The Tulsi Disgrace

[Starbuck1975]

So very many hills. Should we be concerned?

<shrug>

 

[Starbuck1975]

Nice try....

Inconvenient facts

 

[fskimospy]

Because that is not the reason for the vitriol

Sure it is, it’s certainly the reason for my contempt for her.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Inconvenient facts

You are getting beat up in here.
I don’t picture you voting for a Tulsi, maybe if that was your absolute last choice you would.
Just seems strange being so attached to Tulsi when you’d likely never vote for her.
Are you doing it to be apart from the herd?

 

[Vic]

Sure it is, it’s certainly the reason for my contempt for her.

You're not allowed to have reasons other than what Starbuck allows you to have.

 

[Vic]

You are getting beat up in here.
I don’t picture you voting for a Tulsi, maybe if that was your absolute last choice you would.
Just seems strange being so attached to Tulsi when you’d likely never vote for her.
Are you doing it to be apart from the herd?

He's doing it to create yet another false narrative to concern troll about.

"Oh the Democrats don't like the candidate that I would never vote for in a million years.. they are so evil and filled with hate.. this is an outrage!"

 

[Vic]

Because that is not the reason for the vitriol

Actually it is exactly the reason. If Tulsi wanted to lead the party, then she should have taken a leadership stance on the issue. But she didn't. So buh-bye.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You are getting beat up in here.

Not at all

I don’t picture you voting for a Tulsi, maybe if that was your absolute last choice you would.

Too early to say

Just seems strange being so attached to Tulsi when you’d likely never vote for her.

Under certain circumstances I would.

Are you doing it to be apart from the herd?

The herd is what drove us off the side of a cliff, so no, I don’t want to be a part of it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Sure it is, it’s certainly the reason for my contempt for her.

You are entitled to that opinion. I don’t share it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Actually it is exactly the reason. If Tulsi wanted to lead the party, then she should have taken a leadership stance on the issue. But she didn't. So buh-bye.

She did take a leadership stance, its just not the position you prefer

 

[Fanatical Meat]

She did take a leadership stance, its just not the position you prefer

That’s your opinion a present vote isn’t leading. I can respect a No vote even though I don’t agree.
Can’t respect some weird middle ground.
Basic question should the President be allowed to do what was on that call and say FU nobody who works for me can testify.
I can sort of understand a no vote for the sake of future presidents privacy and I certainly accept a yes vote that says no President should have this power.

 

[fskimospy]

You are entitled to that opinion. I don’t share it.

Do you mean you are claiming that I’m lying about my reasons or do you not view her refusal to defend the constitution contemptible?

 

[Victorian Gray]

<shrug>

Nice fishing gear.

 

[Vic]

She did take a leadership stance, its just not the position you prefer

Voting present on an important issue isn't a leadership stance and you know it. If she had voted no, and provided a reasoned justification, that would have been a leadership stance, and something people could have respected, even if they disagreed with it. This has already been explained to you multiple times in this thread.

Which is why the actual vitriol in this thread BTW isn't for Tulsi but for YOU and your persistent lying trolling bullshit in feigned defense of a candidate that you will never vote for.

 

[JSt0rm]

They don’t need to.

They certainly are the general public in red states

Democrats have also self gerrymandered themselves. Gerrymandering didn’t cause Democrats to lose the Rust Belt.

Yes gerrymandering did cause people’s votes to not count in states like Ohio.

 

[fskimospy]

Voting present on an important issue isn't a leadership stance and you know it. If she had voted no, and provided a reasoned justification, that would have been a leadership stance, and something people could have respected, even if they disagreed with it. This has already been explained to multiple times in this thread.

Which is why the actual vitriol in this thread BTW isn't for Tulsi but for YOU and your persistent lying trolling bullshit in feigned defense of a candidate that you will never vote for.

Yes, it’s hard to imagine a more cowardly stance possible than outsourcing your vote to other people as she did.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

You are getting beat up in here.

Why do I think he's more aligned with Baltar than Adama?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Why do I think he's more aligned with Baltar than Adama?

He’s distracted by all the poontang

 

[ivwshane]

Voting present on an important issue isn't a leadership stance and you know it. If she had voted no, and provided a reasoned justification, that would have been a leadership stance, and something people could have respected, even if they disagreed with it. This has already been explained to you multiple times in this thread.

Which is why the actual vitriol in this thread BTW isn't for Tulsi but for YOU and your persistent lying trolling bullshit in feigned defense of a candidate that you will never vote for.

You’ve got to remember, Starbuck uses an alternative dictionary, so his definition of words don’t quite line up with actual established definitions.

Here’s a fun exercise: imagine what message congress would be sending if all 450 members voted “present” on the articles of impeachment. Do you think any headlines would read, “congress unanimously agrees to be present” and would people be thinking to themselves, “well that’s courageous”.

Let’s dumb it down and bring it’s little closer to home shall we? If someone created a political thread and instead of giving their opinion on the topic they just replied with the word, “present”, how many people would think that was a valid reply? How many would call it trolling? What we do know is that starbuck would call it courageous! Lol

 

[Starbuck1975]

Voting present on an important issue isn't a leadership stance and you know it. If she had voted no, and provided a reasoned justification, that would have been a leadership stance, and something people could have respected, even if they disagreed with it. This has already been explained to you multiple times in this thread.

I reject the explanation. A vote of “No” exonerates Trump. A vote of “Yes” means she supports the articles as written. A vote of present signals that she doesn’t want to exonerate Trump, but she doesn’t support the articles as written either. That’s a principled position.

Which is why the actual vitriol in this thread BTW isn't for Tulsi but for YOU and your persistent lying trolling bullshit in feigned defense of a candidate that you will never vote for.

There you go with that beautiful straw again

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

I reject the explanation. A vote of “No” exonerates Trump.

In a normal courtroom, 'not guilty' means you don't accept the evidence as presented.

In this matter a 'No' means you're an a(R)se. 'Present' means you'd rather be getting your nails done.

 

[fskimospy]

I reject the explanation. A vote of “No” exonerates Trump. A vote of “Yes” means she supports the articles as written. A vote of present signals that she doesn’t want to exonerate Trump, but she doesn’t support the articles as written either. That’s a principled position.

There you go with that beautiful straw again

Except that’s not her explanation for why she voted present, lol. She has said nothing about the contents of the articles of impeachment and that has nothing to do with her vote. You’re defending her and you don’t even know why. It’s hard for me to think of a way to prove Vic was right more thoroughly than that.

Gabbard defends ‘present’ vote on impeachment: Voters should decide

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), a 2020 White House hopeful, on Thursday defended her decision to vote “present” on impeaching President Trump, which sparked a wave of backlash from Democrats.Gabbard…

thehill.com

Her explanation was that because the process was partisan she wouldn’t vote for the articles even though she thinks he is guilty. This means she has outsourced her vote to Republicans - so long as they remain partisan she won’t vote to convict.

It’s hard to think of a position less principled and more cowardly than that.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Why do I think he's more aligned with Baltar than Adama?

I was always partial to Commander Cain, the Lloyd Bridges version.

 

[Starbuck1975]

In a normal courtroom, 'not guilty' means you don't accept the evidence as presented.

In this matter a 'No' means you're an a(R)se. 'Present' means you'd rather be getting your nails done.

Not even trying to hide the misogyny at this point.

 

[JEDIYoda]

You are getting beat up in here.
I don’t picture you voting for a Tulsi, maybe if that was your absolute last choice you would.
Just seems strange being so attached to Tulsi when you’d likely never vote for her.
Are you doing it to be apart from the herd?

He is doing it because Tulsi detracts from Trump and he would just Love for Tulsi to be a third party candidate and steal votes from the Democrats......