago
She's a russian asset

What is that supposed to mean?

 
 
 
pat wilson
11.1.3  pat wilson  replied to  Raven Wing @11.1.1    4 weeks ago

Right ! A good education is the root of prosperity and well-being. It's like preventative medicine for a successful society.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
11.1.4  Raven Wing  replied to  pat wilson @11.1.3    4 weeks ago
It's like preventative medicine for a successful society.

Indeed it is. And in the world of today, education is so much more diverse that the original basic 3; Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. 

The world of science is much vaster and more complicated than even a decade ago, and our schools are barely able to provide the basic foundation of science.

Computer science and programming is a necessary part of our communication and production on a world-wide basis.

Betsy Bonehead that is now head of the Education Dept is not only an insult to our intelligent students, but, to our country as well. She would not even be fit to scoop dog at a dog park. 

If we as a society don't put more emphasis into educating our own young people, we will be ultimately dependent on students from other counties that put a high priority on educating their young.

 
 
 
pat wilson
11.1.5  pat wilson  replied to  Raven Wing @11.1.4    4 weeks ago
If we as a society don't put more emphasis into educating our own young people, we will be ultimately dependent on students from other counties that put a high priority on educating their young.

Absolutely. 

 
 
 
PJ
11.1.6  PJ  replied to  Raven Wing @11.1.1    4 weeks ago

Her connection with russia is through Bashar Hafez al-Assad.  He's in russia's pocket.  She has done and said a number of things that are questionable and she refuses to acknowledge him as a dictator.  

Some use the argument that she serves in our military.  I say, so what.  Serving in the US military doesn't give citizens a free pass to not have their loyalty questioned.  We've had several members of our military work against our country and maybe we would have prevented some of the damage done to the country had we questioned their loyalty sooner.

She's the dem's equivalent to Stephen Miller.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
11.1.7  Dean Moriarty  replied to  PJ @11.1.6    4 weeks ago

After looking at her position on the issues like free college and other theft and redistribution policies she looks like a radical leftist to me. 

 
 
 
loki12
11.1.8  loki12  replied to  Dean Moriarty @11.1.7    4 weeks ago

It's amazing, the only one we have documented proof that worked with Russia to sway the election is Hillary, and yet the dems continue to point fingers everywhere but at the person who we know actually did it. 

 
 
 
The People's Fish
11.1.9  The People's Fish  replied to  Dean Moriarty @11.1.7    4 weeks ago

She is a far left radical but as Ron Paul said her economic fantasy policy will never get passed. So she will save us a fortune by bringing the troops home and staying out of foreign countries. Her foreign policy would actually make a dent in the National Debt crisis.

Not to mention She is a vet, looks hot in a bikini, works out everyday and surfs. She would be the first president we want to see naked.

 
 
 
lib50
11.1.10  lib50  replied to  loki12 @11.1.8    4 weeks ago
It's amazing, the only one we have documented proof that worked with Russia to sway the election is Hillary,

That is a lie, perpetrated by Trump and the rest of the gop. Kevin McCarthy went out and told that lie and its being repeated ad nauseam by Trumpers.  But its still a lie.

 
 
 
The People's Fish
11.1.11  The People's Fish  replied to  lib50 @11.1.10    4 weeks ago

Where have you been, she hired a foreign agent to gather Russian disinformation from Russian oligarchs. I think you are trapped in a loop of Rachel Maddow's show. I hear she is about to read Donald's tax return live on the air, stay tuned.

Russia!

 
 
 
lib50
11.1.12  lib50  replied to  The People's Fish @11.1.11    4 weeks ago

She didn't use US power and resources to extort from an ally for personal purposes, and she didn't get help from Putin like Trump still does.  But hey, keep trying to disentangle the gop from Putin's ass.  They are pretty far up there with Trump.

 
 
 
MUVA
11.1.13  MUVA  replied to  lib50 @11.1.12    4 weeks ago

No she used the state department FBI agents and foreign agents to do her bidding Trump made a phone call.

 
 
 
The People's Fish
11.1.14  The People's Fish  replied to  lib50 @11.1.12    4 weeks ago
he didn't use US power and resources to extort from an ally for personal purposes, and she didn't get help from Putin like Trump still does.  But hey, keep trying to disentangle the gop from Putin's ass.  They are pretty

Everything you have said about Russian Collusion on this site turned out to be untrue. Doubling down on the Hoax promoted by democrat allies in the media is not helping your case nor theirs.

Remember when we debated policy instead of conspiracy fantasy? Now would be the appropriate time to do that. LOL

 
 
 
MUVA
11.1.15  MUVA  replied to  The People's Fish @11.1.14    4 weeks ago

Fredo was so sincere how can you not believe him remember he’s smart.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
11.1.16  Raven Wing  replied to  PJ @11.1.6    4 weeks ago
Her connection with russia is through Bashar Hafez al-Assad.  He's in russia's pocket.

I see. Thank you for the clarification on her association with Assad.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
11.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Raven Wing @11    4 weeks ago
To me, that is cowardice, and not something I want to see in a President

Out of 750 days in the Senate the failure in chief obama voted present 129 times.

Glad to hear you didn't think he was Presidential either.

 
 
 
The People's Fish
12  The People's Fish    4 weeks ago

An actual ideological liberal runs for president and those Democrats that like to pretend the are progressive or liberal. Slander and defame her.

Democrats are not liberals. Tulsi Gabbard is a non interventionist abd we recently learned Democrats have a lust for war.

Make no mistake, this forum has only had a handful of actual liberals

Aeonpax, Bob Nelson and Chucky Stewart. They never would put a party before their principals. Those three never towed part line for anyone.

The group we have now? Democrats.

 
 
 
lib50
12.1  lib50  replied to  The People's Fish @12    4 weeks ago

I'm not a democrat, and Tulsi is not a liberal.  There is a reason she is getting the maga/Putin love.  But I do think its funny how you keep trying to define democrats, liberals and progressives. 

 
 
 
The People's Fish
12.1.1  The People's Fish  replied to  lib50 @12.1    4 weeks ago

You are a rank in file who carried water for Hillary. 

She exposed a llittle neocon in the Newstalker's Democrats. That's the real issue here. The hate towards her is merely a self projection. I know it, you know it and most of the site knows it.

 
 
 
lib50
12.1.2  lib50  replied to  The People's Fish @12.1.1    4 weeks ago

Sure, professor who carries the Trump lies to new heights.  Feel free to vote for her.

 
 
 
The People's Fish
12.1.3  The People's Fish  replied to  lib50 @12.1.2    4 weeks ago

Ok here you go, any time she is thirsty please remove the cap and water her.

384

 
 
 
lib50
12.1.4  lib50  replied to  The People's Fish @12.1.3    4 weeks ago

Sorry you just can't quit Hillary.  Guess its all you've got.

 
 
 
The People's Fish
12.1.5  The People's Fish  replied to  lib50 @12.1.4    4 weeks ago

I'm considering adding an "I'm with Her" tag to my pseudonym like the entire site somewhere once did. I may even buy a pink crotch hat and say I'm a nasty fish then march behind a vile bigot and Antisemite in the name of tolerance and equality.

 
 
 
lib50
12.1.6  lib50  replied to  The People's Fish @12.1.5    4 weeks ago

Is Trump planning a march for you to follow in your pussy hat?  How fun for you. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
12.1.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  The People's Fish @12.1.5    3 weeks ago

Don't forget the Antifa security escort....

 
 
 
Kavika
13  Kavika     4 weeks ago

The so called conservative support for Gabbard is quite interesting. When she had a meeting with Assad (the butcher of Syria) which was not approved by anyone, there was concern that it may have been a Logan act violation. There were also questions of who paid for the trip. The best part of this so called support of Gabbard is what some republicans said about her after the trip.

Adam Kinzinger, a Republican congressman from Illinois, was among few lawmakers to immediately condemn Gabbard’s actions. 
Advertisement
“It is sad and a shame and a disgrace,” Kinzinger told reporters at a Republican policy retreat in Philadelphia. “In no way should any member of Congress, should any government official, ever travel to meet with a guy that has killed 500,000 people and 50,000 children.”
Kinzinger called on leadership in both parties to condemn Gabbard’s trip and questioned how it was financed. But Kinzinger – like Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran – said he would need to know more to file an ethics complaint against his colleague.

She announced that she will not be running for reelection.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
13.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Kavika @13    4 weeks ago

Her rogue behavior does not surprise me at all. And I wonder for whose benefit she made that trip to meet with Assad. Even if it was a Logan Act violation, chances are she would not be held accountable for it. As for who paid for the trip, that remains to be seen, but, will likely not come to the fore anytime soon. 

She seems to be given free reign to do as she likes, and for me, the question is why? And why is she running as a Democrat when she obviously leans Republican. 

Curiouser and curiouser.....inquiring minds would like to know. But, chances are it will only be lame excuses and coverups that will be given.

 
 
 
The People's Fish
13.1.1  The People's Fish  replied to  Raven Wing @13.1    4 weeks ago

Her Rogue Behavior?

She told the truth about Hillary and you all felt bad because she was right?

WOW that was deep.....

How could she! Think for her self? Unbelievable.

And for that she a soldier called a trader, agent of Putin and various misogynistic names by women in the Democrat party

Pretty damm disgusting.....

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Raven Wing @13.1    4 weeks ago
She seems to be given free reign to do as she likes, and for me, the question is why? And why is she running as a Democrat when she obviously leans Republican. 

Better take another look at her positions.   She's about as far away from a conservative platform as you can get on several big ticket items.   Her only mistake is to have the temerity to not goose step in exact unison with the standard liberal platform being pushed these days.

She clearly thinks for herself, i respect that and her service.   Don't agree with most of her political positions but unlike many folks on both sides, that won't stop me from respecting her.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
13.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sparty On @13.1.2    4 weeks ago

She's not a bot. Therefore the bots think she's a Republican.  They can't understand someone who doesn't parrot the same talking points down the line.

 
 
 
The People's Fish
13.1.4  The People's Fish  replied to  Sean Treacy @13.1.3    4 weeks ago

Just go back and read the Kurdish rebel seeds. You will see were the great divide in truth festered on this site. The Kurdish rebels who fill their ranks with child soldiers and who over the last few years slaughtered 40,000 innocent civilians were condemned by Tulsi.

Our Democrats immediately channeled Dick Cheney and became the biggest supporters of war in the Middle East. By far one of the strangest flips I've seen on an internet forum.

The Donald has warped their minds, exposed them as salivating neocons. 

jrSmiley_102_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sunshine
13.1.5  Sunshine  replied to  The People's Fish @13.1.4    4 weeks ago
The Donald has warped their minds, exposed them as salivating neocons. 

It is amazing the hypocrisy and double standard people will succumb to because of TDS.

Trump could claim water is wet and they would feverishly claim otherwise.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.1.6  KDMichigan  replied to  Sparty On @13.1.2    4 weeks ago
She clearly thinks for herself, i respect that and her service.

I can't believe the condemnation she got from the left for stating she is against wars. You should have seen the attacks from are left wing neocons on this site for her stance. It was Hillaryious.

 
 
 
CB
13.1.7  CB   replied to  Sunshine @13.1.5    4 weeks ago

Apart from Trump - Water is wet. I thought you knew!

President Trump nor right-wing talking points don't 'trump' facts and context in discussion. As the saying goes, We are what we are.

 
 
 
The People's Fish
13.1.8  The People's Fish  replied to  CB @13.1.7    4 weeks ago

Water is wet?

Thank you for your contribution and stay dry homeslice.

 
 
 
MUVA
13.1.9  MUVA  replied to  The People's Fish @13.1.8    4 weeks ago

Even if you are wearing a dry suit?

 
 
 
The People's Fish
13.1.10  The People's Fish  replied to  MUVA @13.1.9    4 weeks ago

It's very important to hydrate as we get older.

 
 
 
CB
13.1.11  CB   replied to  The People's Fish @13.1.8    4 weeks ago

You too, my main 'fish' from another mother. (Y'all that is a joke. T'Fish and me roll like that.)

 
 
 
MUVA
13.1.12  MUVA  replied to  The People's Fish @13.1.10    4 weeks ago

Yes I’m a little dry myself.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
13.1.13  Raven Wing  replied to  Sparty On @13.1.2    4 weeks ago
Better take another look at her positions.

I have. Some I might agree with, others, no. Her taking a cowards way out of voting yes or no on the impeachment says a lot to me. Obviously, not to you. And that is fine. We each have our own opinions and a right to express them.

She came out today and said that Trump is unfit to serve. A little face saving perhaps. Especially, since Trump commended her for answering "Present" instead of an actual vote of Yes or No. She obviously did not want to commit herself on the impeachment vote in order to save her own face.

My opinion on her handling of the impeachment has nothing to do with whether or not I respect her, which I do and thank her for her service for our country. So don't be so quick to judge me and how I think and feel just because you don't agree with me. I could care less if she walks in lock step with the Democrats or not, as you seem to ass-ume I do. So don't put words in my mouth or think you know what I think or feel.

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.1.14  Sparty On  replied to  Raven Wing @13.1.13    4 weeks ago
Her taking a cowards way out of voting yes or no on the impeachment says a lot to me.

Yes, to each their own.  

I say voting the party line, without really believing in it, is truly the cowards way out and in a lot of cases against the will of their constituencies.

But no worries, many will find that out the hard way in 2020.   Two years and out simply because of ego and TDS.  

Sad!

 
 
 
Raven Wing
13.1.15  Raven Wing  replied to  Sparty On @13.1.14    3 weeks ago
I say voting the party line, without really believing in it, is truly the cowards way out and in a lot of cases against the will of their constituencies.

I have no issue that she did not vote in lock step with the Dems on the Impeachment. My issue is HOW she voted. 

Had she had voted "No" it would have been much more meaningful, much more effective, than merely saying "Present". It makes her look indecisive, and not willing to stand up to her own conviction on the issue. 

It also makes her look like she is afraid to stand up to her colleagues by firmly voting against the impeachment. To me, merely saying "Present" under such important circumstances is the same as saying she doesn't really want to stand up and be accountable for her own convictions.

So, that is why I say it is a cowards way out. What was she afraid of? And why suddenly is she not going to run for re-election again that she is afraid to divulge, as she has not even been nominated yet? 

Thus, I have my doubts about her real reason for not being willing to openly vote NO on the impeachment if she really did not agree with it.

JMOO

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.1.16  Sparty On  replied to  Raven Wing @13.1.15    3 weeks ago

Well, personally i think it was pure politics.  

She's way behind in Presidential polls and probably is looking for a way to get a bump.  

I bet that is all her "present" vote was

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
13.1.17  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  KDMichigan @13.1.6    3 weeks ago

Bottom line is that she was not in lock step towing the party line, so the progressive leftist liberal TDS Democrats decided she was a traitor to the party and are punishing her accordingly as they see it. Pathetic!

 
 
 
Raven Wing
13.1.18  Raven Wing  replied to  Sparty On @13.1.16    3 weeks ago

You could be right, Sparty. It could be a way to try to play it safe by not actually voting either way thinking it will not offend anyone either way. However, I think she will find that playing it safe is not always the wisest choice to make.

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.1.19  Sparty On  replied to  Raven Wing @13.1.18    3 weeks ago

Her campaign was over before it started IMO.    Powerful forces like the DNC will make sure of that.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.1.20  KDMichigan  replied to  Sparty On @13.1.19    3 weeks ago
Her campaign was over before it started IMO.

Her campaign was over when she had the audacity to call out Hillaryious Hillary.

 
 
 
MUVA
13.2  MUVA  replied to  Kavika @13    4 weeks ago

Obama made a deal with Iran responsible for a preponderance  of the IED deaths of our soldiers in Iraq.  Isn't it funny how the war in Yemen took a uptick in fighting when Iran was given a plane full of money. 

 
 
 
The People's Fish
13.2.1  The People's Fish  replied to  MUVA @13.2    4 weeks ago

I thought Obama was a liberal until Doctors without Borders studied the large number of people he droned to death. 

 
 
 
Kavika
13.2.2  Kavika   replied to  MUVA @13.2    4 weeks ago

What the hell does that have to do with anything that I've posted? 

 
 
 
MUVA
13.2.3  MUVA  replied to  Kavika @13.2.2    4 weeks ago

I’m just relating people in politics talk to shitty people everyday so to point out one occurrence as somehow aberrant  like it has never happen before that’s all . 

 
 
 
The People's Fish
13.2.4  The People's Fish  replied to  MUVA @13.2.3    4 weeks ago

It was a fun fact. Fun Facts are always relevant.

 
 
 
Kavika
13.2.5  Kavika   replied to  The People's Fish @13.2.4    4 weeks ago

Here is another fun fact for you BF.

Tulsi Gabbard Says Donald Trump Is 'Unfit to Serve' After President Commends Her For Voting 'Present' on Impeachment 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/tulsi-gabbard-says-donald-trump-is-unfit-to-serve-after-president-commends-her-for-voting-present-on-impeachment/ar-BBYgWR4?li=BBnbfcL

 
 
 
The People's Fish
13.2.6  The People's Fish  replied to  Kavika @13.2.5    4 weeks ago

Here is a fun fact, she is a non-interventionist and a liberal and the first Samoan-American to represent a state in Congress. 

She's in the reserves, do you think it's fair to call her an Agent of Putin because she called Hillary a neocon?  I personally find that childish and disgusting.

 
 
 
Kavika
13.2.7  Kavika   replied to  The People's Fish @13.2.6    4 weeks ago

Is BS the only thing that you have BF? Your comments are not only childish but generally pure BS.

Please post my comment where I said she was she was an agent of Putin or anything derogatory about her. What I posted was the reaction of some republicans that were not happy with her visit to Assad.

I'm somewhat familiar with Tulsi since we have a few things in common. 

le auala i Samoa

E lele le se, ae lama le ti'otala

 
 
 
The People's Fish
13.2.8  The People's Fish  replied to  Kavika @13.2.7    4 weeks ago

Be specific if you can....

 
 
 
Kavika
13.2.9  Kavika   replied to  The People's Fish @13.2.8    4 weeks ago
Be specific if you can....

I was in paragraph two. Still waiting for you to post my comments calling her a agent of Putin or anything derogatory...

 
 
 
The People's Fish
13.2.10  The People's Fish  replied to  Kavika @13.2.9    4 weeks ago

No one said you said that. Calm yourself.

I asked you if you thought that was fair to call her that?

 
 
 
Kavika
13.2.11  Kavika   replied to  The People's Fish @13.2.10    4 weeks ago

I'm calm what is your problem?

Since according to you I would be called a neocon my response should be, hell yes it was fair to call her that. Since your labeling of people is badly flawed my answer is, no I don't think that she is an agent of Putin. 

BTW, fair in politics is an oxymoron..

Do you think it was ''fair'' of her to say that Trump was unfit to serve as president? 

There is that old ''fair'' thing again. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
13.3  Ronin2  replied to  Kavika @13    4 weeks ago
When she had a meeting with Assad (the butcher of Syria) which was not approved by anyone, there was concern that it may have been a Logan act violation.

She is following Nancy Pelosi's example.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=90569B6E5081609B00CCFF3A4BAA8753&gwt=pay&assetType=REGIWALL

https://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/03/pelosi.syria/index.html

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi arrived Tuesday in the Syrian capital, where she is expected to tackle an issue complicating the U.S. mission in the Middle East -- Damascus' alleged support for militants in Iraq and Lebanon.

Though her visit conjured a strong rebuke by the White House, Syria seemed to welcome the 67-year-old California Democrat.

After arriving in Damascus, Pelosi visited a centuries-old market district, where she mingled with Syrians. She also visited the Omayyad mosque in Old Damascus, which is considered one of the most sacred sites in the capital. ( Watch what the White House said last week about Pelosi's trip icon_video.gif )

The Syrian media are hailing her visit as a potential breakthrough in icy U.S.-Syrian relations, with the Syria Times calling her a "brave lady on an invaluable mission."

Even the state-run news agency harped on the importance of Pelosi's visit. Headlines from the Syrian Arab News Agency read: "World and Arab newspapers stress importance of Pelosi's visit to Syria" and "Pelosi describes her visit to Damascus as important."

The House speaker is scheduled to meet with President Bashar Al-Assad on Wednesday, making her the highest-ranking American politician to meet with a Syrian leader in more than 12 years. In 1994, President Clinton sat down with Al-Assad's father, the late Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad.

President Bush admonished Pelosi in a Rose Garden question-and-answer session Tuesday, calling her trip "counterproductive."

"Going to Syria sends mixed signals, signals in the region and, of course, mixed signals to President Assad," Bush said. "And by that I mean, you know, photo opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror."

He further accused Syria of destabilizing the Lebanese government and turning a blind eye to foreign fighters flowing across its border into Iraq.

American and European officials have met with Al-Assad in the past, "and yet we haven't seen any action," Bush said. "The best way to meet with a leader like Assad or people from Syria is in the larger context of trying to get the global community to help change his behavior."

Bush repeatedly has rejected the prospect of talkingwith Syria despite a December report by the Iraq Study Group that recommended multilateral diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria, as a means of improving stability in the war-torn nation.

During a stop in Beirut, Lebanon, on Monday, Pelosi said her trip is intended as a bid to build confidence between Washington and Damascus. Pelosi stood by the U.S. assertion that Syria supports groups that the United States considers terrorist organizations.

"Of course the role of Syria in Iraq, the role of Syria supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, the role of Syria in so many respects -- we think there could be a vast improvement," she said. "We think it's a good idea to establish the facts, to hopefully build some confidence between us. We have no illusions, but we have great hope."

Syria, which since 1979 has been on the U.S. State Department's list of nations that sponsor terror, acknowledges that it provides funding for the Palestinian and Lebanese militant organizations, but it denies providing either group with arms.

Gabbard should have broadcast her trip as an anti Trump operation. The left would have loved her for it. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
13.3.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Ronin2 @13.3    3 weeks ago
The left would have loved her for it.

There is no good way to try to cover her a$$ for her meeting with Assad. None.

And most people know it. It was a big mistake on her part, and belies her anti-Trump facade. She had no official admin status to warrant a meeting with him, she made the trip on her own, at who's expense is unknown.

So who did she actually make the trip for?

 
 
 
loki12
14  loki12    4 weeks ago

To every one saying Tulsi is in Russians pocket because of Assad or the logan act?......I'm going to leave this right here.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2007-04-05-0704050646-story.html

 
 
 
The People's Fish
14.1  The People's Fish  replied to  loki12 @14    4 weeks ago

They told us the were liberals and code pinkos and she exposed them as Neocons and Hillary humpers.

That is the only reason why that despise her. She made them look at themselves and see what they really are.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
14.1.1  KDMichigan  replied to  The People's Fish @14.1    4 weeks ago
She made them look at themselves and see what they really are.

That's exactly why they hate her, she pointed out their hypocrisy and they can't stand it even though she stands for everything they do.

Then she had the audacity to criticize Hillaryious Hillary....

 
 
 
The People's Fish
14.1.2  The People's Fish  replied to  KDMichigan @14.1.1    4 weeks ago

I was not a George W Bush fan and for that reason I supported Dennis Kucinich's articles of Impeachment. He was at the time the only real Liberal in the house and his unlikely friend was the most classically liberal conservative Ron Paul. Both were noted non-interventionists. Those two would walk across the party line for something they were passionate about. 

I have great respect for people I disagree with on issues when they take a stand on principle ignoring party. Tulsi Gabbard is the first consistent non-interventionist since those two left congress. I completely disagree with her views on economics.

All rules of the SJW horde are gone when someone breaks rank with democrats in this day and age. They will attack her military service, race, gender and loyalty. The attacks have been misogynistic and disgusting.

This is why when they condemn a comment on this site or a member it means very little. They have but one purpose to hold the rope for a corrupt political party.

 
 
 
Sparty On
15  Sparty On    4 weeks ago

I loved SNL's parody of Gabbard.  

As a Bond villain in a debate sketch.  

Hilarious!

 
 
 
Kavika
16  Kavika     4 weeks ago

This whole thing is getting funnier by the day..

Tulsi Gabbard Says Donald Trump Is 'Unfit to Serve' After President Commends Her For Voting 'Present' on Impeachment 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/tulsi-gabbard-says-donald-trump-is-unfit-to-serve-after-president-commends-her-for-voting-present-on-impeachment/ar-BBYgWR4?li=BBnbfcL

 
 
 
Sparty On
16.1  Sparty On  replied to  Kavika @16    4 weeks ago

Yep, she's definitely a Russian bot ..... no, wait a minute, i thought Trump was the Russian bot ...... boy, we really live in confusing times

;-)

 
 
 
Kavika
16.1.1  Kavika   replied to  Sparty On @16.1    4 weeks ago

I wonder if she'll now be welcomed into the republican party...LOL...probably not. 

 
 
 
The People's Fish
16.1.2  The People's Fish  replied to  Kavika @16.1.1    4 weeks ago

The only liberal running for president a republican? Oh ok.

 
 
 
Sparty On
16.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Kavika @16.1.1    4 weeks ago

Lol, calling her conservative would be like calling Nadler or Schiff moderate.

That dog don't hunt ..... she's just not your typical DC swamp creature.

 
 
 
The People's Fish
16.1.4  The People's Fish  replied to  Sparty On @16.1.3    4 weeks ago

As Ravenwing said, when one goes rogue......

 
 
 
Kavika
16.1.5  Kavika   replied to  The People's Fish @16.1.2    4 weeks ago

As per some of the comments on this article from conservatives she is invited to switch sides and become a republican. 

 
 
 
Kavika
16.1.6  Kavika   replied to  Sparty On @16.1.3    4 weeks ago

Never called her conservative since she isn't, but a few conservatives on this articles have invited her to the republican party. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
16.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  Kavika @16.1.6    4 weeks ago
Never called her conservative 

Never said you did

but a few conservatives on this articles have invited her to the republican party.

And i'm sure a few liberals have "dis-invited" her from the Democrat party.   And the wheel goes around and around ......

 
 
 
Kathleen
17  Kathleen    4 weeks ago

I like her.  She was not going to rush to please either side. She thought for herself.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
17.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kathleen @17    3 weeks ago

Bingo!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


31 visitors