Tulsi Gabbard Votes 'Present' on Trump Impeachment, Slams 'Purely Partisan Process'

[iceberg]

She is running on the same platform Obama initially ran on. The only difference is she doesn't appear to be lying.

Actually, not even Obama ran on reparations. He rejected the idea. And he was one of the most liberal politicians in Congress.

That's how far left Tulsi is.

Yes, gabbert is a sellout on reparations so thats a no-go for me

but I’m a conservative repub and the Tweeners may see it differently

I would think her desire for an "assault weapons" ban, universal health care, and a "green economy" would be bigger no-go's.

You have to think like a Tweener

many libs like that stuff but dont like democrats

The point I am making is that I have seen a lot of rabid Trump supporters offer their high opinion of Tulsi, and this confirms what I have long known about them.

The point I'm making is no one gives a fuck about your opinion.

 

[g5000]

Tulsi's sore she was thrown onto the dustbin so fast. She just wants attention.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Tulsi's sore she was thrown onto the dustbin so fast. She just wants attention.

She is a veteran. You're a coward who blocks people on a messageboard.

 

[g5000]

Actually, not even Obama ran on reparations. He rejected the idea. And he was one of the most liberal politicians in Congress.

That's how far left Tulsi is.

Yes, gabbert is a sellout on reparations so thats a no-go for me

but I’m a conservative repub and the Tweeners may see it differently

I would think her desire for an "assault weapons" ban, universal health care, and a "green economy" would be bigger no-go's.

You have to think like a Tweener

many libs like that stuff but dont like democrats

The point I am making is that I have seen a lot of rabid Trump supporters offer their high opinion of Tulsi, and this confirms what I have long known about them.

The point I'm making is no one gives a fuck about your opinion.

Your reaction says otherwise.

 

[HappyJoy]

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii), a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, voted "present" on the two articles of impeachment against President Trump on Wednesday. This made her virtually the only the Democrat to effectively vote against sending the president's removal to the Senate.

"I come before you to make a stand for the center," said Gabbard in a statement.

Continued - Tulsi Gabbard Votes 'Present' on Trump Impeachment, Slams 'Purely Partisan Process'


Anyway. Nice to see independent thought versus just towing party lines and acting on emotion alone.

Could be a thread about this already, but I didn't see one. Apologies in advance if that's the case. I dislike a cluttered board as much as the next feller.

Seems like a cowardly move to me. She is being paid to take a stand, not sit on the sidelines and watch. The people of the state that elected her were not heard. No reason to think she could speak for the people and best interests of the United States of America. She's probably out at the end of her term.

she took a stand. not taking a stand is saying YES to something you don't believe in.
.

Taking a stand would have been voting YES or NO

Voting "present" is by definition NOT "taking a stand".

I think it still sends a message that needs to be sent.

Voting NO would have been taking a stand. She pussed out.

 

[theHawk]

When she steps out of the race Trump should bring her into the white house...maybe as an adviser...that would drive the loony dems absolutely nuts.....

No way. She is still an anti-Trumper and gives a pass to the Hussein and his warmongering.
She’s a Democrat and deserves to be burned at the stake by her fellow Dems.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Voting NO would have been taking a stand. She pussed out.

The impeachment vote was a charade. We don't elect representatives to participate in useless charades.

As far as taking a stand, Gabbard voted NAY on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 the other day. Which is more than anyone can say for pretty much every other Democrat and Republican looking to put us in shackles.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll672.xml

It still passed 377-48, pretty much all Democrats joined pretty much all Republicans and the duopoly voted Yea, regardless of the fact that there were no reforms to protect the rights of the electorate, particularly after the IG's findings with regard to the FISA abuse, but Gabbard joined Massie, Amash and others and took a stand and made the correct constitutional vote on a matter where it actually matters for something while the rest of the clowns were focused on Romper Room antics. Do you think they read it? Hell no, they didn't. But they voted YEA.

People need to get their priorities straight, it's bad enough not paying attention and selling your own liberties and prosperity out but now you're selling the next generation out with this Micky Mouse impeachment bullshit while way, way, way more important things are being done in a bipartisan manner by the duopoly right under your noses.

She's one of the very few who do take a stand. Only problem is much of the electorate is too lazy to go look at what goings-on actually need people to take a stand. All people really seem to wanna do is talk about what their television tells em is important. It's pathetic.

 

[gipper]

I suspect a full court press to destroy Tulsi is in the works, by the MSM and the D Party. Hopefully it backfires.

There's no need for one of your histrionic crack pipe sooper sekrit conspiracies to bring down Tulsi Whatsherface.

The little commie wannabe is already down and out.

Yes an opposing view, particularly an anti-war position, is unwelcome in the big government political party controlled by billionaires.

 

[g5000]

I suspect a full court press to destroy Tulsi is in the works, by the MSM and the D Party. Hopefully it backfires.

There's no need for one of your histrionic crack pipe sooper sekrit conspiracies to bring down Tulsi Whatsherface.

The little commie wannabe is already down and out.

Yes an opposing view, particularly an anti-war position, is unwelcome in the big government political party controlled by billionaires.

Wow. Your ignorance of Bernie and Warren's anti-war positions is astounding. Simply astounding.

Bernie and Warren have been moaning about "endless wars" for a long time. Trump actually stole their material, the same way he steals all his material from others.

 

[Paulie]

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii), a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, voted "present" on the two articles of impeachment against President Trump on Wednesday. This made her virtually the only the Democrat to effectively vote against sending the president's removal to the Senate.

"I come before you to make a stand for the center," said Gabbard in a statement.

Continued - Tulsi Gabbard Votes 'Present' on Trump Impeachment, Slams 'Purely Partisan Process'


Anyway. Nice to see independent thought versus just towing party lines and acting on emotion alone.

Could be a thread about this already, but I didn't see one. Apologies in advance if that's the case. I dislike a cluttered board as much as the next feller.

A present vote is a bitch-out vote. It’s a complete lack of balls.

 

[gipper]

I suspect a full court press to destroy Tulsi is in the works, by the MSM and the D Party. Hopefully it backfires.

There's no need for one of your histrionic crack pipe sooper sekrit conspiracies to bring down Tulsi Whatsherface.

The little commie wannabe is already down and out.

Yes an opposing view, particularly an anti-war position, is unwelcome in the big government political party controlled by billionaires.

Wow. Your ignorance of Bernie and Warren's anti-war positions is astounding. Simply astounding.

Bernie and Warren have been moaning about "endless wars" for a long time. Trump actually stole their material, the same way he steals all his material from others.

WTF! Are you unaware of the absurd attacks on Tulsi and Bernie for their anti-war positions?

Warren is a phony, a clone of Ears. Nothing but a warmongering fraud.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What "stand" did she take? Looks to me like she just ducked the question since, if as she claims that she believes this was a "purely partisan process", she should have voted NO.

The whole thing was a charade. There is zero chance Trump will be removed from office.

Why play along with a charade?

See, that's the problem, the questions themselves are a waste of time. Distractions in most cases, given the couple thousand pages of crap they snuck by during the the whole thing.

Looks to me like She just "played along with charade" by giving herself plausible deniability with the dingbat-D base because she's running for the Democrat Nomination and doesn't want to be opened up to attacks by her rivals that she was among the only (3) HoR Democrats to vote against impeachment.

By voting present she can claim she was objecting to the process and not the charges contained within the Articles of Impeachment, which makes no sense, since if the process was purely partisan as she claims then the fact that the contents of the Articles are invalid naturally follows, thus integrity would dictate a NO vote.

Yeah, it was not a completely gutless move, but it was not brave either. I agree that she played along.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I suspect a full court press to destroy Tulsi is in the works, by the MSM and the D Party. Hopefully it backfires.

There's no need for one of your histrionic crack pipe sooper sekrit conspiracies to bring down Tulsi Whatsherface.

The little commie wannabe is already down and out.

Yes an opposing view, particularly an anti-war position, is unwelcome in the big government political party controlled by billionaires.

Wow. Your ignorance of Bernie and Warren's anti-war positions is astounding. Simply astounding.

Bernie and Warren have been moaning about "endless wars" for a long time. Trump actually stole their material, the same way he steals all his material from others.

Would you vote for Warren?

.

 

[Natural Citizen]

A present vote is a bitch-out vote. It’s a complete lack of balls.

She voted Nay on NDAA a few days ago. Something that's actually meaningful. That's balls.

Which is more than what we can say for pretty much the rest of the Repulican and Democrat duopoly who voted YEA.

 

[g5000]

I suspect a full court press to destroy Tulsi is in the works, by the MSM and the D Party. Hopefully it backfires.

There's no need for one of your histrionic crack pipe sooper sekrit conspiracies to bring down Tulsi Whatsherface.

The little commie wannabe is already down and out.

Yes an opposing view, particularly an anti-war position, is unwelcome in the big government political party controlled by billionaires.

Wow. Your ignorance of Bernie and Warren's anti-war positions is astounding. Simply astounding.

Bernie and Warren have been moaning about "endless wars" for a long time. Trump actually stole their material, the same way he steals all his material from others.

Would you vote for Warren?

.

Here's how I put it.

If you put a gun to my head and asked, "Biden or Warren?", I'd say, "Biden."

If you put a gun to my head and asked, "Warren or Trump?", I'd say, "Pull the trigger."

 

[HappyJoy]

Voting NO would have been taking a stand. She pussed out.

The impeachment vote was a charade. We don't elect representatives to participate in useless charades.

Disagree.

 

[g5000]

Just to be clear, I have no intention of voting for any major party candidate next year. Whoever wins will continue to run deficits, though Trump would probably run bigger ones than Biden, but Warren and Sanders would run the biggest of all.

 

[Paulie]

A present vote is a bitch-out vote. It’s a complete lack of balls.

She voted Nay on NDAA a few days ago. Something that's actually meaningful. That's balls.

Which is more than what we can say for pretty much the rest of the Repulican and Democrat duopoly who voted YEA.

First of all, we aren’t talking about how anyone voted on other bills were talking about the impeachment vote in this thread, no? Isn’t that what this thread is about? How tulsi voted on impeachment?

Second of all, what specifically in this year’s NDAA do you not like? I know in years past they’ve slipped some very draconian riders into it but what is your issue with this one specifically?

 

[easyt65]

Gabbard is a gutless political POS.

She marched towards a 'battle' with her 'team' and abandoned them at the last minute to sit back and watch - she didn't learn that shite from the military.

I respect Adam Schiff more than Gabbard -he at least shoes a side. Gabbard chose 'self-preservation' and the ability to claim she either did or did not support Impeachment, depending on the crowd she is talking to.

She now claims she did not vote because she believes the American people should decide. If that was the case she would have voted NOT TO IMPEACH because she believes it is up to the American people to decide.

What a deceitful POS! Don't need any more of those in Washington....

 

[Natural Citizen]

First of all, we aren’t talking about how anyone voted on other bills were talking about the impeachment vote in this thread, no? Isn’t that what this thread is about? How tulsi voted on impeachment?

Second of all, what specifically in this year’s NDAA do you not like? I know in years past they’ve slipped some very draconian riders into it but what is your issue with this one specifically?

When you start making general statements about having balls, then I think it's fair to expand on it. Which I did.

Now, then. To answer your question. They had 19 hours to read 3500 pages before voting on it. $738 billion. We're broke. We're $23 trillion in debt. Where's that money gonna come from? Are we gonna print it? Again, almost all Democrats and Republicans voted Yea. Do you think they read it, much less grasped what they were voting on? I say no.

They stripped from the bill any requirement for congressional approval that wuld stop the President from just arbitrarily committing cambat troops overseas. This is a direct violation of the constitution. Now we effectively have a king calling troops any place he wants in the world for any reason he wants. That's just brilliant. Separation of powers is out the window.

Not only can our new king wage aritrary war any place on Earth that he wants without congressional approval, now he can do it in space, thanks to the newly created and funded, of course, Chief of Space Operations as well as the newly created, and funded, of course,
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Space Acquisition and Integration.

Let's talk about indefinite detention. No revision whatsoever, regardless of the IG's findings in the FISA abuses. None. Habeas corpus? Still void. Sixth Amednment? Voided at the the luxury of whomever sits in the office. The NDAA also places the military at the disposal of the President to apprehend, arrest and detention of anyone inside our border. Place that into perspective with what Barr just told the intelligence agencies about rounding up people who could be seen as anti-government and placing them into state run reeducation, as well as Trump's new 'surge' policy. I'll find that for you if you need me to do that. So, Posse Comitatus Act of 1878? Out the window.

Actually, here, it's short - Weekly Update --- Sentence First, Crime Later

Moving on. Authorization for unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens. No reforms. No protections. 4th Amendment? Out the window. Still.

And I'm still not done reading it.