Tulsi votes 'present' on impeachment

The biggest mistake Tulsi Gabbard made is that she said she will not run in a third party. It's time the Democrats were wiped out - enough is enough.

The Democrats latest initiative to cover their crimes, was this impeachment farce. They are running so scared that now Pelosi refuses to send it to the Senate, for fear the crimes they committed might be revealed to the American people. They want to keep Trump from having a voice in court.

So much for democracy. I foresee a civil war.

 

Wrong. In essence she voted 'present'. A 'no' vote would have added to the total of Nays in the tally at the end. Two other Dems understood the difference and did just that. Now I understand 'gray' just fine. That 'no' vote the others decided to cast, should be seen in the context of their comments explaining why, they even as registered Dems, could not in good conscience support impeachment and had to cast that 'no' vote. But they cast a ballot that had some relevance. This woman did not have the courage to cast a 'no' vote, and stand tall doing so. When all a representative can do to represent their constituency, in one of the most defining votes of her generation, is be' present' , you have the wrong representative.

 

There is nothing nuanced about a 'present' or 'abstain' vote. It literally does not say anything except that a legislator refuses to be counted at all and his main job as a legislator is to be to be counted, to make a difference. It is not some nuanced position, to refuse to make a difference when you are paid to make a difference.

 

Suggest someone better.

 

Well she just went down to the bottom of the pile with this vote. I gave her a pass on her early social conservativism as someone who evolved, and even her 'nuanced' stance on waterboarding. Was glad for her to express her no nation-building stance foreign policy views etc. This was a very important vote to show political character, either way. I am not impressed.

 

What you all should do tonight is at the behest of of the DNCs next candidate for POTUS is turn on a record player for your toddler's so they learn vocabulary--- Bidens not out of touch at all.

 

"in one of the most defining votes of her generation"?

I think you are being overly critical of her. Note this from CNBC:

"The 2020 Democratic presidential candidate takes a decidedly different tone on impeachment than her rivals such as Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg".

IMO, with Trump having scarce knowledge of the law*, impeachment in this case is hardly a defining issue. Commenting on the impeachment process, Justice Ruth Ginsberg said "Trump is not a lawyer", drawing stifled laughter from her audience...….and so predictably, Americans have divided on political lines.

*So Trump asked for a quid pro quo from Ukraine? That's what happens when you are the de facto 'world policeman', and you are seeking to strengthen your support at home by any means, without thinking about possible legal implications....

I'm slightly disappointed that Bernie, who I think also disapproves of overseas military adventures, didn't vote 'present' as well.

 

I don't give a rats ass about who does or does not like overseas adventures. This is not a mandate on overseas adventures. . Neither is it remotely relevant whether Trump is a lawyer or not. There were plenty of them around him. Neither is it relevant whether this is a partisan issue. She doesn't have to be partisan. I am not interested in her 'tone' either. No 'tone' on impeachment can turn this into anything other than an act of political cowardice. She just has to do what every other member of the House of Representatives managed to do, and vote. You make a lot of excuses.

 

Am I a coward if I vote "present" on an issue I regard as a diversion?

 

She HAS to vote? Are you not aware how this all works?

 

And yet another excuse. Yes you are a coward. Vote 'no' and then give a nice long speech on how you intend to vote against all diversions. There you get to supply your nuance and your constituents get to be represented . You are not being paid to come up with reasons not to vote in Congress.

 

BRAVO Tulsi Gabbard



https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/haw...-voting-present-impeachment/story?id=67820214
Manchester, N.H. -- In the face of criticism, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard defended her decision to vote "present" during the House's formal impeachment vote against President Donald Trump, saying Thursday that her vote was an "active protest" against the "terrible fallout of this zero sum mindset" between the two political parties. . . .


The debate without Tulsi Gabbard had a low audience.
The requirement she score well in Atlantic seaboard States is absurd;
considering she be from Hawai'i.



Moi

STOP ​

 

OK..then I would consult with my electorate first before voting....I see some of the problems of representative democracy emerging...

But I see this just posted above:

(Tulsi said) her vote was an "active protest" against the "terrible fallout of this zero sum mindset" between the two political parties. . . .

Hence not "cowardly" at all.

 

Lol, So now its a protest vote against 'zero sum mindsets'? That entire district did not get any representation on the impeachment of a United States President, because Gabbard is upset about about zero sum mindsets? Pelosi did not suffer from this protest. Trump did not suffer from this protest. Moscow Mitch did not suffer from this protest. The voters of her district got the same benefit from her representation as if she called in sick and went to beach. Literally your only absolute duty to your district as a legislator, is to vote on the legislative agenda each day. You don't have to answer letters, or meet constituants, or cut ribbons, but the bare minimum duty is to represent your constituents in the assembly and cast votes. Vote No on all legislative work that involves a 'zero sum mindset' but vote. A person might suspect Tulsi are making up her excuses as she goes along. Chickenshit thing to do, that she is now trying to dress up in Martin Luther King cloth. Nobody is fooled.

 

No, she was counted. That's the point. She was present.

The other point was that the circus being held was beneath her dignity, it was absurd. She was right.

 

Counted as a warm body on the floor, not as a legislator doing the business of legislating. If she does not like the circus, she can vote against the circus. That would be a 'no' to the articles of impeachment that in her view created the circus, but take a stand. It does not represent a protest to sit in a chair and be 'present' in the room she was supposed to be in anyway. She is no more a legislator, than a legislative aide running around filling coffee cups except she accomplished less than one of those in the same time.






u

 

I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, but the impeachment proceedings were NOT legislative proceedings. Those in attendance were NOT legislating.

Tulsi was perceptive enough to understand that simple fact. Some are not.

 

~ Yes Tulsi is her own woman. She and Yang are the only "safe & sane" Democrats . ´

 

Maybe it's just me...but I feel there's something "off" about Tulsi. I can't put my finger on it...but I just don't trust her. (By the way, I don't follow any party.)

 

She is rational, not something allowed in the dem party anymore.

 

It's not just you. She's strangely robotic. Moreover, the alt-right has been instructed to "like" her.

 

She may have been a fine military pilot but she is a poor politician. She is certainly entertaining, however.

 

Thank you for showing how fabulously misinformed the US electorate is! Tulsi is not a pilot, military or otherwise. She served in some branch of the medical system.

 

There is something "off" about Tulsi. She speaks truth to power. That 'frightens' many people. It takes a brave person to do so because the government strikes back, as is seen in the Julian Assange case.

 

There's nothing 'frightening' about Tulsi, other than perhaps her cold, sterile, unaffectionate (and rather creepy) nature...and as Nemesis pointed out, her robotic manner. That's part of the 'off' I was speaking of...not that she's any kind of a beacon for change or reason. In my gut, she is also not one to be trusted.

None of the popular candidates can be guaranteed of committing themselves to all that they promise in terms of real, positive measures for the populace, the nation, and our natural resources, except for one...Bernie Sanders. Bernie's a grumpy man with a heart...and not a bullsh!tter like all the others. He shoots from the hip and is ready to give the people what they need, not what they're conditioned to think they need.

Unfortunately, he'll never be S-elected for the Oval Office per the rigging of the voting system, the electoral college, the elitist propaganda, and the overreaching globalist agenda. Bernie, as conventional as he is, would still create too many waves, piss off too many billionaires, threaten the corporations, castrate the lobbyists, anger the war hawks, neutralize MSM propaganda, and threaten the ruling class's millenia-long global enslavement establishment. If anyone would (not could) truly 'drain the swamp', it would be Bernie. Bernie hasn't voiced the need to completely gut the governing institutions (including abolishing the Constitution)...but his goals are a good starting point to giving what belongs to the people back to the people. But the majority of the people are so deeply programmed they don't even know what's good for them to begin with. So the chance of Bernie's election, just on a popular level, is already moot.

I only wonder if Bernie is aware that he could never be President...or how little he'd be able to accomplish if he ever could be President...or just how relatively limited the President's hard powers actually are...or to what extent the rigging of the political system actually is. It didn't take much for JFK to be eliminated. Bernie would be eliminated as soon as he was inaugurated on the podium.