Tulsi votes 'present' on impeachment

Do you mean "wouldn't you think that it would be a conflict of interest to vote against his impeachment"?

I think Tulsi is the best Democrat they have and if anyone could give Trump a run for his money it is her.

I respect and admire a lot about her but she still has that progressive socialist side that I do not like. That makes her unique amongst both the DNC and RNC. I think she should run as an Independent but she has ruled that out.

 

If we're talking emotionally: Why would it be a conflict of interest to vote against it? That would show that she is willing to not only let the people decide but that she is also not afraid to face him head on.

If we're talking non-emotionally: Yes it would be. Because it is a conflict of interest to vote period because she is campaigning against him.

But you didn't answer my question. I said what I said and I meant what I said.

Btw: I agree with you on Tulsi. I like her, like some of her policies, but her socialist tendencies give me pause.

 

I never implied it would be a conflict of interest to vote against it. The people should decide and I have no doubts that she would be happy to face him head on. She was the only one well equipped enough to handle it but she is no longer in the race.

She isn't campaigning against him. She is out of the race so I see no conflict of interest.

 

She should change her political affiliation and be with us.

 

Stop making excuses. She does not have to enable anyone and she does not have to be enabled by anyone. . Neither the DNC nor the RNC are mentioned in those articles and her vote does not alter that truth. She has to decide if the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. If she believes he has, she votes yes. If she believes he has not, she votes no. If every other member of the House can manage to handle this, so should she. If she does neither, she is gutless coward who stands for nothing hoping she does not tick off one side or the other.

I have a lot more respect for those three Dems who voted 'no' than her.

 

I don't recall her dropping out. I know she didn't get into the debate, but that doesn't mean that she has dropped out.

 

Whelp, guess we know that you would like the Senators that are running against Trump to vote against him. No conflict of interest there...… right? Let me guess, you won't mind if Pelosi calls for impeachment against Pence also right? Who cares that she would become President if such succeeded....right?

 

Stop telling me what I think. I want the Senators with an obvious conflict of interest, to vote to remove, if they think he deserves to be removed, and vote 'no' if they don't. Its their job to cast those votes and nobody else can represent their constituents on impeachment, if they don't cast those votes. If Sanders does not vote, then Vermont does not get her two votes while every other state does. If the voters of Vermont feel he has misused his vote to promote his interests over theirs, they can fire his ass at the polls.

This is not baseball and there are no benchwarmers waiting to pick up the slack.

 

If you truly believed what you just said here then you would advocate for a vote by their constituents in their respective districts in order to decide how they should vote in impeachment. Would you agree to that? Would you from now on advocate such in all of your posts in reference to impeachment? Or even just half of them?

 

One thing I think this discussion has forgotten about is that Tulsi is still a representative from Hawaii, and she has constituents to think about. My opinion of her is that this was not lost on her, for she is a serious woman who takes her obligations seriously.

I don't claim to know how her constituents wanted her to vote. If they were strongly for impeachment, then her vote of "Present" may have been a compromise between their wishes and her wishes because, the truth is, her heart was not into impeachment for the reasons she later articulated. A vote of "No" may have gone directly against her constituents who sent her to Congress to represent them, and a vote of "Yes" would have gone against her own judgement. And so, "Present" was the choice she could live with, but I'm thinking that was probably a tough choice for her.

 

OK I'll accept that. I was just reading that her constituents were/are very strongly in favor of impeachment.

https://apnews.com/c9b93bfb34004616f04fd5fd1ae3709b

 

She should have voted no and taken those consequences. This was just plain gutless.

 

Thank you for that. I was guessing, but you confirmed it for me.

Seth

 

As Red Lily just pointed out, her constituents wanted her to vote Yes. Obviously, she didn't want to, but she would go directly against her constituents if she voted No, and I think Tulsi Gabbard takes her obligation to represent her constituents seriously. And yet, she is unwilling to go against her own conscience, and so "Present" was the choice she could best live with.

 

That is not representation. A representative form of govt is not a direct democracy where issues are decided at the ballot box. A representative form of govt is where you select someone else to cast a vote instead of the collective. You represent your district even if you vote in a way they don't like. The only way they are not represented, is if you don't vote at all. That is basically what she did. She might as well have not even been in the building or in Washington at all.

 

So, for the record, do you disdain all votes of "present" or just in this case?

 

I pretty much disdain them. State legislatures differ on whether or not the option of voting present or abstain is allowed and under what circumstances. Some allow it without any precondition like congress does. Some will only allow it if there is a stated financial conflict of interest filed or disclosed on prior to the debate. Some require you to abstain if there is a conflict. A few won't even allow it then. You only have two options yeah or nay and you declare your conflict before casting one of those. That is what I prefer. Just vote and represent your district. If you have a financial conflict declare and vote your conscience and let the chips fall. Its particularly important in a senate where there is only one or two senators, and one of them takes a pass. That entire district just lost half its voting power.

 

Trying to remember what it was but within about the last year, I remember many Dems voting present on something.

 

That is what I thought. Knew you'd say this.

What you say is false. There are people that are for X and there are people against X.....and there are people that just vote "present". They're often called "fence sitters" by partisans. People that haven't made up their minds because they believe they haven't gotten enough information... So your claim is false. There are multiple view points. Not just one or two. In the end though the Rep can only really do what they think is best for the district they represent. Even if that means voting "present". At least that is what the honorable ones do. The partisans will always follow party lines.

 

A lone voice out of the Democrats or the entire house, Republicans included?

 

Yes, courageous and principled individuals seldom succeed in US politics.

 

Sophisticated nuance is not your strong point I see. You seem of the digital mindset, either 0 or 1, no other choices.

 

There are probably many things in life you have no clue about.

 

Your paradigm is one of a black vs white - good vs evil - God vs Devil. Reality contains a whole lot of grey - in essence she did vote no - and this situation has plenty of grey.

If you look at a situation that contains less grey say - "Arming and supporting the 911 terrorist group - Al Qaeda" - you will find that the vast majority in congress are gutless cowards.

 

I guess any politician who has integrity and loves their country, and who is not self serving but instead is logical and can only think in productive terms - (albeit with differing opinions like Tulsi Gabbard and Ron Paul), has to be a loon to you?

Since people do tend towards those who are on the same end of the moral spectrum - your views are not saying much for you now are they?