Tulsi Gabbard ‘Open’ to VP Slot

Breitbart ^ | 03/02/2024 | Jeff poor

[ChicagoConservative27]

Friday, during an appearance on Fox News Channel’s “Jesse Watters Primetime,” former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) said she was “open” to serving as a vice-presidential nominee.

“Tulsi, you’re being considered for a VP slot,” host Jesse Watters asked. “Is that something you’re open to?”

“I would be open to that,” Gabbard replied. “My mission is to serve our country. I want to be in a position to solve problems, Jesse, and we’ve got a lot of them to solve.”

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Talk is cheap.

Tulsi has never taken a vote on abortion, nor so many other issues, except to vote the liberal position

Ever.

[minnesota_bound]

No to Tulsi Gabbard.

[Clutch Martin]

(For the sake of a purely fantastical mental exercise)

The only fit I see for Gabbard in the current election cycle is RFKJr/Gabbard, I’m not endorsing them but... for the sake of a purely fantastical mental exercise.

I wouldn’t be on board with Tucker either, in a lot ways he reminds me of just another goof from California. I mean no disrespect by that analogy but he doesn’t seem grounded, he comes from a journalist background and he was raised by a journalist.

Besides “talk is cheap.” Proverbs 14:23 says “All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty.” In simple terms, words mean nothing without action.

IMHO DJT need a VP who possesses a modicum of chief of staff savvy... there is a history of poor staff assembly that doesn’t need to repeat itself. Perhaps a type of proficient career uniformed services flag officer who was dumped on by BHO. DoD careerists need not apply, and I would be leary of SES grades as well.

[bankwalker]

I didn’t see that interview but I don’t trust ANYONE that wants to “reform” the electoral college.

[OKSooner]

I want to see her denounce and repudiate the WEF, my own self.

But even then I don't see compelling reason to support her particularly for VP. Trump obviously accepted the wrong guy last time; I'd wish to see him make certain that he's making the right choice this time, and not just accepting someone else's choice.

[fwdude]

Not about purity. It’s about sabotage.

[caddie]

Will watch the interview. Thanks for the PING. But:

Tulsi looks and sounds great. That is not the problem. But she is still a recalcitrant, reprobate Rat who is phony and wants to have, as so many others in politics do, a lazy-assed person's dream job of sitting on her ass talking in front of worshippers.

One can NOT EVER be allied with the Rats --their nihilism, their communism, their infanticide, their libertinism, their racism, their perversity, their abuse of innocent children, their crypto-satanism, their preternatural aversion to the Almighty, their hatred of America-- and ever be trustworthy AFAIAC. If you stop and think for a minute, you must agree with the above.

Sorry, it is just, in the words of TJ, "self evident".

[Jim W N]

Trump’s VP will be the presumptive winner of the 2028 presidential election. Patriots who want MAGA to be PERMANENT and not just a night’s wet dream should see Vivek as probably Trump’s only choice as VP to do that.

At this point the way I see it, Vivek needs to be in the front-runner position for the 2028 Presidential election. From what I’ve seen, nobody else on the national stage has shown they’re ready to step up to the plate and so what it takes to recover our Free Constitutional Republic. IMO that is partially because Vivek is not a politician.

If instead Trump puts in some political filler-gap guy or girl in there, then even if they won the 2028 election, they’ll be gone in 2032 like RINO GHWBush was gone in 1992, and sayonara America.

[bankwalker]

Rand Paul

[mewzilla]

So not wanting any Deep State myrmidons makes one a purity zealot...?

🤔

Well, what the heck.

It’s a fair cop!

[Jim W N]

Unlike Vivek, Paul has not consistently expressed that he is ready, wiling and able to step up to the plate to take down the $3+ trillion 80%+ unconstitutional portion of the federal gov’t which it what it will take to recover our Free Constitutional Republic.

Keep Rand where he is as a patriotic rep in Congress.

We need a NON-POLITICIAN, like Trump and Vivek, to carry MAGA on in the long term.

[Bobbyvotes]

Correct! And Tulsi brings additional voting blocks to Trump. None of the others bring additional voters. Most paramount is a WIN in 2024. Without a win, USA is toast with 4 more years of Biden.

[Bobbyvotes]

Many do not like Vivek because he is Indian-American. That is raw prejudice. Those should form a new party of their own.

[Bobbyvotes]

No. Paramount is a WIN in 2024, and that can happen only if the VP brings additional block of voters for Trump ticket. Another MAGA person does not bring additional voters. Trump already has that block.

[Jim W N]

I have found that God often chooses those that man does not (1 Corinthians 1:27).

[Archie Bunker on steroids]

Dry up and blow away; certain things can’t be ignored. When our VP is making political pitstops at Planned Parenthood clinics, we need to stand up and fight for the innocent. A childs life is worth more than a casual orgasm with a stranger

[rlmorel]

I can see how you feel about this, so I appreciate the civil response.

I think we are in agreement on her denunciation and repudiation of the WEF. I just don't know what that membership means, honestly, and what it meant to a relatively new, young legislator such as Tulsi Gabbard back in 2015.

It seems like the only one in our entire government who has NOT been lauded by the WEF is Donald Trump himself, and even he has this picture:

I can discern from the body language that Trump finds this distasteful, but how did he end up on that stage? I assume this is a "political task", the same kind of political task as Tulsi Gabbard backing Bernie Sanders in spite of her claim to being a "critical thinker".

I just thought this was a greeting line of some kind.

I think the same thing about the WEF "Young Leaders" designation. When I learned of that, I was quite turned off by it, but I saw that many young legislators and business executives have that designation.

At Jack Posobiek's website LINK-Human Events: Who Are the World Economic Forum's 'Young Global Leaders?' The Names May Surprise You.

In the linked article from Human Events, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel and Vivek Ramaswamy were all listed as WEF Young Global Leaders. I don't know about Thiel, but I don't see Musk and Ramaswamy signing on with that group.

As a result, what I long suspected is likely to be close to the truth, that this is a Leftist ploy similar to one acted out for nearly a century in this country by Communists and other Leftists.

I am a student of Communist infiltration and propaganda in the United States since the onset of the Bolshevik Revolution, and one of the most distasteful endeavors is that practice of the Left to create front groups, and then invite or "cite" people who support them.

It is not important that anyone know much of anything about those front groups, only that the people invited or cited in support of them remain ignorant.

The most famous case that I can think of is that of Shirley Temple, who had someone in her publicity machine who thought (knowingly or unknowingly) to send a congratulatory card to "Ce Soir" on the occasion of its "birthday". Ce Soir was, unknown to many, a Communist front. Ce Soir was established on the initiative of the Communist Party general secretary Maurice Thorez in order to compete with another magazine. (according to Wikipedia)

But not everyone was ignorant of what Ce Soir was.

(Excerpt below from: Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies):

J.B. Matthews was, at the time, the world's foremost expert on Communist Fronts, and was called to appear in front of the Dies Committee in 1938 where he "...gave a tutorial on why the fronts existed, how the CP controlled them, and how unknowing people were inveigled into cooperation. It was on this occasion that he provoked the “Shirley Temple” furor, much trumpeted by foes of the committee both then and later. The incident provides an instructive tale about the debating tactics of certain New Deal stalwarts, as well as a prelude to the travail of Matthews and McCarthy in the 1950s. In essence, Matthews told the House committee, naive and busy people could be hoodwinked into lending their names to Red causes that looked good on the surface but were something else on close inspection. He cited the fancy Communist newspaper Ce Soir in France (a Willi Munzenberg production), which on the approach of its first anniversary solicited and received greetings from some big Hollywood names—Clark Gable, Robert Taylor, James Cagney, “and even Shirley Temple.” “No one, I hope,” said Matthews, “is going to claim that any one of these persons in particular is a Communist...”

If one reads that, it seems like a perfectly sound assessment by J.B. Mathews. But when Joseph McCarthy used the expertise of J.B. Matthews to educate the American public about communist front groups and their dangers, the Left (Democrat Party) attacked him as someone who said Shirley Temple was a communist and forced his resignation from the McCarthy team. As you can see, J.B. Matthews did nothing of the sort, and was quite rational and focused in the criticism. But the Left operates as it always has.

The point of all this is that I have concluded that the WEF likes to get people nominated for the Young Global Leaders, hoping someone sends back a response as Tulsi Gabbard apparently did as shown below:

One can easily conclude that by 2015, she should have had a better handle on this organization. But if you listen to her interview, it is also clear that she didn't have much knowledge of many things outside what she saw as her purview as a junior Congresswoman from Hawaii. She probably got that letter or email and thought "Oh, that's nice" and did the polite thing by responding.

I had to look at the link: WEF YGL Nomination Criteria webpage to see how people are chosen, and it was instructive.

It was also instructive to see another WEF Young Global Leader who I pilloried for that assocation, Dan Crenshaw, protest loudly to them that he never knew he was "nominated" and "accepted" and never responded to them, even in a polite way as Tulsi Gabbard had.

I am less concerned about it now, and more concerned with her policies on the issues like Abortion and Energy.

And again, this doesn't mean I want her as VP, or even support her as VP. But prior to this, she would have been a hard NO to me, so that is the significant change I am exploring.

[rlmorel]

Jim W N, you are one of those people I respect and have enjoyed discourse with over the years, so I accept the nature of your objection.

That said, have you watched the interview? I like many things about Ramaswamy, but he also has the “WEF Young Global Leader” designation tagged onto him as Tulsi Gabbard does, but as you may see from my post above, I am less concerned about that now...unless he was one of the people who were nominated and selected, and ended up going through their “indoctrination course” which I doubt he did.

And the thing that keeps going through my mind as I dwell on this was that George Washington and John Adams were men that would have described themselves as “King’s Men” until events forced them to reevaluate their premises and opinions.

I feel that for total victory (we may as well refer to that as MAGA for the purposes of this discussion) people have to come to believe in the inherent unworkability of Leftism, and be allowed to change their minds. If we just force Liberals and Leftists into the background, temporarily silent on their ideological stupidity, like an Electric Vehicle battery fire, they are sure to spring into flames again when the timing is right for them.

[rlmorel]

Oh, I get how you feel. Absolutely. When I sat down with a friend and he put this interview on (against my unspoken wishes, unspoken because...it was his house and his television) I boiled for some number of minutes before resigning myself to make the best of this, and watch it to see what I can glean from it.

So, I forced myself to shut up, keep an open mind (otherwise, if I was going to not attempt an open mind, I should have got up and done something else because the abject waste of time is a sin IMO) and listen to what she had to say. And as I got further into it, I realized she was traveling the same road Ronald Reagan and David Horowitz had when what they had believed in showed them its true face.

I am not convinced I want her as a VP (and she might not even be eligible anyway, though that apparently doesn't stop anyone anymore) but I am interested in being consistent in my evaluation of someone.

And while I might have been fully correct in my 2020 estimation, that does not mean she has not changed and thus invalidated my earlier assessment. So, based on what I have seen, I have changed my assessment of who she is.

If you really are interested, here is the link to the interview:

The Tucker Carlson Encounter: Tulsi Gabbard

[rlmorel]

Thanks for your civil reply, FRiend.

I fully admit I need to understand more. When she says "reform", what does that mean?

If it means getting rid of it in favor of a popular vote or some such thing, then no. I could not find a common ground.

However, if it means changing laws so the delegates won must cast electoral votes appropriately as they were won, or making the polyglot of state electoral vote rules agree at a Federal level, I would be inclined to agree since I don't see any advantage beyond chicanery to having all the differences. Also, if it means they cannot finagle an illegal outcome legally as they are apparently trying to do right now with House Republicans stepping down to assist them, then I would be onboard with that.

From a 2019 speech reported on by Fox News, when asked about the Electoral College, Gabbard said in that speech:

“...There are reforms that need to take place to make it so that our votes are being cast and counted and represented in the outcome of our elections. I think there are pro and cons to the existing Electoral College and to getting rid of it. What I would think would be important is for us to have a conversation about how we can best move forward.” But Gabbard seemed to jab at fellow Democrats, saying, “I think it’s unfortunate that too often these calls for changes come about by the side that has lost or suffered as a result of the Electoral College.”

I would like to know what, if she is in favor of "reform" just exactly what she has in mind.

As it stands, I am more concerned about her energy policies (for example) than Electoral College Reform.