Tulsi Gabbard on Trump impeachment: 'I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no'
Category: News & Politics
Via: just-jim-nc-ttth • 5 years ago • 231 commentsBy: Bart Jansen, Nicholas Wu and Savannah Behrmann
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
Who is online
102 visitors
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.................
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.
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.
You got that right. Progressives feel she is not pure enough. She should run as an INDEPENDENT.
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?
My respect for the lady just went up a notch.
She's toast now.
Why would you think that?
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.
She is not running for re election in 2020.
What do her good looks have to do with it?
It was an afterthought thus the "and".
Tough to be green for some folks.
Exactly, had nothing to do with it.
Got it.
I'm not jealous of her good looks.
Meow Jim, MEOW
.
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.
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.
Maybe she will turn Republican too.
She already is, she's a DINO.
Really? Who got us into the last couple of wars?
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.
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
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.
Good for her if she does!
Which was the only reason for this now 18-19 year fiasco, FUBAR, SNAFU
Per your question I responded to.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Should she? Maybe she can get lost, too.
Really, so the US doesn't have troops still in Syria?
Right.
Maybe pay attention to the news sometime. The US killed the head of ISIS/ISIL well after their supposed departure date from Syria.
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.
She's toast now.
Do you think she ever had a chance before?
She's running for president, so she shouldn't be voting anyway.
Bingo.......................
Why not?
It's a clear conflict of interest.
That you even had to explain that is quite puzzling..............and funny as hell
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.
Obama voted present over 100 times while serving as a Senator....do you think it disqualified him?
But the left wing poo pooed that insistence and said it didn't matter. He was still an opponent. Tacos!'s point stands.
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.
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...
Oh so you're accepting a left wing posit. Well done.
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?
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
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.
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.
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."
Oh and were they voting on high impact items such as impeachment? Nope. But Paul. But Bachman. Next.
A present vote is the same regardless....
Yes voting present is some weak shit.
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.
No it isn't. Words have definitions.
No shit Sherlock.
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.
Sure Einstein...130 times, Obama is a weasel.
The obtuseness of your comment is galactic.
I sincerely hope you get paid for these...
What in context of, "I am announcing my candidacy. . . . " confuses you?
I sincerely hope that you aren't...
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.
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.
As a Independent, I could consider voting for her. To me, the fact that she is currently serving military reservist is also a plus.
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!
Suppose whatever you like. It seems to be what you're inclined to do anyway.
It's my opinion of her positions on most issues relative to several of the other candidates.
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.
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).
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.
Then obviously, you are very short sighted.
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.
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.
Thereby disqualifying you for the position of POTUS.
Only to progressive leftist liberals!
So is it your posit that regressive rightist conservatives support another indecisive POTUS?
Nope. Nice try though
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.
I for one would never vote for anyone that can't make a fucking decision. You be you.
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."
I didn't ask about how you feel, I don't give a shit.
How does it disqualify her?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No contradiction at all. The House managers are the prosecutors.
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.
And,the Majority Leader of the Senate and his senate majority comprising underlings are what? Please reply. What roles awaits them in these proceedings?
Merely? There is nothing merely occurring here.
The Senate acts as jury.
And?
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.
And what?
Shall all the Senate state:
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.
My, my, how very melodramatic of you.
The House will have every opportunity to make their case.
Provided Nancy sends it to the Senate.
I will be very surprised if she does...
odds are it dies in the round file.
cheers
If I am melodramatic, what is this:
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.
Like I said, the House will have its chance to present their evidence IF Nancy sends it to the Senate.
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.
That would be a Nay vote.
Nope.
POTUS NEED to make conclusions one way or the other every fucking day.
One doesn't indict someone if they 'don't know' so her vote should have been Nay.
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?
Actually you DID. How it disqualifies her is my opinion which is how I feel.
So pound sand.
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.
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.
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!
Have you paid attention to what's come out of the Democratic Senators' mouths? Do you think they will be impartial jurors?
Apparently Trump haters are immune from criticism about impartiality.
Your post was as a statement of fact.
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.
Now go lick a window.
The GOP Senators appear to be just as unbiased (or biased, if you prefer) as Democratic Senators.
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.'
Would you at least stop pretending that Democrats aren't just as biased?
Please-----for honesty's sake?
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/20/democratic-senators-line-up-in-declarations-of...
https://thenationalsentinel.com/2019/12/20/where-is-the-media-outrage-over-biased-dem..
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?
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"?
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??
Merely YOUR "interpretation" of what was stated and meant.
Doesn't concern me at all.
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!
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.
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.
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.
@ 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.
Clearly we are done here. Because here come the vagaries. . . .
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?
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.
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.
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.
Context can be your friend too. . . . Go ahead, try it. You will like it.
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:
This is the Senate. These oaths are for now and have no bearing on the House. Deal with that.
The "context" i'm pointing out is clear to those willing to listen but there you go .....
[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.
Yes, and sometimes that decision is to wait for more information.
One also doesn't vow to impeach a president before he has actually done anything worth impeaching him over. Yet, here we are.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Trump was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress...
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?
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 .
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.
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!
Probably all three......
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.
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.
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.
Trump has done plenty to be impeached over.
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?
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.
Why not, she's pretending to be qualified to be POTUS.
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.
Actually said people would whine and complain because instead of walking on the water, he treaded 6 inches!
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.
I think a better reason to believe that is because she announced two months ago she wasn’t running for re-election.
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
She's a russian asset so I'm not surprised those who support trump would also consider her a worthy candidate.
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.
What is that supposed to mean?
Right ! A good education is the root of prosperity and well-being. 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.
Absolutely.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I see. Thank you for the clarification on her association with Assad.
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 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.
She announced that she will not be running for reelection.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You too, my main 'fish' from another mother. (Y'all that is a joke. T'Fish and me roll like that.)
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.
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!
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
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
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!
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.
Her campaign was over before it started IMO. Powerful forces like the DNC will make sure of that.
Her campaign was over when she had the audacity to call out Hillaryious Hillary.
She is following Nancy Pelosi's example.
Gabbard should have broadcast her trip as an anti Trump operation. 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?
I loved SNL's parody of Gabbard.
As a Bond villain in a debate sketch.
Hilarious!
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
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
I wonder if she'll now be welcomed into the republican party...LOL...probably not.
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.
As per some of the comments on this article from conservatives she is invited to switch sides and become a republican.
Never called her conservative since she isn't, but a few conservatives on this articles have invited her to the republican party.
Never said you did
And i'm sure a few liberals have "dis-invited" her from the Democrat party. And the wheel goes around and around ......