Poll of the Day > Was Tulsi Gabbard wise in voting "present" on both articles?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics/tulsi-gabbard-present-impeachment/index.html

Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii voted "present" on both articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Wednesday, later slamming the process as politically motivated.

Gabbard's vote did not jeopardize the easy House majorities to charge Trump with abuse of power followed by obstruction of Congress. But the move aligned with her previously wavering on impeachment, having run as the sole Democrat not in favor of an impeachment inquiry before deciding to support it.\

"After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no," Gabbard, who declined to talk with reporters following her votes, said in a statement soon afterward.

She added that she could not oppose impeachment "because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing," nor could she back it "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."

Gabbard accused Republicans of having "abdicated their responsibility to exercise legitimate oversight, and instead blindly do the bidding of their party's leader." She also had harsh words for her fellow Democrats, arguing that their "extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process."

She pointed to a censure resolution she had introduced that she said would "send a strong message to this President and future presidents that their abuses of power will not go unchecked, while leaving the question of removing Trump from office to the voters to decide."

The Hawaiian presidential candidate was not alone in opting not to vote along party lines on Wednesday. Democratic Reps. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey and Collin Peterson of Minnesota voted against both articles, and Rep. Jared Golden of Maine voted no on the second article.

Gabbard announced in September that she had changed her mind and supported an impeachment inquiry after looking at the transcript of the conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

On the campaign trail, she has expressed skepticism on impeachment.

"I have had concerns for a long time about impeachment being pursued for partisan reasons," Gabbard said earlier this month, noting that she did vote to authorize the inquiry.

"Pursuing impeachment for partisan reasons is something that will only further divide an already divided country and it actually undermines our democracy."

CNN's Dan Merica contributed to this report.

By the way, I hate this new quoting system. Dumb.

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1206197215762341889
No. Anyone who can respect Huckabee is not a democrat.

BlackScythe0 posted...

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1206197215762341889
No. Anyone who can respect Huckabee is not a democrat.

As if all democrats and republicans are supposed to be of a hive mind mentality and do the same as others. Shes thinking for herself and showing that shes not like the others so thats good, IMO. Helps bridge the gap.

WastelandCowboy posted...

As if all democrats and republicans are supposed to be of a hive mind mentality and do the same as others. Shes thinking for herself and showing that shes not like the others so thats good, IMO. Helps bridge the gap.

Not trying to get a hive mind, but I don't respect anyone who respects a theocrat.

dont know who that is, but it seems like the vote wasn't close enough to make any difference, so she pretty much wasted her vote at best

---

When is removal of a President anything BUT a partisan process?

---

Why are people so pissed about her doing this? Does this shit really matter?

he wanted to withhold some money to a foreign country
who cares

---

It was neither wise nor unwise. The vote was expected to toe the party lines which is exactly what happened. Despite the ridiculous amount of attention being drawn to her vote, it was a massive non-factor.

---

I've supported Tulsi for years, since back in 2016 at least. And wanted her to win the nomination this year. But holy fuck has she gone off the rails (of sanity) on the impeachment issue! It's really disturbing, basically a blatant grasp for cred with Republicans, and ironically considering her claims, a clearly politically motivated stunt.

WTF happened to her?

She voted present for attention alone

everything she is doing is just to land a job on Fox News

---

I take none of what this women does seriously.

---

No. Terrible decision on her part. Comes off as extremely phoney.

---

Oh no, she didn't vote with the rest of the Democrats, she's clearly got ulterior motives and it can't be that maybe she just thinks for herself!

Feels like some serious projection going on here.

From what Ive seen Tulsi is only good for one thing... and it got nothing to do with politics.

---

PKMNsony posted...

Oh no, she didn't vote with the rest of the Democrats, she's clearly got ulterior motives and it can't be that maybe she just thinks for herself!

Feels like some serious projection going on here.

It's not even her chickening out of actually casting a vote that upsets me. She doesn't want to make a decision, that's her prerogative.
It's her justification for her non-decision where....after all of the witness testimony, all of the evidence, even the White House's own trascript of the call...and Democrats spending months trying to shy away from doing this....she has the gall to say it's "for partisan reasons." FUCK OFF, Tulsi! Basically there's nothing a president could ever do wrong that would justify impeachment, it is always just a partisan exercise? NO.
And the fact that she's currently vying to be president and thinks they can never be held accountable by the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution is extremely dismaying.

Zareth posted...

When is removal of a President anything BUT a partisan process?

When he/she has actually committed a high crime or misdemeanor for which there is actual evidence.

BeerOnTap posted...

When he/she has actually committed a high crime or misdemeanor for which there is actual evidence.

oh so the current situation you mean

---

I don't think it matters regardless. Gabbard isn't a real contender, considering she's faring about as poorly as Andrew Yang. And the people who are going to be the most upset about how she voted would never have voted for her anyway. The big advantage is that it demonstrates consistency in ideology, though.

WastelandCowboy posted...

By the way, I hate this new quoting system. Dumb.

It's the worst.

---

She's just been trying to undermine the party ever since she got all mad at Hillary.

DeathMagnetic80 posted...

She's just been trying to undermine the party ever since she got all mad at Hillary.

Uh... no. Clinton and Co started it. When she endorsed Bernie Sanders, they immediately began calling her a Russian shill. Gabbard has every right to be pissed off with the Clinton toadies trying to insinuate that she's a treasonous plant just because she didn't endorse their queen, and every right to fire back when they shot first.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3609

And this is coming from someone who does not particularly like Gabbard.

Edit: Let's be clear, the reason why this vote of hers is stupid is this:
I think the guy is guilty but wont say it because I didnt like the way the prosecutor and the defence argued all the time.
The argument is absurd. It's clear that the only reason that she did this is because she's in desperate need of press coverage at this point.

---

streamofthesky posted...

It's not even her chickening out of actually casting a vote that upsets me. She doesn't want to make a decision, that's her prerogative.
It's her justification for her non-decision where....after all of the witness testimony, all of the evidence, even the White House's own trascript of the call...and Democrats spending months trying to shy away from doing this....she has the gall to say it's "for partisan reasons." FUCK OFF, Tulsi! Basically there's nothing a president could ever do wrong that would justify impeachment, it is always just a partisan exercise? NO.
And the fact that she's currently vying to be president and thinks they can never be held accountable by the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution is extremely dismaying.

I've barely kept up with the impeachment but what evidence? AFAIK the Democrats weren't able to produce any evidence of a QPQ. Isn't it also true that none of the so-called witnesses were actually there to witness the phonecall? As far as I'm concerned their testimonies are as valuable as your's or mine's. Seems completely fair for her to say it's for partisan reasons if that's the case.

BeerOnTap posted...

When he/she has actually committed a high crime or misdemeanor for which there is actual evidence.

And you think that's enough to get government officials to vote against their party's best interest?

---

Didn't Mick Mulvaney literally admit to the crime happening, saying "elections have consequcnes. get over it"

CaptainStrong posted...

Why are people so pissed about her doing this? Does this shit really matter?

This. All she's doing is attention and everyone falls for it, every time.

---

Zareth posted...

When is removal of a President anything BUT a partisan process?

when the government is not running the by the parties. sadly ours is.

Russian Bot (Veteran)
https://youtu.be/616EgM7bheQ

---