In defense of Tulsi Gabbard, a little

[bluedye33139]

I am on record as not supporting her candidacy and also I've said/posted strong criticism of her on a variety of grounds, but I will say this: Except for the impeachment vote and a small handful of other votes, I don't have actual policy problems with her. Her votes tend to be in the okay range.

Even her recommended censure of Trump is very direct and condemns his actions unequivocally and directly. (I used to think that censure was the best/wisest policy, until about the first week of October.)

For me, I was at first interested in her because of her policy ideas (minus the Assad nonsense) and background. I have a strong positive regard for Vaishnava or Krishna-centered Hinduism, ever since reading Prabhupada's Bhagavad-Gita translation in my teens (forty years ago). Then I learned that she wasn't a member of an ISKCON group, and then I learned more about the Chris Butler cult, and it was all repellent and deceptive and criminal.**

Even now, although I mistrust her on several fronts, my hope for her is that she grows as a person and seasons as a politician and learns how to relate to human beings better. I haven't liked her candidacy for the White House (I don't see why she was running against Hillary Clinton, except to try to draw the Hillary haters), but I think she could be a positive force in our nation's politics.

She's so often a disappointment to me, and I think that's why I tend to excoriate her for her mistakes. Part of me always hopes that she pulls through and shakes off the nonsense.

***

Let me add, I posted this because I was doing my positivity exercises this morning and because I had posted a bunch of stuff about her earlier, she was on my mind.

Occasionally, for a positivity meditation, I picture a political figure or public figure that I have strong negative feelings about, and I interrogate my *feelz* about them and my thoughts about them. Sometimes, I learn that I have actual positive regard for people whose politics bug me (I secretly love Kellyanne Conway, for instance, and don't get me started on John Boehner). Sometimes, I find that I hate people even more than I think I do! But with Gabbard, I still believe that she has a role to play in our national drama, and I'm always hoping that it's a good role. She didn't ask to be born into that family or into the SIF cult, and although I have in the past been mistrustful of her "conversion" from right-wing ideology to mindful progressivism, there are other times when I'm not so sure that her conversion was fake.

I apologize for the meandering post. I was just dealing with my own negativity and reminding myself to be a loving person.

[secondwind]

1. IMHO, she is a Russian asset. n/t

[at140]

4. Is that your guess or you have some evidence

which is substantial?

[FrankBooth]

11. I guess it depends on what you think constitutes "substantial evidence"

But Tolstoy Tulsi's collective behavior paints a pretty easy path to follow. She parrots Russian talking points about Obama and Hillary, often on Fox News. Her first instinct is to run to Fox News to provide them cover, and her favorite place there is Tucker Carlson's White Power Hour. She fawns all over Putin's boy Assad. She is beloved by Breitbart. She relentlessly criticizes fellow Democrats, again using RW talking points. She is propped up by Russian bots. She threatens to "boycott" the Dem debates (as if anyone would miss her.) She mirrors Putin and Trump's isolationist foreign policy views. She's disproportionally covered by Russian propagandist media, relative to her actual import within the Democratic caucus. And if you look hard enough, you'll find more. When the coincidences begin to pile up like this, it's often not coincidence at all.


If someone chooses not to see that as "substantial evidence" then so be it, but I don't think it's difficult. If there's no way to prove she's propped up by Russia, it doesn't really matter, as her behavior makes that irrelevant -- she's doing exactly what they'd ask her to do if she were. At the very least, she is on board with allowing them to assist her.

[at140]

28. A Russian agent is one who is benefiting in some way

from some material help from Russia. I have not seen any evidence of that with Tulsi Gabbard.
I do not follow her much since I am as far away as possible from Hawaii, living in Florida. But from what
you describe she sounds more like a centrist democrat and opposed to unproductive wars like we started
with Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, etc. May be that makes her admired by Russia, but that is not evidence she is
an Russian agent. Tulsi has run on the democratic ticket several times and is a duly elected congressman.
I just wish people would stop calling her an Russian agent without presenting any concrete evidence.
Because that sounds reckless, vapid and hollow accusations against a bonafide democrat. We are a big
tent party accommodating diverse agenda. We are not like the Republicans with narrow vision blinders on.

[FrankBooth]

32. I disagree

If someone acts like a wolf, runs with the wolves, talks like a wolf, eats like a wolf, props up the wolves, does it matter if she's actually a coyote?

At some point you have to just look at her behavior. Parroting Fox News and RW talking points, voting against impeachment when she comes from a deep blue seat is not the work of a centrist democrat. But by all means, continue to believe otherwise, I don't think you're going to find much support.

[at140]

42. Since when behavior became evidence?

No court will accept behavior as evidence. No point in attacking ANY democrats without evidence.

[MrsCoffee]

43. You obviously aren't a lawyer.

Federal Rules of Evidence
Rule 6:
Evidence of a person's habit or an organization's routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness.

[at140]

44. You are confusing criminal behavior with political behavior

2 entirely different scenario's.

Again, it is unproductive to assail other democrats without concrete evidence.
Circular firing squads are not good. DU has a policy against that.

You are correct, I made living in the real world of manufacturing heavy machinery.
But I have lawyers in the family, including my father and my daughter.

[MrsCoffee]

45. Yeah, people choose to invoke that DU rule when it suits them.

In the real world we call a DINO a DINO.

[hlthe2b]

40. I'm not advocating the argument either way, but an "asset" is not the same as an "agent"

There is a very important difference and one you really need to research. I am about to jump in the shower for work, but I do urge you to do so. To know the difference is to realize your argument is not valid even if you continue to support Gabbard and believe she is getting an unfair appraisal.

You can start with this Malcolm Nance illustration vis a vis Trump and Russia:
https://www.salon.com/2018/07/09/malcolm-nance-on-trump-were-on-the-cusp-of-losing-the-american-constitutional-republic-forever/

Q:Trump has been on Fox News and elsewhere joking about Putin and Russia's interference in the 2016 election. Is he a "useful idiot" for Putin's spies? Or is Trump actually afraid of being caught by Robert Mueller and his behavior reflects that? Either way, he is acting like a guilty person.

Nance: [I've] certainly been pretty vocal on this point. "Useful idiot" is a technical term. It’s a person who is an unwilling dupe, who through their own actions helps your cause. I think Trump started out as a useful idiot when it came to selling apartments and getting money from Russians who were liquidating their assets from the Soviet Union. I think he then became a willing asset when they started using him when he wanted to run for president. Trump knows everything is being done in his benefit. He is one step from being an agent. We may find out with Donald Trump that is the case. Who knows?

[LAS14]

46. Nobody said she was a Russian agent. It's Russean "asset" and doesn't require her cooperation. nt

[UniteFightBack]

36. People are throwing that term around quite freely. It's absurd. nt

[at140]

41. You are so correct ! nt

Ca

[TheFarseer]

15. What do you mean by that?

I’m genuinely wondering what people mean when they say that?

And let me add I have never supported her run and think she should drop out.

[Jose Garcia]

20. Probably just a "useful idiot"

[BootinUp]

37. also in the humble opinion of the former Secretary of State. nt

[guillaumeb]

2. Thank you for this post.

It should serve as a reminder to all of us that people are complicated.

[hlthe2b]

3. Trust lost is not (and should not) be so easily reclaimed in my opinion.

I admit that an exception lies with friends and family, but in politics, umm, no.

I respect your personal approach to such issues, but this to me is something quite different.

[happybird]

5. One thing I've noticed about most fellow Dems

is we try to look for the good in everyone.

A little OT, but I think positivity is how we will gain more voters and win in 2020. President Obama’s campaign was so refreshing because the messaging was positive and full of hope. We need to reignite that energy.

[VarryOn]

6. We need a positive campaign for 2020...

I totally agree, Happybird. Positivity attracts people.

[PatrickforO]

21. I can't resist...

So, you're saying it would be better if the nominee was a Happy Bird rather than an Angry Bird!

Sorry... I know that was lame.

[TidalWave46]

7. It took me a while to get of the Gabbard train.

Not supporting her for President but sticking up for her as a democrat. Then she kept making foolish comment after comment as the cameras were all too eager to pick her up. It just got to be too much. I still don't disparage her much. She isn't going to win. It's up to the people of Hawaii to elect someone else if she is that bad.

[PatSeg]

8. I appreciate everything you're saying

and yes, I too try to see the good in people. That said, I really don't trust her. I read your previous thread about her involvement in the Science of Identity Cult and there was some fascinating information in the thread, a lot that I hadn't heard before. It was enough to reinforce my negative opinion of her.

If you have a lot to hide, you should never run for president. I don't think she has much of a future in politics now. I'm sure she has other options though and I could see her on Fox News sometime in the future.

[smb]

9. I'd Try To See The Good In Her...

...but I left my electron microscope in my other pants.

[Cha]

10. There is NO defense of Gabbard.. she cooked her own goose.

In full statement, Gabbard calls impeachment a "partisan process", Democrats "extreme".

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287386170

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[bucolic_frolic]

13. Exactly, it's not partisan to side with rule of law and the U.S. Constitution /nt

[Cha]

19. Precisely.. Gabbard is the "Extreme" one.. her "present" is

"Unacceptable" as Kai Kahele states in his Tweet on her non action yesterday.

Link to tweet

Gabbard can't even follow the Rule of Law for her own agenda.. she has to Gaslight an excuse.

[hlthe2b]

17. Not to mention she attacks the Democratic Party and fellow Democrats CONSTANTLY

Are we so naive' to defend someone who proclaims they are running as a "Democrat" yet who does nothing but attack the party, its supporters, its positions/policies and our former Dem Presidents (Obama) and nominees (HRC) and just smile and defend her? Really?
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/21/tulsi-gabbard-dems-072672

Tulsi Gabbard trashed the Democratic Party as “not the party that is of, by and for the people,” accused Kamala Harris of trafficking in “lies and smears and innuendo” and attacked Pete Buttigieg as naive.

Her performance at Wednesday’s debate earned an attaboy from the Trump War Room. And some rank-and-file Democrats are at wit's end with the congresswoman who Hillary Clinton called “the favorite of the Russians.”

“The question is whether she seriously hopes to be the nominee or if she has another agenda … her attacks on other candidates and her positions on issues seem very personal, not so much about a set of policies or worldview,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). Bernie Sanders has “a coherent set of principles. Elizabeth Warren’s the same. I don’t perceive a fixed set of principles or worldview on her part.”

Demonstrating how divisive her campaign has become, the Trump War Room tweeted out a video clip of Gabbard attacking her own party with a “100” emoji. It received 4,500 retweets and 15,000 likes

.

[Cha]

23. Yeah, I'm not buying anyone who wants to defend this.. even

a little bit.

Thank you for that, hlthe2b.. I can't wait until she is Not our Rep any more and be get a Real Dem.. about time!

Link to tweet

[PatrickforO]

22. Yes. It is the Republicans who made impeachment a partisan issue.

Our people were trying to follow their oath of office. The Republicans blew off the oaths they swore.

[bucolic_frolic]

12. You do you

and thanks for insights into your soul.

Myself, I think there are candidates for whom a personality test would give the best window into their character and potential governace and policies. Thought without long term evolution, crass flippancy, nasty plays on language, inconsistency from one policy to another, and lack of empathy are red flags in my mind. And there are a few out there who fail or failed my criteria.

[bluedye33139]

14. I'm not supporting her candidacy in this cycle, for sure

[LanternWaste]

16. 'By their fruit you shall recognize them.'

'But examine all things; hold fast to what is good.'

[PatrickforO]

18. Well, Anakin Skywalker was supposed to bring balance to the Force.

Unfortunately, how that turned out was the destruction of the Jedi order, including the massacre of the younglings by the newly apprenticed Darth Vader.

Let's hope Gabbard's role isn't that extreme

[Act_of_Reparation]

27. F - for trying to turn the Star Wars prequel trilogy into an analogy for something important.

I award you zero internets. May God have mercy on your soul.

[LisaM]

24. She poisoned, absolutely poisoned HRC's campaign.

For that, I will never forgive her. How she became an instant spokesperson against the DNC in December 2015 when their database was first hacked, I'll never know, but it seems suspicious to me. Why was she on the scene? Why was she working against the DNC? Nothing she said since ever made me change my mind about her.

[IronLionZion]

25. A representative's job is to represent their constituents

if she can't or doesn't want to do that, she should resign from office and go mindfully meditate somewhere until she finds peace.

She exposed the hate in her heart when she attacked Hillary.

[njhoneybadger]

26. Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me

[Thekaspervote]

29. She voted "present" on the impeachment vote last night... need anyone say anymore??!!

[beachbumbob]

30. she didn;t want to piss off Puti, trumpo/gop who will fund her 3rd party run

[Sloumeau]

31. If you don't vote to impeach the criminal, you enable the criminal.

There is zero defense for what Tulsi Gabbard did, or for anyone who voted against impeaching Trump. May they all rot.

[Hav]

33. I don't understand how anyone can still support or defend her

Just in the last 24 hours, she didn't only follow the Repub's playbook in arguing that impeachment has to be bipartisan. She now also attacked Pelosi for her tactic of delaying the impeachment articles so that the Senate trial isn't a joke from the start.
I'm wondering how there can be anyone left who cannot see that she is arguing and acting in support of Repubs, repeating their lies and propaganda and against Democrats.

[bluedye33139]

34. I think people make a lot out of her anti-war statements

And her generally progressive voting history. I'm not supporting her candidacy, as I mentioned. People who are supporting her seem to be focused intensely on the anti-war, the end to forever war, the end to policing the world, etc.

In some discussion boards, it's all bots, but where human beings appear to be doing the posting, it's a mix of conservatives and libertarians and progressives who are drawn to her talk about ending war.

Her performance this week is pretty dismal. Even after I posted this, she started doing more dumb stuff.

[Nitram]

35. Very compassionate and empathetic, but she is not a liberal, and her agenda is detrimental

to our values.

[RhodeIslandOne]

38. I have zero use for her

Whomever replaces her in Hawaii will be just as good vote wise without poisoning our party.

[JonLP24]

39. I was a strong defender but not on this

Censure is meaningless compared to impeachment especially when it comes to as a warning to future Presidents.

She is the first person in history to vote 'present' on impeachment. "I come before you to make a stand for the center". Sorry, I'm not a centrist.