Tulsi

[jerryskids 5,207]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

I concur.

IMO, you are electing a PERSON to the position, not a set of positions from a website.  We live in a democratic republic in which we elect people to make important decisions; the founding fathers realized rightly that a pure democracy was a shiot show. 

Do I trust that that person will have the conviction to do what he/she thinks is right?

[KSB2424 3,083]

24 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

IMO, you are electing a PERSON to the position, not a set of positions from a website.  We live in a democratic republic in which we elect people to make important decisions; the founding fathers realized rightly that a pure democracy was a shiot show. 

Do I trust that that person will have the conviction to do what he/she thinks is right?

Lot of hardcore conservatives don't like her because of a few of her left postilions.  Fock that, give me exactly what you state above.  Who the hell agrees with everyone on everything?  Give me morals and conviction and the willingness to fight for whats right.  Oh and the ability to look around at whats currently going on and say "Fock that". 

[dogcows 1,029]

15 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

IMO, you are electing a PERSON to the position, not a set of positions from a website.  We live in a democratic republic in which we elect people to make important decisions; the founding fathers realized rightly that a pure democracy was a shiot show. 

Do I trust that that person will have the conviction to do what he/she thinks is right?

 

I agree that some of the founders didn’t trust people to elect their own leaders. (I disagree that it’s a good thing.) I recently read an essay about this. Here’s part of it.

Quote

We tend to equate American democracy with the Constitution, as if the two were synonymous with each other. To defend one is to protect the other and vice versa. But our history makes clear that the two are in tension with each other — and always have been. The Constitution, as I’ve written before, was as much a reaction to the populist enthusiasms and democratic experimentation of the 1780s as it was to the failures of the Articles of Confederation.

The framers meant to force national majorities through an overlapping system of fractured authority; they meant to mediate, and even stymie, the popular will as much as possible and force the government to act with as much consensus as possible.

Unfortunately for the framers, this plan did not work as well as they hoped. With the advent of political parties in the first decade of the new Republic — which the framers failed to anticipate in their design — Americans had essentially circumvented the careful balance of institutions and divided power. Parties could campaign to control each branch of government, and with the advent of the mass party in the 1820s, they could claim to represent “the people” themselves in all their glory.

Here’s the whole essay; pretty interesting to think about what might have been if political parties hadn’t taken over everything.

Constitution and Democracy

[jerryskids 5,207]

4 minutes ago, dogcows said:

 

I agree that some of the founders didn’t trust people to elect their own leaders. (I disagree that it’s a good thing.) I recently read an essay about this. Here’s part of it.

Here’s the whole essay; pretty interesting to think about what might have been if political parties hadn’t taken over everything.

Constitution and Democracy?

Thanks.  I'm not sure where you got that first sentence from; my point was that we were set up to elect our leaders.  

I've got a tab open for your link and will try to get to it in the next few days.   

[IGotWorms 3,316]

31 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

IMO, you are electing a PERSON to the position, not a set of positions from a website.  We live in a democratic republic in which we elect people to make important decisions; the founding fathers realized rightly that a pure democracy was a shiot show. 

Do I trust that that person will have the conviction to do what he/she thinks is right?

Perhaps I’m being uncharitable, but seems to me like she’s only done/said whatever will get her an audience

[jerryskids 5,207]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Perhaps I’m being uncharitable, but seems to me like she’s only done/said whatever will get her an audience

This latest "stunt" notwithstanding, do you have examples of this from her prior career? I feel like she has always been towards the conservative side of the Democratic Party, so perhaps if you have a more progressive position, you might have this opinion?

[dogcows 1,029]

21 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Thanks.  I'm not sure where you got that first sentence from; my point was that we were set up to elect our leaders.  

I've got a tab open for your link and will try to get to it in the next few days.   

Ah yes I think I slightly misunderstood. But I think the idea of preventing “direct democracy” as we’d call it today is something we both agree the founders wanted. After all, Senators weren’t directly elected by voters until the 17th amendment in 1913. The idea was that the House was for the people, and the Senate was to be selected by state leaders… as a balance to the directly elected House.

If we got rid of political parties (or had 3x as many), we’d have something a lot closer to what the founders intended.

[dogcows 1,029]

5 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

This latest "stunt" notwithstanding, do you have examples of this from her prior career? I feel like she has always been towards the conservative side of the Democratic Party, so perhaps if you have a more progressive position, you might have this opinion?

When she made her first National appearance in the Democratic presidential debate, it was obvious that she was very far right for a Democrat. 

She clearly wants to be part of the Republican Party now. Her “opening statement“ was chock full of all the “buzzwords” popular among the GOP these days. It’s too late for the 2022 midterms so I have to assume she’s angling for president again. Not sure if attacking Democrats is a good way to start though. But maybe that’s the “cost of doing business” these days. Can’t be a centrist - have to pick a side.

[craftsman 1,045]

7 minutes ago, dogcows said:

When she made her first National appearance in the Democratic presidential debate, it was obvious that she was very far right for a Democrat. 

She clearly wants to be part of the Republican Party now. Her “opening statement“ was chock full of all the “buzzwords” popular among the GOP these days. It’s too late for the 2022 midterms so I have to assume she’s angling for president again. Not sure if attacking Democrats is a good way to start though. But maybe that’s the “cost of doing business” these days. Can’t be a centrist - have to pick a side.

I think she demonstrates what a real centrist is. Not all you liberal "centrists" on this site. 

[KSB2424 3,083]

12 minutes ago, dogcows said:

When she made her first National appearance in the Democratic presidential debate, it was obvious that she was very far right for a Democrat. 

I don't know how old you are but she reminds me the late 1980's and early 90's Blue Dog Democrats.  Let me put it to you this way,  according to your standards and in 2022, Bill Clinton would be a staunch Republican.  That's how GD crazy ya'll are. 

[dogcows 1,029]

Just now, craftsman said:

I think she demonstrates what a real centrist is. Not all you liberal "centrists" on this site. 

Yeah but you are far right and think that attacking Democrats is “centrist” - an absurd notion unless she plans to attack Republicans as well.

[dogcows 1,029]

1 minute ago, KSB2424 said:

I don't know how old you are but she reminds me the 1980's and 90's Blue Dog Democrats.  Let me put it to you this way,  according to your standards and in 2022, Bill Clinton would be a staunch Republican.  That's how GD crazy ya'll are. 

Both parties have changed quite a bit since the 80s-90s. At that time, the big thing for Republicans was “family values.” The poosay-grabber video would have nuked Trump’s campaign if he was running at that time. Now we have Herschel Walker, paying for abortions, multiple kids out of wedlock, and he’s lost no support among the religious right.

[craftsman 1,045]

14 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Yeah but you are far right and think that attacking Democrats is “centrist” - an absurd notion unless she plans to attack Republicans as well.

Every liberal on this site calls themselves centrists. We all know it's a lie. And Tulsi goes down the middle. If ever a person in the democrat party is a true centrist, they get ousted for not voting the party line on every topic. Even Manchin caved. So he is secure. 

At first they were calling her the next superstar of the democratic party. "We need more veterans in the party like her."

Then she had a point of view about the Middle East that they didn't like. Then they turned on her. 

Then years later Biden focked up the Afghanistan withdrawal and kills soldiers and leaves Americans and allies behind. 

You keep voting you. That's what we will end up with. 

[KSB2424 3,083]

Just now, dogcows said:

Both parties have changed quite a bit since the 80s-90s. At that time, the big thing for Republicans was “family values.” The poosay-grabber video would have nuked Trump’s campaign if he was running at that time. Now we have Herschel Walker, paying for abortions, multiple kids out of wedlock, and he’s lost no support among the religious right.

You are conflating peoples personal behavior or words with actual government policy.  

[IGotWorms 3,316]

31 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

This latest "stunt" notwithstanding, do you have examples of this from her prior career? I feel like she has always been towards the conservative side of the Democratic Party, so perhaps if you have a more progressive position, you might have this opinion?

Yeah I thought her whole primary run was geared towards getting attention. The right loved her because here was a hot b1tch that was poking democrats in the eye, which is kinda weird since, you know, she was supposedly seeking the democratic nomination.

It isn’t unusual to run to draw attention to yourself but if it’s for political clout or getting your message out that’s one thing, if it’s for a media deal and podcast followers that’s kinda something different 

[dogcows 1,029]

Just now, craftsman said:

Every liberal on this site calls themselves centrists. We all know it's a lie. And Tulsi goes down the middle. If ever a person in the democrat party is a true centrist, they get ousted for not voting the party line on every topic. Even Manchin caved. So he is secure. 

I don’t remember claiming to be a centrist. 

[craftsman 1,045]

Just now, dogcows said:

I don’t remember claiming to be a centrist. 

Ok, you get one point for admitting you are nut job liberal. I'll give you that. 

[jerryskids 5,207]

10 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Yeah I thought her whole primary run was geared towards getting attention. The right loved her because here was a hot b1tch that was poking democrats in the eye, which is kinda weird since, you know, she was supposedly seeking the democratic nomination.

It isn’t unusual to run to draw attention to yourself but if it’s for political clout or getting your message out that’s one thing, if it’s for a media deal and podcast followers that’s kinda something different 

I like you Worms, but this isn't a very good response to my request for specific examples.  I was trying to give you an out re:  her being on the conservative side of dems, but... here we are.   

[dogcows 1,029]

15 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

You are conflating peoples personal behavior or words with actual government policy.  

The entire identity of the GOP used to be that the two are linked. Since today’s leaders have abandoned morality, what is the argument in favor of pro-life laws, for example?

As for policies, GOP used to be all about free trade, but Trump levied all sorts of tariffs when he took office. Just one example of policies that have changed for the GOP. Bush and Reagan saw immigrants as potential workers and a boost to the economy and Reagan gave millions of them amnesty. That would be a non-starter in the 2020s GOP.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,659]

2 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The entire identity of the GOP used to be that the two are linked. Since today’s leaders have abandoned morality, what is the argument in favor of pro-life laws, for example?

As for policies, GOP used to be all about free trade, but Trump levied all sorts of tariffs when he took office. Just one example of policies that have changed for the GOP. Bush and Reagan saw immigrants as potential workers and a boost to the economy and Reagan gave millions of them amnesty. That would be a non-starter in the 2020s GOP.

Trump made trade agreements.  Why did you leave that part out? 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,592]

49 minutes ago, dogcows said:

When she made her first National appearance in the Democratic presidential debate, it was obvious that she was very far right for a Democrat. 

She clearly wants to be part of the Republican Party now. Her “opening statement“ was chock full of all the “buzzwords” popular among the GOP these days. It’s too late for the 2022 midterms so I have to assume she’s angling for president again. Not sure if attacking Democrats is a good way to start though. But maybe that’s the “cost of doing business” these days. Can’t be a centrist - have to pick a side.

very far right? 

shes pro abortion, anti-war and pretty solidly strong on "common sense" gun control.  Shes a libertarian. 

the only far right thing in that sentence is anti-war

Democrats are the war party

 

[Herbivore 905]

4 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

you mean shes actually a libertarian who was a democrat, basically like me

 

maybe, i just think its inconsistent to rail at Dems, and when you look at her positions in that link, they are mostly on the Dem side. She could have supported them in Congress and still pushed her agenda. Instead she starts a podcast and attn grabs with this.

[IGotWorms 3,316]

42 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I like you Worms, but this isn't a very good response to my request for specific examples.  I was trying to give you an out re:  her being on the conservative side of dems, but... here we are.   

What you want me to hunt through YouTube or something? I honestly have better things to do. Not a lot better, but that’s RP-living-in-his-mom’s-basement level sad 

[KSB2424 3,083]

8 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

What you want me to hunt through YouTube or something? I honestly have better things to do. Not a lot better, but that’s RP-living-in-his-mom’s-basement level sad 

Maybe look around?  Open your mind?  Don't be a soy boy?

I say all this lovingly. You too can wake up and finally be a man. 

[craftsman 1,045]

Voting kills democracies. Straight forward and to the point. 

[shorepatrol 1,737]

2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

IMO, you are electing a PERSON to the position, not a set of positions from a website.  

 

Wrong. Not anymore. 

 

[IGotWorms 3,316]

22 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

Maybe look around?  Open your mind?  Don't be a soy boy?

I say all this lovingly. You too can wake up and finally be a man. 

[Voltaire 4,564]

49 minutes ago, craftsman said:

Voting kills democracies. Straight forward and to the point. 

I don't know what point you're making, but criticizing democracy isn't going to fly. Growing up in America, presumably, you want the ruling consent of the people. Then, factoring in how flawed every other governing system humanity tried until 250 years ago, I'd say a bit more respect for the democratic system and those that fought for it is in order.

Meanwhile voting is a feature, not a bug, of democracies. 

[craftsman 1,045]

13 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

I don't know what point you're making, but criticizing democracy isn't going to fly. Growing up in America, presumably, you want the ruling consent of the people. Then, factoring in how flawed every other governing system humanity tried until 250 years ago, I'd say a bit more respect for the democratic system and those that fought for it is in order.

Meanwhile voting is a feature, not a bug, of democracies. 

 

13 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yes, this is the time to vote straight party lines. We are in an age of party politics, the individual means nothing.  The lines are clear. Anyone saying otherwise is clueless. There are no more moderates. Maybe that will change down the line, but what’s needed right now is a blood letting. 

 

10 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

And this is how you destroy a democracy.

But hey, it’s okay, we don’t really deserve one anyways

Right. As worms says, voting to elect those who represent you, that's destroying democracy. I'm just trying to be a centrist like all the liberals here. 

[Big Guy 1,400]

Bravo Tulsi! 

 

[IGotWorms 3,316]

2 hours ago, KSB2424 said:

Maybe look around?  Open your mind?  Don't be a soy boy?

I say all this lovingly. You too can wake up and finally be a man. 

If y’all ran a reasonable moderate you might have some hope of getting me. A guy like Romney, perhaps.

You used to know what I’m talking about. You were a Kasich guy six years ago, right? You knew Trump was a toxic sh1t bag. But just like everyone else in the party, you gave in and cost your lot with him

[Voltaire 4,564]

52 minutes ago, craftsman said:

 

 

Right. As worms says, voting to elect those who represent you, that's destroying democracy. I'm just trying to be a centrist like all the liberals here. 

The hope is that the backlash against Dems' woke overreach will turn the tide. They've tuned out and lost the sensible people like Tulsi, Joe Rogan, Bill Maher,  Elon Musk, and wait for it.... Donald Trump. And I agree, although never a Democrat, the fist Republican presidential candidate I voted for was Donald Trump (my first two votes went to Ross).

[craftsman 1,045]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

If y’all ran a reasonable moderate you might have some hope of getting me. A guy like Romney, perhaps.

You used to know what I’m talking about. You were a Kasich guy six years ago, right? You knew Trump was a toxic sh1t bag. But just like everyone else in the party, you gave in and cost your lot with him

Trump is the best president this country has seen given the liberals in office attacking him 24/7 for the past 7 years.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,659]

Bottom line, Worms and Mooney think voting the opposite of them destroys democracy.  Most democrats do. 

[Voltaire 4,564]

33 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

If y’all ran a reasonable moderate you might have some hope of getting me. A guy like Romney, perhaps.

You used to know what I’m talking about. You were a Kasich guy six years ago, right? You knew Trump was a toxic sh1t bag. But just like everyone else in the party, you gave in and cost your lot with him

Romney can get bent. He's what use to be wrong with the Republican Party,  I didn't vote for him in 2012 and l was glad he didn't win. Romney wasn't a consideration and it wasn't close. Times have changed since then, not really Romney. Since then, the Dems have went totally off the charts nuts wheras Romney simply  remains totally unlikeable and unrelatable. Maybe considering the layout in 2022 and what the dems have become , I'd vote for 2022 Romney over 2022 Obama, but in 2012 this was not a close election and I made an easy choice for Obama.

 More specifically, Romney caters to the needs of the corporate globalist elites who don't mind shipping jobs overseas and don't care about the good of the country. Both parties were in their thrall up through the Trump era. It was President Trumps great accomplishment to get us out from under their thumb. Maybe we could use more of the staid Mormon thing, I can appreciate that about him better now, considering the alternative that has arisen since.

I don't recall KSB's position, but I was a Kasich guy six years ago and thought Trump was toxic. I'd ridiculed him throughout the GOP primary. Even before he ran, the birther bullsh*t got him off on the wrong foot with me. Follow tht with "grab 'em by the p*ssy". Ugh! Then, for the the first year and a half, I'd thought we just had a dumber, more combustible Jeb! But hew really came on his own, I know for me, when he scrapped NAFTA in favor of USMCA and required Mexican autoworkers to be paid $16/hour, that was really the watershed moment for me.  His words about looking out for US workers and their jobs really matched his deeds. Then from there, he just got better in so many ways, much less Bushtard/Romney/McConnell/Ryan corrupt insider and more populist and nationalist.

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,592]

2 hours ago, Herbivore said:

maybe, i just think its inconsistent to rail at Dems, and when you look at her positions in that link, they are mostly on the Dem side. She could have supported them in Congress and still pushed her agenda. Instead she starts a podcast and attn grabs with this.

There are plenty of moderate democrats and centrists. Everyone left of me claims to be. Sometimes it’s easy to spread the word to millions via a podcast rather than having one voice that nobody listens to in congress 

[Voltaire 4,564]

Quote

I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism, actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms, are…

…hostile to people of faith & spirituality, demonize the police & protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans, believe in open borders, weaponize the national security state to go after political opponents, and above all, dragging us ever closer to nuclear war.

I believe in a government that is of, by, and for the people. Unfortunately, today’s Democratic Party does not. Instead, it stands for a government of, by, and for the powerful elite. I’m calling on my fellow common sense independent-minded Democrats to join me….

…in leaving the Democratic Party. If you can no longer stomach the direction that so-called woke Democratic Party ideologues are taking our country, I invite you to join me.

That's her tweet she goes on to explain more for those interested. As always, you'll want to take people in the full context, and not let spin doctors with agendas edit and frame what she said, so if you follow the link there is 1:19 of her in her own words :

 

[Voltaire 4,564]

Nowhere does she say she's joining the GOP. Although the more Dems that realize what their party is becoming, what they represent and what they are doing, that can only be for the better.

I totally understand and support her observation that the crazy train has taken over the Democratic Party and driven it off the rails. I sure as hell am not voting for these a$$holes any time soon (which is my own position not hers, again she has not joined the GOP), but IMO the GOP would be best off to pivot more towards appealing to everyday disaffected Dems like her, who still love and care about the country, and away from the monied-interest elites like Romney.

For much of our time online, worms and I were close politically (MDC and TBBOM too). I hope he remembers this, I sure do. But that he is more in tune to Republicans like Romney, who I have no use for, where as I'm more drawn to a Dem like Gabbard, who he in turn doesn't mind seeing leave, really highlights our differences and why we've split, he and MDC one way, me and TBBOM the other.

[Big Guy 1,400]

2 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

If y’all ran a reasonable moderate you might have some hope of getting me. A guy like Romney, perhaps.

You used to know what I’m talking about. You were a Kasich guy six years ago, right? You knew Trump was a toxic sh1t bag. But just like everyone else in the party, you gave in and cost your lot with him

I voted for Romney........focking Globalist RINO!!!

He was the only choice, who the fock would in their right mind would vote for a marxist Kenyon? At least we wised up after that debacle

 

[Voltaire 4,564]

Together Tulsi and Yang had a good 5% support in the Dem primary; it's disappointing there wasn't more. But their reasonable voices are being totally ignored, alienated and isolated by their scumbag party. Hopefully this is a sign that those voters are in play and can flip some close elections going forward.