Tulsi - "Present"
- Thread starter BoyNextDoor
- Start date
bigsly
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2018
- Posts
- 2,010
Biggs Darklighter: I'd hot it.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
That she didn't toe the partisan line shows the opposite.
That's because she understands something most (D)umbfucks are too retarded to get, the "wuss vote" beats the radical vote.
Name calling, because you can't argue your case....ever.
Start lying some more and you'll be just like Rob.
RobDownSouth
February 17th
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 79,438
#OCDMeansTehLastWordALWAYS
BoyNextDoor
I hate liars
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Posts
- 14,159
She did. We need a Democrat that will continue to call out the warmongers in the party. She also has a good voting record.
BoyNextDoor
I hate liars
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Posts
- 14,159
Her words:
“I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing. I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.”
For me, that false equivalency (Trump guilty vs tribal animosities) shows that she has no proper grounding in her reasoning.
Minimally, she should have voted for Article II, because there is no scenario where a reasonable person may conclude that Trump et.al. have not Obstructed Congress.
“I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing. I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.”
For me, that false equivalency (Trump guilty vs tribal animosities) shows that she has no proper grounding in her reasoning.
Minimally, she should have voted for Article II, because there is no scenario where a reasonable person may conclude that Trump et.al. have not Obstructed Congress.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Rob, always lying and projecting, because he has nothing else.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 71,255
Most cowardly vote in Impeachment history.
RobDownSouth
February 17th
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 79,438
bigsly
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2018
- Posts
- 2,010
Or, more likely, she simply has a much better constitutional grasp of what "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” actually are.
patient1
Mr. Cheyenne
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2001
- Posts
- 11,362
I had the same thought. After all, If you aspire to be president, you have to be prepared to choose among bad options when necessary. If you aren't, you aren't ready. Furthermore, I would hope that the default choice of every elected member of the federal government is "anti-corruption." That should be universal and non-partisan. I am disappointed that she didn't vote that way under the circumstances. Sadly, she and Justin Amash are the only members of Congress that have been willing to call out their own party when it's wrong, and they've both been ostracized.
Maybe I missed her floor speech when I left to pee. I didn't see or hear one from her, which is a shame because it would have been a breath of fresh air in an all day re-hash.
BUT, on second thought, it occurs to me that IF Chairman Nadler had denied her her voice, that Tulsi denying him her vote was fair payback. I can only imagine that most of us on this forum would do the same. In which case "Present" was the best way to call attention to her position.
Anybody see her speak on the floor?
KeithD
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Posts
- 29,626
I didn't. What I've heard was she, noticeably, just wasn't present for most of the floor speaking time.
BoyNextDoor
I hate liars
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Posts
- 14,159
She elected not to speak and was deliberately absent during the floor debates.
jaF0
Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Posts
- 39,168
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
Not to mention it's ignorant on basic civics. The removal of this President would, if it happens, not be the culmination of a partisan process, since the body that removes him is the Republican controlled Senate.
But yeah, she's using this vote to make a political statement, instead of answering the question laid out before her. That's not her job.
There was apparently one Democrat who voted for Article I but against Article II, but I haven't seen what the reasoning there was.
butters
High on a Hill
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2009
- Posts
- 86,139
think that was one of the guys who got into a mainly red state?
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
Literally mainly. As in Maine.
butters
High on a Hill
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2009
- Posts
- 86,139
maybe it's why that word suggested itself as i typed
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
You mean like San Fran Nan is doing now by not officially passing the vote results to the Senate?
SpeareChucker
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2017
- Posts
- 24,614
Was she at the debate last night?
:shrug:
:shrug:
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
She's a viable candidate that would dominate the center and pull republicans in mass away from Trump and then flail him mercilessly on the trail.
Naturally (D)'s want nothing to do with nazi alt-reich scum like that.
She's out, she knows it, probably contemplating switching to (R) along with the rest of us liberals and moderates.
Hopefully losing 46...47 states this November will snap them out of their idiocy, but probably not.
2020 is already turning out to be glorious
