Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Glad she got rid of that label, whether she becomes a Republican or not. Now, maybe in '24 we can have a DeSantis/Gabbard ticket. I think it would be a winner. Both are relatively young, and both are highly intelligent - as opposed to the incumbents.
The Democrats can have Liz Cheny. Good riddance.
Or what if it was DeSantis vs Gabbard, the truth is no matter who won at least we would have someone who is pro America and pro constitution even if ALL the stances on certain subjects were not agreed, right now we don't have that. It use to be that way that even if your candidate didn't win there was some core common value, right now there is not.
Actually, that's the last thing we need. All it does is split the conservative vote. Look what Ross Perot did in 1990 - split the vote and got Clinton elected. Third party candidates, no matter how much you might like them, will never win.
And sadly, our country would have been in a much better place had Perot been elected.
She’s a real mixed bag, isn’t she? Some of her positions simply aren’t aligned or present a consistent ideological conformity. This may explain her underlying connection to democrats, because it’s an ability only left wingers seem to possess that allows them to hold conflicting points of view without noticing any conflict.
Her climate change opinions and policies, and her hypocrisy on the 2nd Amendment are issues I cannot reconcile with her. You cannot say you defend the 2nd AMENDMENT, while promoting gun bans, and gun control. Glaring inconsistencies here, unless someone can point to the language I seem to have missed at the end of “ ….. the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” ? Where’s the “except for gun bans and background checks and other gun control measures as deemed necessary” part? Oh, it’s not there. So, keep the paws off the guns. The right protected by the 2nd, offers no but ifs.
She’s a moderate liberal in a landscape filled with extremists. That makes her appear more rational and wise than she might otherwise be.
Thanks for posting this. There is much more about her now that I don't like. Her stance on crime for one, which I wasn't aware of. Seems like she is a Democrat, no matter how rational or level headed she seems.
That has bothered me also but I am willing to give benefit that she may be reevaluating that stance. She did address that in the video. She deserves a place at the table, even the founders never agreed on everything, but their shared core guidance was for a common cause for the stability and future of the nation, we need that more than ever right now.
I get it. I like her, personally. And I’m ok with accepting certain disagreements. However, I am not ok with the one very glaring disconnect regarding the 2nd Amendment. It’s the 2nd one on the list for a reason, and it’s not subject to anyone’s ideological re-interpretation. “Shall Not” can never be allowed to mean “Can do, if there is a good argument”.
We know from decades of overt, covert, and tiny step by step methods, that the left wants to abolish the 2nd, and disarm the public, by hook, crook, or deception. There is no question about that.
Her actual position supporting an “assault weapon” ban is a direct and unmistakable assault on the 2nd Amendment. That’s the assault that needs banning.
No politician from either side can make everyone happy.
That’s why we need more middle of the road people, people willing to work together and compromise. But that’s just not possible right now due to all the division.
No politician from either side can make everyone happy.
That’s why we need more middle of the road people, people willing to work together and compromise. But that’s just not possible right now due to all the division.
You’re right. But compromise is a double edged sword. It cuts both ways. When a ship’s captain is informed that the hull of the ship has been compromised, that’s not good news. When one’s integrity is said to have been compromised, that’s a bad thing.
However essential compromise may be, it is equally essential to safeguard our core principles from being “compromised”, under the pretense of compromising.
No politician from either side can make everyone happy.
That’s why we need more middle of the road people, people willing to work together and compromise. But that’s just not possible right now due to all the division.
Compromise is good sometimes depending on the issue other times it is not. The left democrat position on gun control and their definition of compromise has been as far as discussion they talk and we listen, they take and we give. Even if they take some not as much as they wanted they still took and compromise on the pro 2nd amendment side is they still lost.
All of which is based on lies, banning semi auto weapons won't stop mass shooting, it won't stop crime, all of which the gun control people know, but gloss over because they have a agenda to sell.
As far as Gabbard I am willing to give her benefit of doubt to see if she has reassessed her position give know she apparently sees how the democrats are authoritarian. She did talk about that in the video.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
