Why not Tulsi Gabbard

#857
#857
BreatheUT said:
To be clear, I'm not suddenly all in for Tulsi but I like that the Republican Party isn't so rigid that there is not a place for her. The Republican Party needed some of the updating it has gone through while sticking to its core values.

I don't like some things about Trump but this election is a binary choice. There is no way around it.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. I am a big tent kinda guy. I think there is room for all sorts of personal views in a coalition. As long as those views are not thrust into the legislative process, I don't care. If the politicians would simply hold their views as their own and defer to the Constitution, I would have no issues.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, BreatheUT, LouderVol and 3 others
#858
#858
InVOLuntary said:
She would have to change her stances on a bunch of issues before I would consider her a candidate I would vote for.
Click to expand...
McDad said:
If she publicly stated that co sponsoring was bad judgement on her part, unconstitutional, and a mistake in understanding she has fixed...would you believe her?
Click to expand...
Same question for you, please.
 
#859
#859
McDad said:
Same question for you, please.
Click to expand...
Good question. I think many in Washington support legislation they really don't like because of several reasons. One being they don't want to be ostracized by their party. Two, we all know it's a bartering system up there- you support mine and I'll support yours. Look how that worked out for Bush one. "No new taxes" What's funny is the people turned on him in favor of the ones that proposed the new taxes. Americans are stupid. 😅
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, AM64 and McDad
#860
#860
Grand Vol said:
I still say she would have made a good VP choice...

But I'm happy with Vance.

Defense Secretary maybe?
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good idea to me at first glance. She knows firsthand that war should always be the last reasonable option, not a "goal for this financial quarter". She is anti- MIC though...so I would be amazed if this happens. It would be hilarious to see Trump appoint Tulsi, whose speech at his rally yesterday when she joined the Republican wing called out the MIC loudly, as his Defense Secretary. 😃

Great timing for this. If there are somehow still some undecided, centrist voters out there Tulsi seems to me like the type of Centrist candidate that they could identify with. My personal views are far more Conservative than her previous positions stated as a Dimwit, but I hope that she helps more folks realize as she did that the Democrat Party has been hijacked by the far left Marxists and weirdos...and the only way to get back to sanity is to walk away from the Democrats altogether.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#861
#861
McDad said:
Same question for you, please.
Click to expand...

Didn't ask me BUUUUT.

I would have to hear her reasoning behind the change, who/what changed her mind and the reasoning behind it. Simply saying "I now think my previous stance was unconstitutional" wouldn't cut it, she'd have to explain what turned the light on for her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, tntar heel, marcusluvsvols and 3 others
#862
#862
InVOLuntary said:
Good question. I think many in Washington support legislation they really don't like because of several reasons. One being they don't want to be ostracized by their party. Two, we all know it's a bartering system up there- you support mine and I'll support yours. Look how that worked out for Bush one. "No new taxes" What's funny is the people turned on him in favor of the ones that proposed the new taxes. Americans are stupid. 😅
Click to expand...
It's challenging, isn't it. If a candidate supported legislation antithetical to the philosophy of the voters they want to represent, then they are marked with a scarlet letter for life.

And if they publicly profess a change in their views, or that their previous support didn't align for whatever reason with their own beliefs, I am most likely NOT going to believe the new version of the candidate. I will cynically think they are saying what needs to be said to get elected.
 
#863
#863
McDad said:
It's challenging, isn't it. If a candidate supported legislation antithetical to the philosophy of the voters they want to represent, then they are marked with a scarlet letter for life.

And if they publicly profess a change in their views, or that their previous support didn't align for whatever reason with their own beliefs, I am most likely NOT going to believe the new version of the candidate. I will cynically think they are saying what needs to be said to get elected.
Click to expand...
What your saying is that Washington politicians lie. I agree 100%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, AM64 and McDad
#864
#864
hog88 said:
Didn't ask me BUUUUT.

I would have to hear her reasoning behind the change, who/what changed her mind and the reasoning behind it. Simply saying "I now think my previous stance was unconstitutional" wouldn't cut it, she'd have to explain what turned the light on for her.
Click to expand...
The "how and why" which led to rethinking would be critical. Because you want assurance she has a better understanding and legitimately believes what she changed
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, AM64 and marcusluvsvols
#866
#866
McDad said:
The "how and why" which led to rethinking would be critical. Because you want assurance she has a better understanding and legitimately believes what she changed
Click to expand...

Yes, like you I'd be extremely skeptical without a detailed explanation. I'd think she was just pandering without it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and McDad
#867
#867
McDad said:
If she publicly stated that co sponsoring was bad judgement on her part, unconstitutional, and a mistake in understanding she has fixed...would you believe her?
Click to expand...
Maybe just political pandering ("politicians" and all that) but there's at least this:

In a podcast posted to her YouTube channel last month,(which would have been May this year) Gabbard acknowledged that she no longer supported restrictive gun control measures, such as an assault weapons ban.

“My views on, you know, things like the assault weapons ban have changed out of that learning, understanding, and that growth in really appreciating our founders' full intent for the Second Amendment,” Gabbard said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol and McDad
#868
#868
hndog609 said:
Maybe just political pandering ("politicians" and all that) but there's at least this:

In a podcast posted to her YouTube channel last month,(which would have been May this year) Gabbard acknowledged that she no longer supported restrictive gun control measures, such as an assault weapons ban.

“My views on, you know, things like the assault weapons ban have changed out of that learning, understanding, and that growth in really appreciating our founders' full intent for the Second Amendment,” Gabbard said.
Click to expand...
That certainly give SOME how and why.

Does her explanation satisfy you, hndog?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#869
#869
hndog609 said:
Maybe just political pandering ("politicians" and all that) but there's at least this:

In a podcast posted to her YouTube channel last month,(which would have been May this year) Gabbard acknowledged that she no longer supported restrictive gun control measures, such as an assault weapons ban.

“My views on, you know, things like the assault weapons ban have changed out of that learning, understanding, and that growth in really appreciating our founders' full intent for the Second Amendment,” Gabbard said.
Click to expand...
So she sponsored legislation without knowing what it actually did and why it could be bad? But now that she agrees with a certain stance it's all good? Seems if it went the other way she'd be called some kind of footwear
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel
#870
#870
McDad said:
That certainly give SOME how and why.

Does her explanation satisfy you, hndog?
Click to expand...
It takes me from "That isn't going to work for me." to "If you're looking for a vote* I'll listen to what you have to say on the matter.".

*I haven't taken the time to seek out greater detail on her stance as she's not in play for anything other than having an opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, NorthDallas40 and McDad
#872
#872
utvolpj said:
So she sponsored legislation without knowing what it actually did and why it could be bad? But now that she agrees with a certain stance it's all good? Seems if it went the other way she'd be called some kind of footwear
Click to expand...
On the surface I'm actually ok with people that seem like they are capable of learning as they go. As Hogg suggested if she was putting herself in a position looking for support I'd like to hear the thought process fleshed out more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#875
#875
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and LouderVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top