Comments by "" (@RedXlV) on "WHAT IS TULSI THINKING? Gabbard NOT PRESENT For Impeachment Vote" video.

  1.  @danielrogers1985  Showing up and voting "present" is even worse than if Tulsi had just not showed up for the vote at all. She went out of her way to announce that in the fight over whether America has rule of law or has become a dictatorship, she's neutral.
    3
  2.  shurednichso  And yet she was right about Tulsi Gabbard.
    2
  3. Which is even worse. She didn't merely not show up to vote, she made a point of showing up and declaring that she's neutral in the battle between rule of law and dictatorship.
    2
  4. That's why Saager Enjeti is always hyping her up.
    2
  5. You're full of shit, Sparky.
    1
  6.  @marcusg9189  Another totally-not-racist here, I see. Cenk is of Turkish ancestry and that makes him a slave-trader?
    1
  7.  shurednichso  But in this case, Tulsi really is a Russian asset.
    1
  8. And instead of red, white, and blue, those colors are white, blue, and red.
    1
  9. The "section of the progressive movement" that Tulsi represents are the fake progressives. They're the conservative infiltrators, trying to destroy the progressive movement from within.
    1
  10.  @danielrogers1985  No, Bernie's a real progressive. But Krystal Ball and Jimmy Dore are as fake as it gets. Dore is Dave Rubin version 2.0, and Ball is alt-lite Saagar Enjeti's sidekick.
    1
  11. How exactly can America be further divided?
    1
  12.  @tmanmadison5204  The fact that you think of the President of the United States as a "CEO" proves that you're a garden variety Trumptard.
    1
  13.  @sisyphusvasilias3943  Hillary Clinton never was going to enter the race, you twit. And the only people who say impeachment "guarantees" Trump's reelection are Republicans.
    1
  14. Tulsi isn't a progressive. At all.
    1
  15. That's just it. Tulsi doesn't vote with progressives 95% of the time.
    1
  16.  @craigsips8677  Not how it works, Craig. Also, if a President is ever removed from office via impeachment, they would get barred from running again.
    1
  17.  @craigsips8677  Yes there is. One of the penalties that the Senate can impose (as laid out in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7) is disqualification from holding office in the federal government. And Senate rules hold that once somebody is convicted in an impeachment trial, it only takes a simple majority rather than a 2/3 vote to impose that penalty. Do you really think that if 67 Senators were to vote for a President's removal, that there wouldn't be at least 51 also voting for disqualification?
    1
  18. The divide here is between truth and lies. Between right and wrong. On one side we have people who support Trump's impeachment because he committed serious crimes in office. On the other side we have people who oppose Trump's impeachment because they don't care that he committed serious crimes in office.
    1
  19. Tulsi is not a Democrat and has no sense. She's at best a craven political coward.
    1
  20.  @tmanmadison5204  Tulsi literally is regressive. And opposition to impeachment is the actual lunacy.
    1
  21.  @tmanmadison5204  You really buy into all the Republican lies, apparently.
    1
  22.  @metaflight9495  Krystal Ball is Saagar Enjeti's fauxgressive sidekick.
    1
  23. So what? "We can't prosecute the mob boss because then the underboss would just take over" is the logic of idiots.
    1
  24. I'd be surprised if she doesn't run as an independent this time around.
    1
  25.  @tmanmadison5204  That's because Trump has been committing crimes ever since he's been in office. He literally was already violating the emoluments clause on his first day in office, for example. The reality is that Democratic leaders were desperate to avoid impeaching Trump, because of knee-jerk fear that it might improve his reelection chances. The reason impeachment happened is that his crimes kept getting bigger, to the point that Pelosi and company could no longer get away with ignoring them.
    1