The Tulsi Disgrace

[Maxima1]

Yes, yes, we get it. You are a living indoctrination of PRECISELY what I said in my first post of this thread.

She said she didn't want to vote yes because it was highly partisan, and she didn't want to vote no because he did do something wrong. Two things:

1. All the craven and corrupt partisanship is on the Republican side, and she isn't naive to think Republicans would ever start agreeing with anything about Trump's wrongdoing.
2. If she admits the wrongdoing is asking for foreign interference in elections, then she needs to uphold the rule of law. There is no room for another respectable take just as would be had it been Trump's 5th Avenue hypothetical.

 

[Starbuck1975]

A “present” vote could indicate that she supports impeaching Trump, and won’t vote with Republicans, but that she also doesn’t support the articles of impeachment as presented. Seems like she’s gaming for those voters who feel “meh” about the Ukraine scandal or question why the Mueller report didn’t seem to factor in.

 

[JEDIYoda]

A “present” vote could indicate that she supports impeaching Trump, and won’t vote with Republicans, but that she also doesn’t support the articles of impeachment as presented. Seems like she’s gaming for those voters who feel “meh” about the Ukraine scandal or question why the Mueller report didn’t seem to factor in.

Seems to me she has no backbone to take a stand for or against......what a sad president she would make!!
`

 

[mect]

A “present” vote could indicate that she supports impeaching Trump, and won’t vote with Republicans, but that she also doesn’t support the articles of impeachment as presented. Seems like she’s gaming for those voters who feel “meh” about the Ukraine scandal or question why the Mueller report didn’t seem to factor in.

I'm curious how a person can feel "meh" about the president using the power of his office to influence foreign governments to interfere in the American presidential election. I agree, there is a lot more that could have been included, but I don't see how what was included was insufficient.

 

[UNCjigga]

How did I fail at reading comprehension of a 1 line post detective sherlock?

Tulsi gave a neutral vote. You wanted a for impeachment vote. Thus, you expected a "you're either for us or against us" vote.

Your partisanship has clouded your judgement young padawan.

Let me spell it out for you again—the issue is that Gabbard voted “present”. A “yea” OR a “nay” would’ve showed more courage than “present”. She came across as weak, indecisive or indifferent in arguably one of the most historic votes of this decade. She’s like that dumb kid from the worst soccer team in the league who gets all excited about his “participation” trophy.

 

[Bitek]

That guy (Van Drew) voted against Trump 93% of the time in the HoR, he just likes the job and doesn't want to be primaried. He's a total douche with zero spine.

And no other marketable skills either.

What's so great about this job ppl are willing to sell their soul and countrymen out to keep it? :/

 

[randay]

i guess she proved hilary.... right?

 

[Perknose]

You do realize that the concept of "If you're not for us than you're against us" line of thinking is right up there with cult-based thinking, right?

Just making sure you realize it...

So . . . if you had been in Congress right after Pearl Harbor you'd have voted "present" on the declaration of war to avoid all that "cult-based thinking," right?

Your rendezvous with idiocy!

 

[Perknose]

If she [Tulsi] admits the wrongdoing is asking for foreign interference in elections, then she needs to uphold the rule of law. There is no room for another respectable take just as would be had it been Trump's 5th Avenue hypothetical.

Bingo!

 

[crashtech]

So . . . if you had been in Congress right after Pearl Harbor you'd have voted "present" on the declaration of war to avoid all that "cult-based thinking," right?

Your rendezvous with idiocy!

Comparing the most partisan impeachment in history to Pearl Harbor? From here it appears you may be at least be having a rendezvous with hyperbole, if not idiocy.

 

[woolfe9998]

Comparing the most partisan impeachment in history to Pearl Harbor? From here it appears you may be at least be having a rendezvous with hyperbole, if not idiocy.

Out of curiosity, what makes it "the most partisan in history?"

 

[crashtech]

Out of curiosity, what makes it "the most partisan in history?"

It's actually pretty difficult to find the party breakdown of the Johnson House impeachment vote, but if you think it was even more partisan than this one, feel free to prove me wrong. The Clinton impeachment enjoyed significant bipartisan support.

Spoiler: trump house vote, article 1

Hard to get more partisan than that.

 

[woolfe9998]

It's actually pretty difficult to find the party breakdown of the Johnson House impeachment vote, but if you think it was even more partisan than this one, feel free to prove me wrong. The Clinton impeachment enjoyed significant bipartisan support.

What difference does it make if it's a party line vote? The only question here is whether Trump committed an impeachable offense. If he did, then the dems are right to do what they're doing and the GOP is being partisan by voting against it. If he didn't, then it's the opposite conclusion. You are skipping over the facts and obsessing over how the vote turns out along party lines but you can't possibly understand why and how it turned out that way without looking at the facts and the evidence.

 

[cytg111]

She already disgraced herself when she went on Hannity's propaganda hour.

The Hannity thing............. Thats bad..... Thats like rolling with Goebbels and stating maybe hes not such a bad guy? You dont get to walk that shit off.

 

[crashtech]

What difference does it make if it's a party line vote? The only question here is whether Trump committed an impeachable offense. If he did, then the dems are right to do what they're doing and the GOP is being partisan by voting against it. If he didn't, then it's the opposite conclusion. You are skipping over the facts and obsessing over how the vote turns out along party lines but you can't possibly understand why and how it turned out that way without looking at the facts and the evidence.

You asked me a question and I answered it. I obsess over it not in the least, and it's presumptuous of you to conclude that I can't understand something based on our limited interaction. You, like other regulars, aren't acting in good faith by using veiled insults like that.

 

[ecogen]

Comparing the most partisan impeachment in history to Pearl Harbor? From here it appears you may be at least be having a rendezvous with hyperbole, if not idiocy.

The fact that this is the most partisan impeachment in history truly goes to show how far gone today's GOP is. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Maxima1]

Hard to get more partisan than that.

How were Democrats partisan in this impeachment? You are aware what it means, right? For your critique to make any sense, the evidence of his wrongdoing would have to be very weak.

partisan

1. strongly supporting a person, principle, or political party, often without…

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[cytg111]

If this isn't impeachable, nothing is. She's an opportunist just like this guy.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207768563483906055

Undying support. He is right though. Thats exactly where Trumps bunghole is.

 

[woolfe9998]

You asked me a question and I answered it. I obsess over it not in the least, and it's presumptuous of you to conclude that I can't understand something based on our limited interaction. You, like other regulars, aren't acting in good faith by using veiled insults like that.

And you're engaging in ad hominem and "poor me" to avoid my point and to avoid discussing the evidence.

If you're going to argue that this is "partisan" because of how the vote turned out without discussing whether the charges against Trump are legit or not, you're the one acting in bad faith here.

 

[crashtech]

How were Democrats partisan in this impeachment? You are aware what it means, right? For your critique to make any sense, the evidence of his wrongdoing would have to be very weak.

partisan

1. strongly supporting a person, principle, or political party, often without…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Don't you think it would be a waste of time for me to try and convince you of something that you are never going to believe? Going by the polls, support for impeachment fell after the evidence was presented. This indicates that the People are not convinced, especially the vanishing few who aren't consumed by party politics. It's not a good look for the Democrat's effort.

 

[crashtech]

And you're engaging in ad hominem and "poor me" to avoid my point and to avoid discussing the evidence.

If you're going to argue that this is "partisan" because of how the vote turned out without discussing whether the charges against Trump are legit or not, you're the one acting in bad faith here.

Okay. I'm sure your charge against me will stand, since I have no intention of discussing what you want to discuss.

 

[ecogen]

Don't you think it would be a waste of time for me to try and convince you of something that you are never going to believe? Going by the polls, support for impeachment fell after the evidence was presented. This indicates that the People are not convinced, especially the vanishing few who aren't consumed by party politics. It's not a good look for the Democrat's effort.

How does what the people think factor in to whether the democrats acted out of partisanship? Does what the people think actually change the facts? Ignoring the facts and acting solely guided by public opinion would be the partisan thing to do. Good job shooting down your own argument.

 

[crashtech]

How does what the people think factor in to whether the democrats acted out of partisanship? Does what the people think actually change the facts? Ignoring the facts and acting solely guided by public opinion would be the partisan thing to do. Good job shooting down your own argument.

Good job mischaracterizing what I've presented. Unless you can quote where I asserted anything that you are trying to attribute to me. Ah, it doesn't matter. I'm off to bed. Nice talking to you lovely people.

 

[ecogen]

Good job mischaracterizing what I've presented. Unless you can quote where I asserted anything that you are trying to attribute to me. Ah, it doesn't matter. I'm off to bed. Nice talking to you lovely people.

You literally brought up a polling average when asked to defend your point of dems being partisan in this impeachment, did you not?

You replied to this:

How were Democrats partisan in this impeachment? You are aware what it means, right? For your critique to make any sense, the evidence of his wrongdoing would have to be very weak.

With this:

Don't you think it would be a waste of time for me to try and convince you of something that you are never going to believe? Going by the polls, support for impeachment fell after the evidence was presented. This indicates that the People are not convinced, especially the vanishing few who aren't consumed by party politics. It's not a good look for the Democrat's effort.

So, how is anything in my post mischaracterising your position? Unless you posted the polling average for unrelated reasons.

 

[ivwshane]

Don't you think it would be a waste of time for me to try and convince you of something that you are never going to believe? Going by the polls, support for impeachment fell after the evidence was presented. This indicates that the People are not convinced, especially the vanishing few who aren't consumed by party politics. It's not a good look for the Democrat's effort.

I would think that a smart person such as yourself would see the above evidence and come to the conclusion that if Dems still pursued impeachment even though it wasn’t politically advantageous that that in of itself would highlight that impeachment wasn’t done based on political motivations.

Of course that’s also ignoring the fact that a sitting president, by his own admission, asked a foreign government to investigate his main political rival. The details of which are corroborated by the presidents own appointed people.

In fact it would take a real partisan piece of shit to come to the conclusion that because a party who has engaged in the most partisan politics lasting over a decade, based on actual data, including facts like running multiple investigations, by their own admission, to harm their political opponents and the unprecedented move of not even allowing a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee, that because that party didn’t have a single vote for impeachment somehow invalidates it, is quite frankly the dumbest fucking thing I’ve heard yet.

Speaking of not acting in good faith.