Nope. Speak your mind, stand up for what you believe in. All good. Just don’t be an indecisive mess, and she’s failed miserably in that regard. And there are way better examples to cite of Dems “eating their own” and lessons to be learned from it. She’s not relevant enough to qualify, and her motivations and end game have long been questioned for some time now. How she’s acting and why she’s doing it are all fair game.
Im an indecisive mess. There are some times I really like Tulsi. There are other times I do not. I tend to like her in long form open dialogue discussions. She seems like a mess when you only read tweets and 5 second sound bits. Tulsi, Yang and Bernie seem to be the only ones willing to participate in open dialogue. You are absolutely correct there are much better examples. How often do you see that happening on the Republican front? Democrats, the party of equality, openness and acceptance. Siphoning off the extremists should be wanted and expected. Virtue signaling is pathetic and its rampant in the Democrat party.
Uhh, have you noticed that anyone who dares speak out against Trump gets threatened with a primary and/or blasted by the party? The Georgia governor - a Trump acolyte - got threatened with a primary because he followed the Georgia constitution and picked his own Senate replacement instead of the person Trump wanted. Many states are even trying to not allow anyone else on the primary ballot - or just remove their primaries altogether - to prevent anyone from contesting Trump. Have you noticed how many Republicans have retired over the last few years because they knew stepping out of line with Trump was going to end their careers? Several in the Senate in just 2018 - Flake, Corker, - plus a ton in the house. These are long-time traditional and reliable conservatives that got eaten by their own.
Yea, “censure” the president as a response to Nixon level abuse of power? Her narrative is very wishy washy because she’s trying to appeal both parties’ moderates. Voting “present” is about the most flaccid position she could have taken. Stating he’s a poor president does what exactly? She just comes off as phony from my perspective. I would have respected her if she would have at least voted “no”.
Well, you’re allowed to be an indecisive mess since you’re not running for President, as well as a member of Congress. There is no bigger duty for a member of Congress than an impeachment vote, and yet she couldn’t bring herself to make a decision after all of her for/against meandering prior to the vote. Indecision drives me nuts (probably a byproduct of what I do for a living), but it’s far from my only issue with Tulsi. That said, I agree the Dems need to cool it with the “eating their own” thing. It was out of control in 2016 with Hillary, and it’s happening again now — mainly with Biden and Mayor Pete. The source is pretty consistent, though, and reasoning with that wing of the party isn’t easy.
I am trying to distinguish between party individuals who virtue signal. I want to clearly state I am not saying one is better than the other. The Republican party cuts out anyone who refuses to follow the party line. I dont get frustrated with a wolf being a wolf. I do get frustrated with arrogance and pious behavior when one sits up on their high horse of greater virtue.
Tulsi aside, what you're telling me is that a politician is not allowed to abstain or break party lines. The blind entrenchment from both sides is what makes 60% of the the population disenchanted with both sides. I want my favored politician to have an opinion on their own. I want the best ideas surface to the top, not the best ideas that suits the party. Any piece of legislation sharply divided down party lines is a bad piece of legislation. How is an impeachment vote THE BIGGEST duty for a member of the House? Are you really implying the biggest duty of the House is to find ways to impeach the other party? Do you understand how backwards and ludicrous that is?
In that phrasing, sure it sounds backwards and ludicrous. However, "upholding co-equal status for the legislative branch and serving as a check on the executive branch" could be seen as a central duty of any House member. Right? It doesn't have to be all about party.
When impeachment does rarely happen... pick “yes” or “no” and do your job. So Tulsi heard the witness testimony under oath, saw the subpoenaed communications, and saw the House establish a timeline.... and she decided “present”? Tulsi is like Beto, just an empty husk going after populists, albeit moderates instead of progressives. Has she commented on the flare up in the Middle East and given more guidance on her foreign policy in respect to withdrawal?
Tulsi did not vote an opinion, if she thought impeachment was wrong she should have voted no. I am sick of all the virtue signalling as well and Tulsi is as guilty of it as any candidate. I am no fan of impeachment but it makes no sense to not enact legislation because one party is so entrenched. Should Obama not have tried to get anything done because everything was along party lines? Should any minority party be allowed to hold that much sway?
The charge of Obstruction of Congress goes directly to that. Which is overlooked, but long term, that's arguably more important than the charge of Abuse of Power. We can't have checks and balances when the executive branch can obstruct Congress.
Agree. It’s the most obvious and indisputable too. I see no path to argue against it other than saying (as they do): “well, Congress shouldn’t have made the requests.” But a subjective view of worthiness is not written into congressional powers. Investigation is. Period.
and yet that vote of "present" has kept her in the news since that day and keeps people talking about her in forums like this
With such low polling... what else does she have, policy? Lol. Maybe voting “present” was a vote to try and stay relevant and keep the Tulsi brand alive. Typical politician.
