Why not Tulsi Gabbard

[AM64]

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.

If the MIC were in charge of designing the tools in your toolbox. The simple hammer that you pound nails with wouldn't work 70% of the time. But it would be stealthy, have telescopic laser and infrared sights and all other manner of costly features making it the bestest hammer in the world. Then when you really had to produce, you'd be looking for a big rock or some antique hammer to handle the nail in front of you. I've given up hope that the MIC savants both inside and outside the military might realize that battlefield conditions require simple stuff that works and that they have managed to produce an insane logistical and operational nightmare. Our only hope is that the enemy in the wings is following the lead ... unfortunately there are many millions more of them when the toys stop working.

 

[RockyTop85]

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

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

Changing views based on shifting electorate (e.g. Dems on gay marriage and republicans on abortion) seems okay.

Changing views based on personal gain (staying relevant) isn’t wrong, but it’s just contrary to the idea that she’s super dedicated to some moderate principles and there just wasn’t room for her difference of opinion in the radical Democratic Party.

The issues where she actually stayed consistent are mostly foreign policy and aren’t really incompatible with the Democrat agenda.

Also, the modern Republican Party isn’t particularly conservative or even moderate. They’re just an oppositional extremes. So joining the party and supporting Trump doesn’t make a lot of sense if you view her through that lens.

Makes more sense to me that she just didn’t have a path to continued relevance with democrats because she pulled that amazing prison yard shanking of Kamala and then the powers that be stuck with Kamala. If she had been named secretary of education or ambassador to the UN or something she would still be a Democrat, IMO.

 

[McDad]

Changing views based on shifting electorate (e.g. Dems on gay marriage and republicans on abortion) seems okay.

Changing views based on personal gain (staying relevant) isn’t wrong, but it’s just contrary to the idea that she’s super dedicated to some moderate principles and there just wasn’t room for her difference of opinion in the radical Democratic Party.

The issues where she actually stayed consistent are mostly foreign policy and aren’t really incompatible with the Democrat agenda.

Also, the modern Republican Party isn’t particularly conservative or even moderate. They’re just an oppositional extremes. So joining the party and supporting Trump doesn’t make a lot of sense if you view her through that lens.

Makes more sense to me that she just didn’t have a path to continued relevance with democrats because she pulled that amazing prison yard shanking of Kamala and then the powers that be stuck with Kamala. If she had been named secretary of education or ambassador to the UN or something she would still be a Democrat, IMO.

Are you aware that you typed a nice response but didn't answer the question.

If it is okay to change just not very often, how do you, personally, quantify very often?

 

[AM64]

That certainly give SOME how and why.

Does her explanation satisfy you, hndog?

You can never really know another person or what motivates him or her; you just have to start at that point. For the most part, I simply reject as honest or capable the person who anoints himself or herself as the person fit to lead whether in politics or business. Ability, it there, will bubble to the top, but it's more than words or pandering or wealth or slick style. At least 90 percent of our "leaders" - corporate and political should have been taken out with the garbage since they unfortunately didn't just dribble down their mother's legs. That said; sometimes it's an act of faith that you listen to someone and there seems to be reason within - even more when that person shows the ability to evolve.

Tulsi comes from a background that would have strongly promoted more liberal beliefs, but she seems to honestly move from those values as she is exposed to the broader world. All of us are capable of being fooled, but I see hope in this one - and that's far more than I see in 99% of our politicians. It's unusual to feel any degree of confidence in someone with whom you would have shared no original political conviction; this is one of those rare times for me.

 

[NorthDallas40]

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?

I don’t think it’s time based hell it could happen over night. I think it’s content based what are the specific points that made her challenge her own prior stances and how did her line of reasoning come to a different conclusion.

 

[Orangeburst]

You can never really know another person or what motivates him or her; you just have to start at that point. For the most part, I simply reject as honest or capable the person who anoints himself or herself as the person fit to lead whether in politics or business. Ability, it there, will bubble to the top, but it's more than words or pandering or wealth or slick style. At least 90 percent of our "leaders" - corporate and political should have been taken out with the garbage since they unfortunately didn't just dribble down their mother's legs. That said; sometimes it's an act of faith that you listen to someone and there seems to be reason within - even more when that person shows the ability to evolve.

Tulsi comes from a background that would have strongly promoted more liberal beliefs, but she seems to honestly move from those values as she is exposed to the broader world. All of us are capable of being fooled, but I see hope in this one - and that's far more than I see in 99% of our politicians. It's unusual to feel any degree of confidence in someone with whom you would have shared no original political conviction; this is one of those rare times for me.

being put on a No Fly List just for politics will make one ponder a change.

 

[RockyTop85]

Are you aware that you typed a nice response but didn't answer the question.

If it is okay to change just not very often, how do you, personally, quantify very often?

I did answer the question with the first two sentences.

 

[AM64]

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.

I will vote for Trump even though I think he's an ass and a fool - the open your mouth and make a fool of yourself variety. There's plenty he says with which I disagree, but in the end he's 100% better than the alternative. That says something is really wrong with our electorate and how we pick leaders. I'm not sure anybody can learn much worthwhile under Trump's tutelage - except possibly that wealth and power are interchangeable values like altitude and speed in aerial warfare - you can trade one for the other as needed - potential to kinetic energy.

 

[NorthDallas40]

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

There was a report that Pence was in attendance of one showing and Miranda gave him a shout out and a challenge on policy.

And whether you agree with Miranda’s take on Hamilton’s and Burr’s story it was a really good show. A lot of it was really the historical timeline with some factual context added.

 

[McDad]

I did answer the question with the first two sentences.

I see the answer to 'why' views changed. I see nothing regarding frequency of changed views.

I asked because I thought about some of my views have changed since my 30s and how many iterations those views have gone through.

Please try again to answer how you quantify "very often".

 

[hog88]

I did answer the question with the first two sentences.

McDad just isn't as smart as you.

 

[McDad]

There was a report that Pence was in attendance of one showing and Miranda gave him a shout out and a challenge on policy.

And whether you agree with Miranda’s take on Hamilton’s and Burr’s story it was a really good show. A lot of it was really the historical timeline with some factual context added.

View attachment 690425

 

[hog88]

View attachment 690428

ND40 is cultured.

 

[McDad]

McDad just isn't as smart as you.

Shut up, ham sammich.

 

[RockyTop85]

I see the answer to 'why' views changed. I see nothing regarding frequency of changed views.

I asked because I thought about some of my views have changed since my 30s and how many iterations those views have gone through.

Please try again to answer how you quantify "very often".

The specific phrase you’re asking about was included in a counterfactual ideal political situation that referred to an ideal of politicians generically and homogenously.

Expecting some quantitatively precise answer to that is a “you problem” not a “me problem.” I gave you the answer. Make of it what you will.

 

[hog88]

Shut up, ham sammich.

So dumb you had to steal that from a Texican.

 

[McDad]

The specific phrase you’re asking about was included in a counterfactual ideal political situation. Expecting some quantitatively precise answer is a “you problem” not a “me problem.” I gave you the answer. Make of it what you will.

You could say you haven't given quantifying the phrase any thought.

And, you could be a LOT less of a dick about it.

I don't remember ever pushing your buttons and I'm not pushing them now.

 

[NorthDallas40]

View attachment 690428

It’s culture you unedjumuhcated hillbilly. Something you’d know nothing about.

Hamilton came thru Dallas earlier this year it really is a well done show.

 

[RockyTop85]

You could say you haven't given quantifying the phrase any thought.

And, you could be a LOT less of a dick about it.

I don't remember ever pushing your buttons and I'm not pushing them now.

Why would I say that when it isn’t true?

 

[AM64]

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.

There's ample evidence that almost every child is liberal - fortunately at least some evolve with age and exposure to the world - the rest become hopeless dems. I'd bet that once you had to make your way in the world, you became less liberal and more conservative. One of our huge national blunders was decreasing the voting age; that one thing allowed the dems to harvest a liberal vote when many of the same people with a few more years of experience and exposure to the facts of life would very likely have voted differently. I think in Tulsi you are seeing someone who was strongly indoctrinated to the Pacific islander way of life as a child has to process how the broader world works - shifting from a protected idealism to the hard facts of life. That would be a shift from a cocoon where the community is essentially extended family to our completely fractured society.

 

[hog88]

It’s culture you unedjumuhcated hillbilly. Something you’d know nothing about.

Hamilton came thru Dallas earlier this year it really is a well done show.

Which did you enjoy more, Hamilton or the Chippendales?

 

[NorthDallas40]

There's ample evidence that almost every child is liberal - fortunately at least some evolve with age and exposure to the world - the rest become hopeless dems. I'd bet that once you had to make your way in the world, you became less liberal and more conservative. One of our huge national blunders was decreasing the voting age; that one thing allowed the dems to harvest a liberal vote when many of the same people with a few more years of experience and exposure to the facts of life would very likely have voted differently. I think in Tulsi you are seeing someone who was strongly indoctrinated to the Pacific islander way of life as a child has to process how the broader world works - shifting from a protected idealism to the hard facts of life. That would be a shift from a cocoon where the community is essentially extended family to our completely fractured society.

Oh younger me was definitely further left than old ass curmudgeon me. However younger me was still right of center, or where center was as the time.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Better than the Chippendales?

I’ll defer to McDiddy’s expert opinion on that.

 

[McDad]

Why would I say that when it isn’t true?

I don't know and I no longer care.

 

[McDad]

Oh younger me was definitely further left than old ass curmudgeon me. However younger me was still right of center, or where center was as the time.

I've actually mellowed a lot on several positions.

It's a good point though, the age of the candidate should be considered as their views evolve.