Tulsi Becomes an Independent

[KeithD]

wHaT aBoUt TrUmP?????
No actual denial that there is an issue with Progressives and overreach. No discussion on whether Classical Liberalism is the path we should be on. Nope, just, “Ttttttrrruuuuummmppppp!”

Tell me you have nothing to contribute without telling me you have nothing to contribute.

The job at hand is to put Trump in prison and get the United States back on keel in terms of democracy. Your attempts at distraction aren't going to work with me.

 

[Ingenue844]

On this we agree. In fact, here's a great example of projection, assumption, and intellectual dishonesty.

You called me Disingenuous because I don’t hold all the same beliefs as you. I think we’re both at the point where we believe there’s no redeemable qualities in the other person.

 

[Ingenue844]

The job at hand is to put Trump in prison and get the United States back on keel in terms of democracy. Your attempts at distraction aren't going to work with me.

The thread is about Tulsi

 

[ll74]

What's Tulsi's ultimate goal here?

If the Presidency was the ultimate goal, she would've switched to the Republican party. There's no chance of garnering enough votes as an independent.

If it is that she is breaking from the party, then her policy votes should follow. For someone voting over 90% with the party, this should be an immediate and observable difference...I'm skeptical.

I don't know what her constituents prefer....maybe it is different from the party policies being enacted....maybe it isn't.

More to come.

 

[KeithD]

The thread is about Tulsi

And I posted my thoughts on Tulsi. She was raised a bizarre cultist and she remains that. It's fine for her to believe what she believes, but she's so all over the board that she doesn't represent any given group of voters, so she isn't a good candidate for any elective office.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

You called me Disingenuous because I don’t hold all the same beliefs as you. I think we’re both at the point where we believe there’s no redeemable qualities in the other person.

I called you Disingenuous because you made the claim that "Anyone still screeching about [Trump] should look into addiction services." Which, by the way, is a sentiment often expressed by our dear AJ.

 

[butters]

Except…there seems to be projections and assumptions going on in this thread. I don’t see how that is intellectual honesty.

I mean, do y’all really think I’m that other guy!? I’m pretty sure they know that I’m not but want to shut down my involvement because I won’t toe the line. It’s BS.

projections and assumptions seem par for the course here, from many parties. Some would say it's simply stating their opinions and others throw stuff out for debate.

You are not AJ

the long history of his postings will always lend itself to people questioning others but a lot of that is just throwaway comments and, again, kind of how this board operates. Not necessarily a great thing but this isn't the playground, either, and the board's kind of a split-off from the GB which was infamous for its snark and back-biting. Looking back at luk's posts, and knowing how long he's also known the poster aj and his countless alts, i (personally) didn't see him really thinking you were one of them but it was a comment on the content of your posts... your position is clearly one he finds worth ridiculing for his own reasons. Would more civil discourse be more conducive? Of course, but this a reflection of the frustrations those to the left of the equation have with the right-leaners and their desires to either not speak about it, to diminish the atrocities of team-trump, or to flat-out lie about what happened in order to bolster trump's claims of what is reality when the truth speaks a very different one.

 

[Ingenue844]

And I posted my thoughts on Tulsi. She was raised a bizarre cultist and she remains that. It's fine for her to believe what she believes, but she's so all over the board that she doesn't represent any given group of voters, so she isn't a good candidate for any elective office.

Yeah…it’s too bad. I feel somewhat protective of other PIs. But we do tend to join weird religions or non religious cults

 

[ll74]

The thread is about Tulsi

It seems to have been about personal stories about satisfaction with the Democratic party more than anything, but yes, the thread was started about Gabbard and her decision to become an independent, which is why I titled it as such

 

[butters]

Does context matter? In a thread where there may be associations with Trump mentioned, and someone throws him in the mix to shut down discussion, I feel it makes sense to say, “This isn’t about Trump.”

I came into this thread to talk about Tulsi knowing it would be cringeworthy. I agree with Dribble that Kanakas are a breed apart and we probably look like crazed, emotion driven weirdos to others.

I’m also interested in the AAs in the Repub thread but that one makes sense for discussing how Trump has influenced Asian Hate. You see things being swept aside, I feel it’s derailing a different discussion.

It did make sense to say 'this isn't about trump' but his influence on those candidates considered more maga, more extreme, even certifiable, will always be side-issue in such discussions, even if it's not directly referenced. When gabbard starts talking like tucker carlson, she's going to come under that purview.

some threads stay firmly on track but it's not often the case. It would be better if they didn't get derailed but it's not at all uncommon... you only have to look at some of the threads i've posted about one topic that the trolls immediately jump into talking about other events, other people, or simply flinging shit.

 

[Ingenue844]

I called you Disingenuous because you made the claim that "Anyone still screeching about [Trump] should look into addiction services." Which, by the way, is a sentiment often expressed by our dear AJ.

But I felt I clarified that it meant both sides. The fact that there’s still rallies is uncomfortable. I feel the campaign is dead in the water and people just need to catch up to that.

From what I see of the cult, conspiracy is huge. They get a dopamine rush from the us vs them, I “know” what others don’t stuff. It fills their time.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

But I felt I clarified that it meant both sides. The fact that there’s still rallies is uncomfortable. I feel the campaign is dead in the water and people just need to catch up to that.

From what I see of the cult, conspiracy is huge. They get a dopamine rush from the us vs them, I “know” what others don’t stuff. It fills their time.

No one wants Trump and his movement consigned to the historical dustbin more than I, except possibly Melania. Unfortunately we live in a world where he's still the de facto leader of the Republican party, running hand picked candidates, and appearing to gun for a 2024 presidential bid. From my own political perspective, there's still a dumpster fire that needs putting out.

 

[Paul_Chance]

I think with Tulsi you're seeing one of the undercurrents that is running through society and that some political actors are tuning into. When it comes to political identification more people identify as independent than identify with either of the two major political parties. I think that is because the "core" parties, as they have pushed/pulled themselves toward the two extremes, are leaving a lot a people feeling "no one really represents me" and subsequently either moving their identification to independent.

Those independents are not coherent at this point in our political history, but the right candidates, with the right messaging, could rather suddenly cause them to coalesce into a coherent political party. Most of the attempts at third-parties have been toward the ends of the spectrum (either farther left or farther right) and so have failed to launch.

 

[Wrong Element]

I don't know what her constituents prefer....maybe it is different from the party policies being enacted....maybe it isn't.

That's the thing: she doesn't have constituents anymore. She left Congress to join the Fox News commentary gravy train because her antics had made returning to her congressional seat no longer a viable option.

Independence to a certain point is fine. I think leftwing Democrats get it when, for example, a member of Congress from the Norfolk area has to constantly push for spending on the Navy that might not align with what most of the party wants. But Democratic voters do tend to draw the line at saying the party as a whole is evil and corrupt. This is the mistake Bernie Sanders and his crowd keep making — running down the Democratic Party as an institution while still seeking its nomination.

Doing a little research, it appears Gabbard's old district — I am assuming redistricting did not change it too much — is still rated Solid Democratic by the people who do such ratings, despite the claims in this thread that Everyone Hates The Democrats Now Because They Were Mean To Tulsi.

 

[ll74]

I think with Tulsi you're seeing one of the undercurrents that is running through society and that some political actors are tuning into. When it comes to political identification more people identify as independent than identify with either of the two major political parties. I think that is because the "core" parties, as they have pushed/pulled themselves toward the two extremes, are leaving a lot a people feeling "no one really represents me" and subsequently either moving their identification to independent.

Those independents are not coherent at this point in our political history, but the right candidates, with the right messaging, could rather suddenly cause them to coalesce into a coherent political party. Most of the attempts at third-parties have been toward the ends of the spectrum (either farther left or farther right) and so have failed to launch.

I'd love to see someone Garner enough support to form a third party. Unfortunately the effort seems beyond their abilities most of the time.

 

[ll74]

That's the thing: she doesn't have constituents anymore. She left Congress to join the Fox News commentary gravy train because her antics had made returning to her congressional seat no longer a viable option.

Independence to a certain point is fine. I think leftwing Democrats get it when, for example, a member of Congress from the Norfolk area has to constantly push for spending on the Navy that might not align with what most of the party wants. But Democratic voters do tend to draw the line at saying the party as a whole is evil and corrupt. This is the mistake Bernie Sanders and his crowd keep making — running down the Democratic Party as an institution while still seeking its nomination.

Doing a little research, it appears Gabbard's old district — I am assuming redistricting did not change it too much — is still rated Solid Democratic by the people who do such ratings, despite the claims in this thread that Everyone Hates The Democrats Now Because They Were Mean To Tulsi.

I forgot she is no longer a rep...lol. good point.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Assuming innocent motivations on the part of Tulsi, whom I don't actually know, it's always quite possible that she has come to the conclusion she can have more influence toward her interpretation/vision of the world as a political actor (someone who acts to influence the process) as opposed to a politician (a person who runs for or is elected to a political office).

 

[Paul_Chance]

I'd love to see someone Garner enough support to form a third party. Unfortunately the effort seems beyond their abilities most of the time.

Yeah, true party level realignment is rather rare, though it does happen. I think that sentiment is present in a lot of people - they're interested in the rise of a third party in theory, but then what is presented to them is not what they were thinking of and the parties 'as is" fail to take off. That is kind of where I sit as well - but the devil is always in the details and there are a lot of devils out there, in every guise.

 

[Ingenue844]

No one wants Trump and his movement consigned to the historical dustbin more than I, except possibly Melania. Unfortunately we live in a world where he's still the de facto leader of the Republican party, running hand picked candidates, and appearing to gun for a 2024 presidential bid. From my own political perspective, there's still a dumpster fire that needs putting out.

Ok, I feel like I may be entering gaslighting zone by refusing to see any danger and I’m sorry because I don’t mean to blow off your concerns.

But it’s true, I feel it will be definitively squelched within a year. Midterms will show that there isn’t a Trump comeback.

 

[icanhelp1]

Yeah…it’s too bad. I feel somewhat protective of other PIs. But we do tend to join weird religions or non religious cults

I don't believe she's trying to identify with any particular party, more in line of a constitutional conservative, she abhors big *elitist* over intrusive government. She believes in people power.

 

[ll74]

I don't believe she's trying to identify with any particular party, more in line of a constitutional conservative, she abhors big *elitist* over intrusive government. She believes in people power.

Her voting record is very aligned with the Democratic party. (As was posted earlier in the thread)

 

[Ingenue844]

I think with Tulsi you're seeing one of the undercurrents that is running through society and that some political actors are tuning into. When it comes to political identification more people identify as independent than identify with either of the two major political parties. I think that is because the "core" parties, as they have pushed/pulled themselves toward the two extremes, are leaving a lot a people feeling "no one really represents me" and subsequently either moving their identification to independent.

Those independents are not coherent at this point in our political history, but the right candidates, with the right messaging, could rather suddenly cause them to coalesce into a coherent political party. Most of the attempts at third-parties have been toward the ends of the spectrum (either farther left or farther right) and so have failed to launch.

I don’t want to be part of a party. 3rd party or other. It gets uncomfortable living up to the expectations of anyone wanting me to stay entirely in line with them. I want to be left alone to vote for who and what I want.

I completely agree that the “third parties” currently in existence just seem like a faction of one of the two major parties. Someone in another thread mentioned he’s a Libertarian and I immediately thought, “Well that’s just a socially inept Republican.”

 

[ll74]

I don’t want to be part of a party. 3rd party or other. It gets uncomfortable living up to the expectations of anyone wanting me to stay entirely in line with them. I want to be left alone to vote for who and what I want.

I completely agree that the “third parties” currently in existence just seem like a faction of one of the two major parties. Someone in another thread mentioned he’s a Libertarian and I immediately thought, “Well that’s just a socially inept Republican.”

As a voter, you are never required to vote down party lines. Primaries sometimes require that you.register for the party to participate...that's the only real exception.

I've voted Republican, Democrat, Libertarian and even Green in one instance.

 

[Ingenue844]

Assuming innocent motivations on the part of Tulsi, whom I don't actually know, it's always quite possible that she has come to the conclusion she can have more influence toward her interpretation/vision of the world as a political actor (someone who acts to influence the process) as opposed to a politician (a person who runs for or is elected to a political office).

I could see this. Politicking is ugly work. I wouldn’t mind seeing her champion something important like voting rights for territories. It’d be awesome if she used her name recognition to help our people. It doesn’t require being in office. Some lobbyists are more powerful than politicians anyway.

 

[Ingenue844]

As a voter, you are never required to vote down party lines. Primaries sometimes require that you.register for the party to participate...that's the only real exception.

I've voted Republican, Democrat, Libertarian and even Green in one instance.

Where I live, I have to pull a ballot that’s party specific. But each primary I can pull a different one according to who is most important to back.