Why not Tulsi Gabbard

[volfanhill]

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?

I would say color me highly skeptical. She had these beliefs as recently as 5 years ago. Has respect from GOP folks bc of her military background, her disdain for the MIC, and the fact that biacth slapped Hillary in the Dem debates. Bc of her public defiance to Hillary she was tossed aside by the Dems. Now she's out in the woods with no relevance. Now she embraces Trump and the 2A. Smells like someone wants to remain relevant.

 

[Gandalf]

100%, she shouldn't be anywhere near a cabinet post either. Well maybe Sec of Transportation, it doesn't take much intellect or talent to fill that spot as we've seen.

I am fine with a cabinet post but not as an elected (unless it is in a purple blue area).

 

[McDad]

I would say color me highly skeptical. She had these beliefs as recently as 5 years ago. Has respect from GOP folks bc of her military background, her disdain for the MIC, and the fact that biacth slapped Hillary in the Dem debates. Bc of her public defiance to Hillary she was tossed aside by the Dems. Now she's out in the woods with no relevance. Now she embraces Trump and the 2A. Smells like someone wants to remain relevant.

My default as well. If you read further, consider updating your thoughts once you read hndog's post.

 

[McDad]

I am fine with a cabinet post but not as an elected (unless it is in a purple blue area).

because of her past record?

 

[NorthDallas40]

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.

I’m wondering what all of her years as a US Army reservist officer taught her about “assault weapons”. Sorry this just screams of pandering to the new audience she wants to accept her now.

 

[McDad]

I’m wondering what all of her years as a US Army reservist officer taught her about “assault weapons”. Sorry this just screams of pandering to the new audience she wants to accept her now.

You seem dubious as well.

So, I'll pose a follow up to you. If a candidate cannot be believed if/when they change a position, how can we elect candidates who are learning and changing? Seems to me the root of the issue is not that positions change. The issue is trust...trusting the candidate that they are genuine with the change.

 

[RockyTop85]

I’m wondering what all of her years as a US Army reservist officer taught her about “assault weapons”. Sorry this just screams of pandering to the new audience she wants to accept her now.

She’s a second generation politician who became a pundit and then switched parties to stay relevant, rather than going to find a real job.

I don’t know why anybody needs to know more than that. At best, she’s reverse Adam Kinzinger with tits.

 

[McDad]

She’s a second generation politician who became a pundit and then switched parties to stay relevant, rather than going to find a real job.

I don’t know why anybody needs to know more than that. At best, she’s reverse Adam Kinzinger with tits.

If you have time, I would like to read your thoughts on the questions and discussion around a poltician changing views.

 

[Gandalf]

because of her past record?

Yes. I would like her to have a cabinet post, where she can execute on Trumps larger vision, while giving her the opportunity to show that her beliefs have changed in what she does. In other words, with guard rails.

 

[Grand Vol]

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.

And there is the huge problem between Liberals and Conservatives...

Remember when Hillary and Biden were opposed to same sex marriage? They evolved (or at least claim they did) and the party forgave them for it.

However, Conservatives have a long memory (dare say one of an elephant?) and demand to know why you changed and still won't forget you supported something they opposed in the past. Or forgive you for it. Vance comes immediately to mind for his anti Trump stance not so long ago and the way people railed on about it when he was picked as VP.

And the larger problem on the conservative side is thinking it's just a political stunt even if it is genuine. I feel like Gabbard, much like Vance, haven't been corrupted as much by politics since they haven't been there that long. There's a good chance her thinking has evolved or someone sat her down and explained why her stances weren't good.

There's a lot of people waking up this election and saying "Orange Man isn't a bad as we were led to believe." But if Conservatives continue to push them out, they will fail.

 

[Grand Vol]

 

[volfanhill]

My default as well. If you read further, consider updating your thoughts once you read hndog's post.

I disqualify her for numerous positions she has besides her 2A one. However, you do pose an interesting question regarding a politician evolving on a position. I'd argue context matters. Suddenly changing positions, after you've been given the boot by the Dems, and looking for some way to stay in the game doesn't help her. Doesn't mean she's lying. But will make me question her motivations as supposed to her coming out about her new 2A take in 2022.

 

[McDad]

And there is the huge problem between Liberals and Conservatives...

Remember when Hillary and Biden were opposed to same sex marriage? They evolved (or at least claim they did) and the party forgave them for it.

However, Conservatives have a long memory (dare say one of an elephant?) and demand to know why you changed and still won't forget you supported something they opposed in the past. Or forgive you for it. Vance comes immediately to mind for his anti Trump stance not so long ago and the way people railed on about it when he was picked as VP.

And the larger problem on the conservative side is thinking it's just a political stunt even if it is genuine. I feel like Gabbard, much like Vance, haven't been corrupted as much by politics since they haven't been there that long. There's a good chance her thinking hasI evolved or someone sat her down and explained why her stances weren't good.

There's a lot of people waking up this election and saying "Orange Man isn't a bad as we were led to believe." But if Conservatives continue to push them out, they will fail.

Inclined to agree...BUT....i think voters of all parties really want to hear their candidates affirm the deeply held beliefs they hold whether the candidate believes it or not.

 

[McDad]

I disqualify her for numerous positions she has besides her 2A one. However, you do pose an interesting regarding a politician evolving on a position. I'd argue context matters. Suddenly changing positions, after you've been given the boot by the Dems, and looking for some way to stay in the game doesn't help her. Doesn't mean she's lying. But will make me question her motivations as supposed to her coming out about her new 2A take in 2022.

So if we are building our ideal scenario as this conversation in the thread develops, a candidate who has changed positions is more trustworthy when:
- they explain the how and why of their evolution
- the motivation is more than pandering or getting elected.
- the position change was neither sudden or radical.

Anything else anyone wants to add?

 

[NorthDallas40]

She’s a second generation politician who became a pundit and then switched parties to stay relevant, rather than going to find a real job.

I don’t know why anybody needs to know more than that. At best, she’s reverse Adam Kinzinger with tits.

At least her tits are nicer than Kinzinger’s. It’s the details that count

 

[NorthDallas40]

You seem dubious as well.

So, I'll pose a follow up to you. If a candidate cannot be believed if/when they change a position, how can we elect candidates who are learning and changing? Seems to me the root of the issue is not that positions change. The issue is trust...trusting the candidate that they are genuine with the change.

As others have stated I’m not saying they can’t be believed I’m saying there needs to be strong rationale from the candidate on why the stance change. I’d submit thus far we haven’t heard any such strong rationale from any of the stance flippers. Harris, Vance, Trump, or now Gabbard. I’d think any rational person should start from a stance of looking at their prior record shd then listening to meaningful dialog directly from the candidate not surrogates on why they changed.

 

[RockyTop85]

If you have time, I would like to read your thoughts on the questions and discussion around a poltician changing views.

Ideally, representative politicians wouldn’t change their positions very often. Like choosing a doctor, pastor, or private school, a district would elect somebody whose judgment and principles are respected and trust them. Changes in the district’s beliefs would be reflected by selection of new representation.

Obviously, that’s not reality. Politics has become an occupation and business is booming. But the further one gets from that ideal, the more I tend to look down on it.

I’ve posted my thoughts about Gabbard before. I guess it wasn’t in this thread. But to me, her entire life story screams that she’s Lin-Manuel Miranda’s characterization of Aaron Burr, brought to life. Basically the antithesis of the ideal. She doesn’t really believe anything, she just wants to be in the room where it happens.

That doesn’t really distinguish her from the average modern politician, but it does run contrary to some of the popular narratives that tend to build up around her.

 

[Grand Vol]

So...

For those who said "well, four years ago she supported X position..." is there like a minimum time that has to go by before she says she was wrong and can be believed?

 

[KB5252]

I would say color me highly skeptical. She had these beliefs as recently as 5 years ago. Has respect from GOP folks bc of her military background, her disdain for the MIC, and the fact that biacth slapped Hillary in the Dem debates. Bc of her public defiance to Hillary she was tossed aside by the Dems. Now she's out in the woods with no relevance. Now she embraces Trump and the 2A. Smells like someone wants to remain relevant

Or someone who wants to buck the establishment..... That's the only quality of Trump I appreciate. The establishment is corrupt and evil. It needs to be dissolved, though I hear that ship sailed long ago.

 

[Orangeburst]

Smart thing would of been to dump the Dem party and not join the Repub party and just say you endorse Trump.

 

[McDad]

Ideally, representative politicians wouldn’t change their positions very often. Like choosing a doctor, pastor, or private school, a district would elect somebody whose judgment and principles are respected and trust them. Changes in the district’s beliefs would be reflected by selection of new representation.

Obviously, that’s not reality. Politics has become an occupation and business is booming. But the further one gets from that ideal, the more I tend to look down on it.

I’ve posted my thoughts about Gabbard before. I guess it wasn’t in this thread. But to me, her entire life story screams that she’s Lin-Manuel Miranda’s characterization of Aaron Burr, brought to life. Basically the antithesis of the ideal. She doesn’t really believe anything, she just wants to be in the room where it happens.

That doesn’t really distinguish her from the average modern politician, but it does run contrary to some of the popular narratives that tend to build up around her.

I appreciate the reply...although I felt woefully uneducated reading it.

 

[volfanhill]

So...

For those who said "well, four years ago she supported X position..." is there like a minimum time that has to go by before she says she was wrong and can be believed?

No. But it would foolish to just accept it and not be skeptical. She benefits from this change of heart.

 

[McDad]

Ideally, representative politicians wouldn’t change their positions very often.

After mulling it over...how do you define "very often"?

 

[RockyTop85]

I appreciate the reply...although I felt woefully uneducated reading it.

The Lin-Manuel Miranda thing? It’s from a broadway play.

 

[Grand Vol]

The Lin-Manuel Miranda thing? It’s from a broadway play.

I figured you for more of a Cats fan...