Tulsi Gabbard Votes 'Present' on Trump Impeachment, Slams 'Purely Partisan Process'

[Natural Citizen]

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii), a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, voted "present" on the two articles of impeachment against President Trump on Wednesday. This made her virtually the only the Democrat to effectively vote against sending the president's removal to the Senate.

"I come before you to make a stand for the center," said Gabbard in a statement.

Continued - Tulsi Gabbard Votes 'Present' on Trump Impeachment, Slams 'Purely Partisan Process'


Anyway. Nice to see independent thought versus just towing party lines and acting on emotion alone.

Could be a thread about this already, but I didn't see one. Apologies in advance if that's the case. I dislike a cluttered board as much as the next feller.

 

[gipper]

Yeah there is another, but this is worthy of a double thread.

 

[wamose]

I'm happy that she made her party look stupid by being real. I'm also happy that she pissed off that useless AOC.

 

[Rambunctious]

When she steps out of the race Trump should bring her into the white house...maybe as an adviser...that would drive the loony dems absolutely nuts.....

 

[gipper]

I suspect a full court press to destroy Tulsi is in the works, by the MSM and the D Party. Hopefully it backfires.

 

[Desperado]

When she steps out of the race Trump should bring her into the white house...maybe as an adviser...that would drive the loony dems absolutely nuts.....

make her the Foreign Policy Adviser
she just proved she is smarter that most of her party

 

[Natural Citizen]

I suspect a full court press to destroy Tulsi is in the works, by the MSM and the D Party. Hopefully it backfires.

Probably. But it makes for good reconnaissance. Ya know? Best way to know who your enemies are is to get em makin a bunch of noise. Keep em as close as possible. Makes em easier to get to and to knock off with the least effort. A dog will walk into his own collar if it's put in front of him enough.

 

[gipper]

I suspect a full court press to destroy Tulsi is in the works, by the MSM and the D Party. Hopefully it backfires.

Probably. But it makes for good reconnaissance. Ya know? Best way to know who your enemies are is to get em makin a bunch of noise. Keep em as close as possible. Makes em easier to get to and to knock off with the least effort. A dog will walk into his own collar if it's put in front of him enough.

I think she knows the government run media and the D Party are her enemies. They have been attacking her for years, since she met with Assad. Further proof both entities are controlled by the billionaires and MIC.

 

[wamose]

When she steps out of the race Trump should bring her into the white house...maybe as an adviser...that would drive the loony dems absolutely nuts.....

That might be a good idea and it would definitely piss those Dems. off. But it probably wouldn't piss them off as much as nominating Jeanine Pirro for the SC. Now that would be a trip.

 

[NightFox]

What "stand" did she take? Looks to me like she just ducked the question since, if as she claims that she believes this was a "purely partisan process", she should have voted NO.

 

[okfine]

When she steps out of the race Trump should bring her into the white house...maybe as an adviser...that would drive the loony dems absolutely nuts.....

She has 1 year to do it. Good luck.

 

[Natural Citizen]

What "stand" did she take? Looks to me like she just ducked the question since, if as she claims that she believes this was a "purely partisan process", she should have voted NO.

The whole thing was a charade. There is zero chance Trump will be removed from office.

Why play along with a charade? That's not what leaders do.

See, that's the problem, the questions themselves are a waste of time. Distractions in most cases, given the couple thousand pages of crap they snuck by during the the whole thing.

 

[NightFox]

What "stand" did she take? Looks to me like she just ducked the question since, if as she claims that she believes this was a "purely partisan process", she should have voted NO.

The whole thing was a charade. There is zero chance Trump will be removed from office.

Why play along with a charade?

See, that's the problem, the questions themselves are a waste of time. Distractions in most cases, given the couple thousand pages of crap they snuck by during the the whole thing.

Looks to me like She just "played along with charade" by giving herself plausible deniability with the dingbat-D base because she's running for the Democrat Nomination and doesn't want to be opened up to attacks by her rivals that she was among the only (3) HoR Democrats to vote against impeachment.

By voting present she can claim she was objecting to the process and not the charges contained within the Articles of Impeachment, which makes no sense, since if the process was purely partisan as she claims then the fact that the contents of the Articles are invalid naturally follows, thus integrity would dictate a NO vote.

 

[g5000]

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii), a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, voted "present" on the two articles of impeachment against President Trump on Wednesday. This made her virtually the only the Democrat to effectively vote against sending the president's removal to the Senate.

Actually, two other Democrats voted Nay. She only voted a cowardly "Present".

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Wow, she couldn't even muster up a vote. I agree with g on this one.

 

[g5000]

I suspect a full court press to destroy Tulsi is in the works, by the MSM and the D Party. Hopefully it backfires.

There's no need for one of your histrionic crack pipe sooper sekrit conspiracies to bring down Tulsi Whatsherface.

The little commie wannabe is already down and out.

 

[j-mac]

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii), a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, voted "present" on the two articles of impeachment against President Trump on Wednesday. This made her virtually the only the Democrat to effectively vote against sending the president's removal to the Senate.

"I come before you to make a stand for the center," said Gabbard in a statement.

Continued - Tulsi Gabbard Votes 'Present' on Trump Impeachment, Slams 'Purely Partisan Process'


Anyway. Nice to see independent thought versus just towing party lines and acting on emotion alone.

Could be a thread about this already, but I didn't see one. Apologies in advance if that's the case. I dislike a cluttered board as much as the next feller.

If I were a Democrat, she'd be one I'd consider...

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[g5000]

Clarification. On the first article, two Dems voted against. On the second article, three Dems opposed.

 

[g5000]

Collin Peterson (D-Minnesota) and Jeff Van Drew (D-New Jersey) voted against Article I.

Collin Peterson (D-Minnesota), Jeff Van Drew (D-New Jersey) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) voted against Article II.

I probably would have voted the way Golden did. I would have to see the Supreme Court rule in favor of the Congressional subpoenas before going with the obstruction charge.

However, I would vote in favor of at least four obstruction charges that are in the Mueller report if the Dems ever had the courage to charge Trump with them.

 

[Mac-7]

Based on internet posters including those on this forum there are a lot of middle-of-the-road fence sitters who need a national leader

tulsi could fill that role