quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
Right, we don't disagree there. What's the solution? Not idealism, a practical solution.

The practical solution is one the two overwhelmingly-dominant political parties have been fighting and will continue to fight tooth-and-nail: Ranked-Choice Voting.

They hate and fear RCV because it removes the "stigma" of voting for non-dominant-party candidates that "can't win" allowing the worse of two evils to win, thus leaving open the possibility that an "unelectable" candidate will win.

Let us take Ms. Gabbard as an example. She runs under the banner of some party other than Democrat or Republican. Both the Dems and the Repubs nominate candidates I find unacceptable. Let us say I find the Dem candidate less acceptable than the Repub one. When I go to vote I list my preferences in order:

1. Gabbard
2. Republican
3. Libertarian
4. Democrat

Then, even if Tulsi didn't get enough votes to prevail, I was still able to express my preference of the GOP and Libertarian candidates over the DNC candidate.

If it wasn't her opinion on guns or abortion I'm not sure what she was ever a Democrat in the first place.

I too used to believe the idea of voting for 3rd Party was the alternative; BUT that only works in PARLIAMENTARY FORMS OF GOVERNMENT.

The USA is a not European socialist democracy where coalitions are the norm to form working a parliamentary majorities. The President is not selected from the Parliamentary majority as are Prime Ministers; it’s a WINNER TAKE ALL election here.

The most successful national 3rd Party in US History was the “Bull Moose Party” led by Teddy Roosevelt in 1912; and how'd that election turn out?

Yeah, 3rd Parties might work at municipal elections, and possibly at individual Congressional/Senatorial elections; but not at national levels.

3rd Parties at national level are individual-driven, not by issues. How successful would Trump had been had he tried to do a Ross Perot; that’s why he ran as a Republican.

Although I appreciate her straight talk, she's anti 2A, so it's a big NO from me.

Add to this, it took her this long to leave the dumbocrats?!

Their duplicity and anti-Constitutional antics have been on display for years!

She’s basically quitting being a candidate, with a safety net if she changes her mind. She can never go back to the Democrats, she’s alienated the majority in her district or state that elected her. Most of the Democrats would elect a mime as speaker if they had a D next to their name, she thumbed her nose at the leftist, whether in principle or for her own needs.

She can’t go back, she’ll never get the majority of that groups support to go anywhere. In a purple place she may be able to move enough Republicans, in a state like Massachusetts by jumping ship to the party, not all Republicans are as conservative as many of us are, especially in this hole called Massachusetts, her safety net to try and run again if it peaked her interest. By leaving the Democrats she opens doors as a moderate commentator on either party in the propaganda machine, and can make serious cash. The woman is smart, every step in her career is planned and thought out, from her butter bars to now. She’s treacherous but more palpable than most.

It's bad PR for the Dems, and that's good enough for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
Time for her to be called a Nazi or a witch, or both.

I mean, Hillary called her a Russian agent or similar back during the last election after she torpedoed Kamala's campaign, so that's a start....

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
It's bad PR for the Dems, and that's good enough for me.

Superbly and succinctly said.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
Time for her to be called a Nazi or a witch, or both.

Nah. She’s a Russian Asset. Remember?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
It's bad PR for the Dems, and that's good enough for me.

Great point. I didn't really think of it like that.

I believe, from my uninformed perspective, that we could see her as VP on the ticket with someone like Desantis. And it could be a powerful combination, one that bridges a divided electorate across many fronts. I don’t believe in every single thing she stands (or stood) for by a long shot but I don’t have to in order to vote for a ticket with her on it. The big picture is winning the electorate for eight years or more and a few key issues. I can sweat the smaller stuff. We’ll have to see where she stands at all if any of that actually develops. Politicians are allowed to change their minds. Look at Trump. Quite socially liberal for his entire career and then he develops into the biggest, actionable pro-life president we’ve ever had.

Why didn't she leave the party years ago? ALL of the reasons she gave have been the GDCs mantra for at least the last year; a supermajority of them for several years.

Oh yeah, the bitch chose this moment b/c it coincides with the launch of her new broadcast show. That's the reason and End of the Story as far as I'm concerned.

quote:

Originally posted by Dakor:
Why didn't she leave the party years ago? ALL of the reasons she gave have been the GDCs mantra for at least the last year; a supermajority of them for several years.

Oh yeah, the bitch chose this moment b/c it coincides with the launch of her new broadcast show. That's the reason and End of the Story as far as I'm concerned.

And right before the midterms. I’ll take it.

You don't get the point. If her motive appears to be purely profit based, voters can make that connection and it doesn't impact the midterms at all... independents and educated Dems are less likely to care, seeing her $ grab.

I'm intentionally ignoring stupid Libtards b/c their vote is a foregone conclusion.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by BigSwede:
Just a political whore

Well, he's not entirely wrong.

I looked into her a few years back and found that she was fairly conservative in her beliefs and actions up to the point that she chose to run for political office...in Hawaii. Guess who wins political races in Hawaii?

Yeah, Tulsi is a bit of a political whore. But so is pretty much every politician. It's what they do.

She's young and attractive, and while a peacenik, is apparently pro-military and pro-American. That appeals to a lot of people. Me? I wouldn't trust her as far as I can throw her.

Some of you are so damned cynical it makes my eyeballs ache.

This is a good thing, it forces moderate Dems who are privately wondering 'WTF is going on' to take a look at their position within the party. I doubt she'll be able to run for any executive office other than being a running mate. It'd be refreshing if she could run for Governor in Hawaii but, that'd be a long-shot, as politics are like California's, one-party dominance.

She was recently on with Rogan

This message has been edited. Last edited by: corsair,

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Some of you are so damned cynical it makes my eyeballs ache.

This x 1000. If they found $5, they'd complain it wasn't $10.

Anything that causes Democrats to wince is fine by me.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Some of you are so damned cynical it makes my eyeballs ache.

And some are so naive it makes the eyeballs ache.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Some of you are so damned cynical it makes my eyeballs ache.

And some are so naive it makes the eyeballs ache.

For fuck's sake, you're so far removed from the point we'd need Hubble to find you again.

Most here aren't under any illusion as to what Tulsi is. After all, she openly and enthusiastically endorsed Biden in 2020 for chrissakes, and we're all aware of her record on the 2nd amendment, but to dismiss her announcement of leaving the democrat party as anything but good news is...well it's thick headed frankly.