Tulsi Gabbard on not indicting Trump.

news.yahoo.com...

Distinguishing herself in a crowded field of Democrats running for president, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, called Robert Mueller’s decision not to charge Donald Trump with colluding with Russia during the 2016 election “a good thing for our country.”

To me, Gabbard is a sound voice in the Democrat Party. Though she is almost an unheard voice in the national run for the presidency, here she demonstrates that she is going to speak her mind rather than cow tow to the onrush of partisan politics.

Here is hoping that her voice is listened to by others contending for the nomination.

A side note, Gabbard, a member of the House of Representatives, is sponsoring a a bill that would do away with electronic ballots and establish a return to paper ballots to avoid electronic illegalities. This, I think, has been to long in the making and is a step in the right direction to securing the vote of each and every American.

How can the democrats that have invested everything in "collusion" bringing Trump down so they can win in 2020 come out and claim it's a good thing for our country, when it's so bad for them?

Most of them can't, or won't, which makes one wonder did they ever care about what is "good for our country"?

imo

She is a democrat so she doesn't get any vote from me. I mean it does seem that she doesn't like to lie about everything as much as her fellow Democrats, but still she is a Democrat. However, she is definitely beguiling. Search Tulsi in a bikini and well Trump better hope there isn't a swimsuit competition.

originally posted by: ausername
How can the democrats that have invested everything in "collusion" bringing Trump down so they can win in 2020 come out and claim it's a good thing for our country, when it's so bad for them?

Most of them can't, or won't, which makes one wonder did they ever care about what is "good for our country"?

imo

First, I don't think it helps anything to think that the Democrats are monolithic, but here I am repeating aspects of the original post. The Democrats have a varied perspective on things and it is my contention that believing them to be monolithic is buying into a false and simplistic idea designed to sway the simplest of minds.

originally posted by: Fools
She is a democrat so she doesn't get any vote from me. I mean it does seem that she doesn't like to lie about everything as much as her fellow Democrats, but still she is a Democrat. However, she is definitely beguiling. Search Tulsi in a bikini and well Trump better hope there isn't a swimsuit competition.

I have always pondered those who vote by party. He was a democrat and his lockstep voting never made sense to me. Likewise, stating that one will never vote for a democrat, just as he stated that he would never vote for a republican seems a shallow manner in which to go about exercising our right to vote.

Secondly, it is unfortunate that you discount her because she is a democrat, or is it that you dismiss her because she is a woman as evidenced by your almost immediate references to swimsuit competitions.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: ausername
How can the democrats that have invested everything in "collusion" bringing Trump down so they can win in 2020 come out and claim it's a good thing for our country, when it's so bad for them?

Most of them can't, or won't, which makes one wonder did they ever care about what is "good for our country"?

imo

First, I don't think it helps anything to think that the Democrats are monolithic, but here I am repeating aspects of the original post. The Democrats have a varied perspective on things and it is my contention that believing them to be monolithic is buying into a false and simplistic idea designed to sway the simplest of minds.

Tulsi would do better to follow what Trump did. Separate from the Democrats and run as a Republican in 2024. The DNC will Bernie her without any care. I have to say Trump was apparently figured this out long before the DNC emails were hacked and released. Can only suggest if Tulsi is smart too, she will realize that she will never have a chance as a 'D'. Not because of voters, but simply the tow the line policy of the 'private' DNC.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: Fools
She is a democrat so she doesn't get any vote from me. I mean it does seem that she doesn't like to lie about everything as much as her fellow Democrats, but still she is a Democrat. However, she is definitely beguiling. Search Tulsi in a bikini and well Trump better hope there isn't a swimsuit competition.

I have always pondered those who vote by party. He was a democrat and his lockstep voting never made sense to me. Likewise, stating that one will never vote for a democrat, just as he stated that he would never vote for a republican seems a shallow manner in which to go about exercising our right to vote.

Secondly, it is unfortunate that you discount her because she is a democrat, or is it that you dismiss her because she is a woman as evidenced by your almost immediate references to swimsuit competitions.

I dismiss whoever I want to dismiss. Sometimes for no good reason at all. To me, anyone who calls themselves Democrat is invested in a party that has made its goal to keep power by continually lying for a very long time. Nearly every policy they support or have made into law has had negative effects on the country I love.

Republicans in general don't get much love from me either. If I go to vote and I don't like my choices I just don't select anyone. If there is a choice for a write in, then I write someone I like in. Even if they have zero chance of winning.

I am a man, so if I find a woman attractive, I always want to see more if I can. That is nature and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

a reply to: CynConcepts

I'd have to agree with that. She should run as a Republican, then just do what she thinks is right after that. The left will never let someone with common sense run. If she came out with some good ideas to fix the broke things, I could entertain a vote for her. Not many others to date.

a reply to: Fools

am a man,

as am I

so if I find a woman attractive, I always want to see more if I can.

As do i

That is nature

So it has always seemed to me as well

and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

And that is not true. Bringing sexual innuendo into a political topic IS wrong. It has no place in this context and I engage in your point only to point out just how wrong it is.

This is not political correctness but rather politeness and recognition of a persons value as a human being rather than their value only as a sexual stimulant.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

She wants to ban "assault weapons".

So she's a no for me, but she does have a tiny bit more sense than the Stalinists running.

a reply to: network dude

Gabbart could turn Repub but she would not do well there i don't believe. It would seem at this point that Trump has a lock on that nomination so for her to run against him in a primary would be a fools errand. However there is the option that she might run third party with someone else of like thinking and that could be interesting.

The question here though is just how many Dems or how many Reps would be willing at this point to vote away from their party lines. Few at this juncture I surmise.

And it's not her so much as where she stands in her political positions. She is no flaming liberal but rather a more, dare I say much more moderate voice in that party. Our assuming that the whole party is flaming liberal I believe to be incorrect. The Democrat Part NEEDS more outspoken moderate voices to balance the spectrum. Just I would say do the Repubs.

I"m not one to dismiss any intelligence within the Democrat Party as others are like to do. That party is not
(completely) filled with idiots and for conservatives to buy into that notion seems to me rather myopic.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Fools

am a man,

as am I

so if I find a woman attractive, I always want to see more if I can.

As do i

That is nature

So it has always seemed to me as well

and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

And that is not true. Bringing sexual innuendo into a political topic IS wrong. It has no place in this context and I engage in your point only to point out just how wrong it is.

This is not political correctness but rather politeness and recognition of a persons value as a human being rather than their value only as a sexual stimulant.

And yet I have met many women that voted for Bill Clinton based on his attractive nature. I myself have never voted for a person based on their looks. I vote on what I view as qualifications. Some judgement is needed in that sort of decision. In that regard, would a separate thread discussing only Gabbi Tulsard's beauty be wrong?

I think you are puritanical most likely. I find that I do have enough intelligence on who to remark on for whatever reason I choose. And at the same time I am ok with your dislike of it, but that will not stop me from making whatever observation on whoever I like in any fashion I deem necessary.

Do you do this kind of thing in your personal life and discussions?

Say for instance I said that I would vote for her and at the same time found her attractive would that then be ok?

Your protest here is a bit too much and I think probably dishonest.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

That's a bit too simplistic, though. At least the GOP base does stand against their own party members when an elected representatives violates one of the party's core tenants (lower taxes, pro life, 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct) proof of that, John McCain was loathed by many, many Republican voters years before the Trump fiasco. Hell, he was arguably the reason we developed the RINO (Republican In Name Only) badge of shame. Similarly, to be a Democrat it seems their tenants are equally sacred (more welfare, pro choice, pro gun control, etc) if Gabbard or any other Democrat or Republican lines up on that side, then there is simply no reason for a Conservative to vote for them, period. That's not "partisan," It's voting the issues... which was something I always heard of in positive terms.

a reply to: Fools

And yet I have met many women that voted for Bill Clinton based on his attractive nature.

Yet this does not justify bringing up subjective attractiveness in a political discussion. Sure there were women who voted for Slick because they liked how he looked. Kennedy as well. And let's not forget John Edwards. But relying upon 'whataboutism'' misses the point because it is the same from either side, huh?

In that regard, would a separate thread discussing only Gabbi Tulsard's beauty be wrong?

Actually I think that could be the premise of a good thread. Using her looks as one example of how attractiveness plays into peoples voting. But that is in no way discussing the political issues. For me, physical attractiveness should play no part in our political decisions. It does of course, but it has no purpose other than to drift from any original course of a discussion.

We need leadership that works for the best and positive interest for its people. Now it seems like when someone comes across with common sense, they are thought of as "fools". Twisted minds seems to be the new disease among people these days.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Tulsi is the only vote from the Democratic Party that I give. Unfortunately her party smears her. So I say let them burn themselves out.

Tulsi 2024!

A real American

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yeah, what can I say, I'm a simple kinda guy.

I understand your points Burd and agree that seems to be how it works these days. From both sides I think. However this does not keep me from thinking that either polar side of our national issues should be abandoned. I myself have tried to keep my own thinking strictly in adherence to both of these political sides and I couldn't do it. For me there was no freedom of thought by hooking up with either absolutist perspective. I prefer the middle of the road. There I have the freedom to pick and choose what I like from all sides.

I think my basic approach to political decision making stems from my understanding that the world is changing faster then any of us can keep up with and promising only to keep changing at an increasing rate. Partisan stances of the past seem to me to be rooted in just that, the past, and will serve us only slightly as the world changes around us.
To me both absolutist sides suffer from this so this is why I seek middle ground. Here on ats, which I find to be skewed primarily to the right make me seem liberal but this is not how I see myself.

originally posted by: musicismagic
We need leadership that works for the best and positive interest for its people. Now it seems like when someone comes across with common sense, they are thought of as "fools". Twisted minds seems to be the new disease among people these days.

And that is the battle ain't it? I think extremists need to learn lessons from the moderates. To me, extremists are absolutists, where only they are right and everyone else is wrong.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Tulsi 2024!

I do not like Trump at all. Reasons to numerous to mention now, so, as I see little hope of most of the other candidates from farther left than Gabbard being respectable enough to enough conservatives to beat him, I'll stick with Tusi,,2020

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I don't know. Sounds way too reasonable for DC....

While I disagree with her on some issues, I can live with that. It sounds like she is able to communicate on an adult level. She appears measured and calm. At the moment, she seems OK to me. I need more homework to see if I would vote for her. For our first female President, we could do waaay worse.

I have no party affiliation so I am looking in from the outside. Tulsi seems the best right now for the DNC if they are actually intent on not running another zero-dud-clown for 2020.