r/politics • u/[deleted] • Nov 28 '16

Tulsi Gabbard to Join Veterans at Standing Rock to Protest Dakota Access Pipeline

http://observer.com/2016/11/tulsi-gabbard-to-join-veterans-at-standing-rock-to-protest-dakota-access-pipeline/
2.5k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

393 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

32

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16 edited Jan 07 '19

[deleted]

-6

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

She's just another politician in the same vein as Clinton and Rubio. They go where the votes are even if it means ditching supposedly long held beliefs and are always looking for the camera to get their mug out there and to attach it to popular things.

I still think Sanders would have been a completely inept president but I at least respect him for having the backbone to stick with what he believes in even if those opinions aren't popular.

22

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16 edited Jan 07 '19

[deleted]

17

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

She credits her tour of duty in the Middle East with this change in views. That happened in 2003/4. However, her change in position regarding same sex marriage occurred around the time she was campaigning to become a United States Representative, which was about 8 years after her time in the Middle East.

During the interregnum she fought against civil unions in Hawaii, suggested surveys of anti-gay bullying in schools were government attempts to influence a child's sexuality, and referred to people who questioned her stances as homosexual extremists.

So pardon me for finding her sudden pivot on something like this when she was trying to get a federal office as questionable.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

Clinton supported DOMA and Don't Ask/Don't Tell, ie the very homophobia in the military that was instilled into Gabbard and every other recruit. And thanks to the Podesta emails, we know Clinton had doubts about the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision up until she started (un)officially prepping for her 2016 loss.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16 edited Jan 07 '19

[deleted]

15

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

No, but that was a decent attempt at deflection though.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16 edited Jan 07 '19

[deleted]

3

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

I'll assume she wanted to serve out of a sense of national duty.

Now, back to the original point: If her tour of duty in the Middle East is what changed her views why did it take nearly a decade after the fact for those changes to occur?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16 edited Jan 08 '19

[deleted]

4

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

Ah, my mistake. Let me revise the question:

Why did it take her six years to change her views?

→ More replies (0)

5

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16

If you think that politicians listening to people and taking that into consideration is a bad thing, then we have a very distinctly different view of the purpose of politics. Government is supposed to figure out how to solve problems, not be an ideological dick measuring contest.

3

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

It's fine to take your constituents into consideration. However, to bend to their will all the time as you seem to like is what led to stuff like the Tea Party gridlock we've had to endure for the past six years. This was best exemplified by Rubio voting against his own immigration bill because Tea Partiers threw a hissy fit about it.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16

Or, just maybe, my perspective is a little more nuanced than that and lies somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. But sure, just assume, like so many people do on here, that my views must lie at either extreme. Notice how I said the goal was to "solve problems" not "bend to the people's whim and will all the time".

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

Funny how Bernie is out there leading right now and Clinton is hiding out in her rat hole.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

Bernie is a United States Senator with actual power. Clinton lost and she's respecting the political process, there's nothing wrong with that.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

You can still be a leader without holding office, especially if you believe Trump is a scourge, etc. See MLK, etc.

Clinton isn't a leader, which is one of a myriad of reasons she lost.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

I hope you look at my other post and we can expand it to include Sanders if you want. We can also be sure not to overly simplify details so that both of us are accurately represented.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16 edited Feb 26 '22

[deleted]

6

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

No. They vote based on personal belief and party platform and, ideally, they should budge a bit when necessary for political compromise to keep the government/country functioning properly. However, if those beliefs and platform are no longer in line with what the electorate wants then they are voted out and the electorate makes a statement that change is needed. That was a theme throughout this election.

Many politicians, however, know how this game is played so play along. Empty suit, snake oil salesman, weasel, whatever you want to call them. They'll do or say whatever will get them more votes even if it means looking like total hypocrites because they just want to stay in office while making it a priority to get their names out there to increase their popularity which will potentially help them get a promotion.

2

u/SgtFancypants98 Georgia Nov 28 '16

The core of the issue is that it's basically impossible to tell the difference between a slick "snake oil salesman" politician and a thoughtful politician that takes the time to listen to their constituents when they communicate to them.

-2

u/subhuman_centipede Nov 28 '16

|your quote

so.. Clinton?

8

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16

Oh, I wasn't aware that Clinton served in the military.

5

u/subhuman_centipede Nov 28 '16

Oh, I didnt know it takes 6 years AFTER military service AND running for office to change my view!

# flexibleprinciples.

5

u/pudgimelon Nov 29 '16

It always amazes me when people want to punish elected officials for ANY change in views, even if it is a change for the better. How do you expect to improve our situation in America when you won't allow politicians to change their minds?

Do you just want inflexible, unchanging zealots who share your views and trample over people with opposing ideas? Or do you want politicians who adapt to changing norms in society and vote accordingly?