Jump to content

Tulsi Gabbard Officially Leaves Woke Democratic Party


Unwoke

Recommended Posts

I hardly ever start a political thread and only comment on a couple but came here to post this about Gabbard.

 But it isn’t just Gabbard. The former deputy mayor, a lifelong Democrat, has come out publicly to go against his own party and support Dr. Oz as the Pennsylvania senator in the upcoming election over the Democrat, Fetterman. 

This is the hidden content, please

 

Tulsi Gabbard is hardly a strong conservative but even with her left leanings, can’t stomach the DNC anymore. I think she is probably 50/50 or a rare down the middle politician. Her problem with conservatives are issues like she is not a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, like she says she believes in it but then wants restrictions, etc.

I am not sure where she will land, if anywhere, but it is nice to see her call out the silliness from the left side of the aisle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only surprise is that it took so long.  Surely there are more,but maybe they don’t want to come out of the closet publicly.  Then they’d lose the financial support of the DNC.  Evidently the purse strings are held by the Woke crowd.  How do idiots like this get in positions of power?  The Dem Party has been hi-jacked and somehow the liberals have been subdued by the Woke.  It’s a mystery worthy of Agatha Christie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, baddog said:

Good that she exposes her party for what they are, but it’s not something we didn’t already know. I still don’t trust someone who switched parties. It’s a complete turnaround. 

I can see this in her case.  She has been a democrat officeholder for 20 years and the democrat party has swung wildly left in that period of time. She doesn't pretend to be a conservative, she is, without a doubt, liberal, but not liberal enough to stay with the lunatic democrat party.  Her point is that they changed, she hasn't.

I certainly get your point though, when you switch parties when the core platform principles are so far apart, it makes you not trust their voting moving forward.

I sure wouldn't want Gabbard filling a Republican seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I can see this in her case.  She has been a democrat officeholder for 20 years and the democrat party has swung wildly left in that period of time. She doesn't pretend to be a conservative, she is, without a doubt, liberal, but not liberal enough to stay with the lunatic democrat party.  Her point is that they changed, she hasn't.

I certainly get your point though, when you switch parties when the core platform principles are so far apart, it makes you not trust their voting moving forward.

I sure wouldn't want Gabbard filling a Republican seat.

My only question to her is what Hagar alluded to…. Why did it take her so long? The democrats have been going left towards communism for years. Mid terms around the corner?……I understand her getting her fill, but the democrats have been full of it for awhile. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, baddog said:

My only question to her is what Hagar alluded to…. Why did it take her so long? The democrats have been going left towards communism for years. Mid terms around the corner?……I understand her getting her fill, but the democrats have been full of it for awhile. lol

I guess it's tough for us conservatives to figure out the reasoning behind the liberal thought process.  My guess would be the attacks on her from her own party for simply not being a hard left loon was the last straw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

The loons having control of the Democrat party is no different that the Trump-lovin', truth-denyin' whackjobs that are controlling the Republican Party at the moment. 

Can you list the policies they are pushing that will harm the country?

Waiting on a big list, I can sure come up with one for your party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LumRaiderFan said:

Can you list the policies they are pushing that will harm the country?

Waiting on a big list, I can sure come up with one for your party.

For starters, the one where you storm the capitol and try to stop the peaceful transfer of power if you don't like the results of a fair election.  

The ones where you send out trillions of dollars in PPP loans and unemployment without any type of verification.

The explosion of our debt that came as a result of tax cuts without corresponding cuts in spending. 

The efforts to undermine our election process because of "fraud" without a single shred of evidence.

The efforts to unwind thousands of lawful same sex marriages.  

The efforts to make any form of birth control illegal... not just abortion.

For starters, anyways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

For starters, the one where you storm the capitol and try to stop the peaceful transfer of power if you don't like the results of a fair election.  

The ones where you send out trillions of dollars in PPP loans and unemployment without any type of verification.

The explosion of our debt that came as a result of tax cuts without corresponding cuts in spending. 

The efforts to undermine our election process because of "fraud" without a single shred of evidence.

The efforts to unwind thousands of lawful same sex marriages.  

The efforts to make any form of birth control illegal... not just abortion.

For starters, anyways. 

So you are saying these policies are coming from the right wing conservatives in the Republican party?

Sad that there are actually folks like yourself that see the right just as dangerous as the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

So you are saying these policies are coming from the right wing conservatives in the Republican party?

Sad that there are actually folks like yourself that see the right just as dangerous as the left.

No, I see right wing extremists as unfavorably as I view those on the left.  The guy whose version of 2A means than anybody can have a machine gun, no background checks.  Anybody that believes that a woman should go to prison for ending a pregnancy where the life of the child can't be medically sustained.  Anybody that believes that no one should pay any income taxes. Anyone that believes that the left "stole" the election in 2020.  All equally stupid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CardinalBacker said:

No, I see right wing extremists as unfavorably as I view those on the left.  The guy whose version of 2A means than anybody can have a machine gun, no background checks.  Anybody that believes that a woman should go to prison for ending a pregnancy where the life of the child can't be medically sustained.  Anybody that believes that no one should pay any income taxes. Anyone that believes that the left "stole" the election in 2020.  All equally stupid. 

What is stupid is that you think the numbers of the folks that feel this way are as big a threat as the dumpster fire we have going on right now due to left wing policies...we have self proclaimed socialists and anarchists serving in Congress.

But hey, you keep hating on Trump, it's what they want you to do.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

What is stupid is that you think the numbers of the folks that feel this way are as big a threat as the dumpster fire we have going on right now due to left wing policies...we have self proclaimed socialists and anarchists serving in Congress.

But hey, you keep hating on Trump, it's what they want you to do.

 

I can’t figure out why he voted for Trump twice.  Or, so he claims!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I can see this in her case.  She has been a democrat officeholder for 20 years and the democrat party has swung wildly left in that period of time. She doesn't pretend to be a conservative, she is, without a doubt, liberal, but not liberal enough to stay with the lunatic democrat party.  Her point is that they changed, she hasn't.

I certainly get your point though, when you switch parties when the core platform principles are so far apart, it makes you not trust their voting moving forward.

I sure wouldn't want Gabbard filling a Republican seat.

Was getting on to say exactly this.  She was pretty moderate for a democrat 20 years ago, so you can only imagine how far she is from the more liberal left now.  that being said, she's also probably closer to your average Republican these days than someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

What is stupid is that you think the numbers of the folks that feel this way are as big a threat as the dumpster fire we have going on right now due to left wing policies...we have self proclaimed socialists and anarchists serving in Congress.

But hey, you keep hating on Trump, it's what they want you to do.

 

there's definitely just as big of a dumpster fire on the far right as there is far left.  A lot of Trump disciples won't acknowledge it because anything he says is the gospel, and he supports these radical righties, but there are some absolutely nutty conservatives in office right now.  It's going to hurt the right in the near future, during a time where they should be making massive gains.  It's already showing up in races where republicans were projected to flip seats, but are going to lose because radical conservatives backed by Trump got enough support to get the nomination, but are too radical to actually win the election.  Then again, all it takes to get his endorsement is to claim election fraud, with literally nothing else being a qualification, so it's not really a surprise that some of the goofballs he's endorsing aren't the best candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

there's definitely just as big of a dumpster fire on the far right as there is far left.  A lot of Trump disciples won't acknowledge it because anything he says is the gospel, and he supports these radical righties, but there are some absolutely nutty conservatives in office right now.  It's going to hurt the right in the near future, during a time where they should be making massive gains.  It's already showing up in races where republicans were projected to flip seats, but are going to lose because radical conservatives backed by Trump got enough support to get the nomination, but are too radical to actually win the election.

My response was to the question of right wing policies as compared to left wing policies in relation to harm to the country and there is no comparison.

Anyone that can't decipher the difference in nutty conservatives (those crazy pro-lifers and pro-second amendment) and nutty liberals (just look around at what's happening) can't be helped and they will eventually overtake the election by sheer numbers because they vote on emotion and won't take the time to politically educate themselves.

Our country is headed down a path that can possibly be slowed but not stopped...it is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Was getting on to say exactly this.  She was pretty moderate for a democrat 20 years ago, so you can only imagine how far she is from the more liberal left now.  that being said, she's also probably closer to your average Republican these days than someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene is. 

Not even close, Gabbard is a very liberal, you need to look at her voting record and not her rhetoric...Republicans haven't swung that far left...yet, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

My response was to the question of right wing policies as compared to left wing policies in relation to harm to the country and there is no comparison.

Anyone that can't decipher the difference in nutty conservatives (those crazy pro-lifers and pro-second amendment) and nutty liberals (just look around at what's happening) can't be helped and they will eventually overtake the election by sheer numbers because they vote on emotion and won't take the time to politically educate themselves.

Our country is headed down a path that can possibly be slowed but not stopped...it is what it is.

There are plenty of pro-lifers and pro-second amendment conservatives that aren't nutty, just like there are plenty of liberals that are pro-choice and anti-gun that aren't nutty.  My point was that there are factions of extremists on both sides that are awful.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

There are plenty of pro-lifers and pro-second amendment conservatives that aren't nutty, just like there are plenty of liberals that are pro-choice and anti-gun that aren't nutty.  My point was that there are factions of extremists on both sides that are awful.  

In terms of policy, the damage coming from the extreme left is much more damaging, not even close.

My life is impacted by obamacare, high inflation, higher taxes, high gas prices and an open border.  

It is not impacted by more babies being allowed to live and folks that choose to challenge the undeniably questionable election results.  I certainly won't change my stance on anything based on how the snowflake crowd may react at the polls and I wouldn't expect it out of conservative candidates.

Left wing policies destroy lives and businesses, right wing policies do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

There are plenty of pro-lifers and pro-second amendment conservatives that aren't nutty, just like there are plenty of liberals that are pro-choice and anti-gun that aren't nutty.  My point was that there are factions of extremists on both sides that are awful.  

IMO pro abortion and anti gun is nutty

as well pro abortion is extreme.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,206
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Ceb2000
    Newest Member
    Ceb2000
    Joined



  • Posts

    • Here’s a link to another story about it This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up
    • It’s behind a paywall but here’s Baytown Sun’s story on it.  It was reported on in other papers statewide so if you search by the date I think you’ll find other stories on it. UIL strengthens student transfer rules By Ron McDowell [email protected] Oct 18, 2024   In order to maintain a level playing field for all member schools, the University Interscholastic League strengthened rules regarding transfer student eligibility at its most recent meeting in Austin. Every year thousands of students transfer schools in the state of Texas. A student’s ability to participate in UIL sanctioned activities may be limited base on the reasons for the transfer. A change in family status, work transfers, enrollment in an academic magnet program, or a move across town, receive scrutiny, but only rarely does one of these reasons result in the loss of eligibility. The only reason to automatically cause the loss of participation eligibility is a transfer for athletic purposes. The current rule, which has been in place since 1981, does not require a Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPFs) to be submitted if the student-athlete does not participate in a varsity level sport during the first year of enrollment. There has been growing concern among some member schools, that other members are breaking the current rule and creating “super teams” with new transfer enrollees, and that the UIL is not doing enough to police, what appear to be, the inordinate number of transfers among high school athletes. To mitigate these concerns, the UIL approved a proposal to expand the power of the State Executive Committee (SEC) and allow it to investigate schools based upon the number of PAPFs submitted. Schools that submit an inordinate number of PAPFs would face heightened scrutiny and possible public reprimand and future sanctions. The UIL has also changed the requirements for PAPF submission, mandating that the form be submitted before a grade 9-12 transfer student may participate at any level of school athletics. This is a marked departure from the current policy which encourages schools not to complete PAPFs for students who transfer in, if the school believes that the student will not play a varsity sport in the first year the student is enrolled at the new school. Some critics of the current system think that the change doesn’t go far enough. Speaking on background, one local school district source suggested that there should be an automatic year wait for transfer students due to the number of loopholes in the waiver process. “If a student transfers, it should be a year out of competition automatically,” the source said. In addition, the UIL also approved a proposal that gives the SEC the power to appoint an independent administrator to oversee the conduct of the local District Executive Committee (DEC) if it is determined that the DEC is not consistently enforcing the rules of the governing body. The change is significant since all appeals that a school brings, starts and usually ends with the DEC. That includes the determination of transfer student eligibility. It is believed that with the implementation of this change, schools in a UIL district will be less likely to face retribution from the DEC chair and other members. The policy changes will go into effect, Aug. 1, 2025 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  
    • I was hoping WOS was going to win. To get another chance to redeem ourself. Silsbee did not look good in that game and has not played consistent during the season. Hopefully against La Vega they will play 4quarters of football
    • This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up   GCCISD paid a firm called PASA to compile this report ahead of them closing/consolidating some schools and redrawing attendance zones.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...