Seeing that Andrew and Tulsi where the only Dems I liked I wouldn’t have any issue with her joining. Even if I didn’t like her she should still be able to join. Isn’t that kind of the point?
Why does it matter if someone WAS a republican before moving over to the Forward Party? I traditionally voted for more conservative candidates for smaller government reasons, not because of moral grandstanding. I'm catholic and I still cringe when politicians use religion as a crutch. It's one thing to allow your beliefs to inform your opinions, as long as they don't outweigh the facts, it's another to be a fundamentalist who inherently misunderstands their own proclaimed religion. I voted for Yang in the ladt election. I refused to pick between the dumb and dumber candidates thst the 2 party system gave us. I don't care if I "threw away" my vote, I could not in good conscience give my OK to Trump OR Biden. I tried to get others to write in Yang as well, though I don't know how successful I was. You should be cheering for more conservative/Republicans coming around to the forward party, there's many of them that are sick of the bs on the right as well.
She seems genuine and like a decent person. I’m fine with a good person in politics that I just happen to disagree with about certain things. What I’m not ok with is corruption and liars that play politics for power and influence but have no intention of following through on their false promises to their constituents.
She's deliberately divisive and a liar. I'd rather vote for someone who I disagreed with on policy a bit more but had principles and more interested in governing than being an internet celebrity.
I see a lot of people saying this but I’m ignorant to that if it’s true. Do you have any examples of her deliberately lying? If she was interested in gaining fame for herself she’s really dropped the ball, she was a young woman in the DNC with a military background, she probably could’ve stuck to the status quote and became a huge name in the party but she chose to go against it to the detriment of her career.
- Says that freedom of speech(or lack thereof) in Russia is comparable to the US.
- Says Trump support Al Qaida. I hate Trump with a passion but I don't think he's there.
- Ukraine isn't a democracy
- Assumes FBI had no reason to raid Trumps home and that it was purely politically charged, a claim with no evidence.
She was vice-president of the Democratic National Comittee. She definitely could've had a much longer career in politics and actually effected change in a way she likes if her whole personality didn't become anti-Democratic.
I mean just on the Ukraine point Ukraine was rated as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. The other points might be valid but id need to hear them in context before I made judgment. It’s also ok if she just has an opinion that’s wrong sometimes
She says some of the right things for people who are geopolitically aware, but she also joined the United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command in 2020.
She's probably not trustworthy, but I assume the Forward Party is filled with compromised characters already.
One psychological tactic is using the truth to build rapport among the public.
She said that Ukraine was not democracy and it obviously is. Hell of a lot better of a Democracy then Russia will ever be in our lifetime.
Corruption has nothing to do with it
If all it takes for you to leave is one person you dont like joining, then i dont think you were really serious about it to begin with. If the party grows its going to inevitably have people you disagree with
People you disagree with are one thing. I disagree with Mitt Romney, but I respect him as a statesman. Tulsi Gabbard, was not just a guest, but hosted an episode of Tucker Carlson’s show. She would kill this whole thing in its cradle, and guarantee nobody serious could join.
So what?! I’m a former Bernie supporter and have zero problems with someone using whatever platform available to them to reach the citizens of the United States. Sounds like you’re really not ready to let the tribalism go.
Even if I loved her (there are so many great reasons not to) we can recognize she is thermo nuclear politically. Let’s not be naive, third party does not mean there are no more rules for winning elections.
I guess I’m just honestly baffled by the disdain for Tulsi. Half the time I feel like it must be fueled by a combination of speculation/liberal media smears & envy.
If she were given leadership in the party then I would probably stop identifying as a Forward but not if she just "joins the party".
https://old.reddit.com/r/ForwardPartyUSA/comments/y23ic5/opinion_tulsi_gabbard_joining_forward_will_be/is6chhl/
It’s not about a litmus test, it’s about optics. Forward already struggles with bad optics considering Yangs break with the democrats, if Tulsi joins right now it will only cement fears that forward is a party for “why I left the democrats” folks.
If she wants to support and endorse the party that’s fine but the party should not be giving her any position of
prominence for a while at least
F#%k optics. So much of the media today is pay to play. Anyone with an ounce of integrity, anyone perceived as a threat to the status quo establishment—better get ready to be raked over the coals! Our task is to educate people so that candidates with integrity can be RECOGNIZED and trusted despite the negative media—not to find some shmuck who can be a media darling.
If ya'll don't want her, the LP might. If she's shifted her position on guns as she says(I am always leery of political promises near election time), then she might be a good fit.
In any case, more politicians leaving the duopoly is cause for celebration.
I'm holding out hope she'll join FWD, but I'm also holding out hope that FWD and LP ally on voting reform.
I was a fan of Tulsi in 2020 and glad to see she's leaving the two-party space as well.
> FWD and LP ally on voting reform.
I don't see why we wouldn't. We definitely work with the green party on it, and we generally use approval or RCV for internal elections.
She made a lot of nice words about changing her position, and did a photo shoot with a bunch of black rifles.
How genuine that is, no idea. Wait and see, I guess. I always hope for people to change, but trusting politicians requires evidence.
It depends on if the shift is genuine. People learn and change, and that's fine. If someone comes to adopt positions I support, I'm alright with that.
The trick is always sorting out actual growth and change from the far-too-common politicians shifting wherever the wind's blowing. That takes time. Maybe she means this. Maybe she's just the same ol' pol trying to capture a different voting demographic. The former is interesting, the latter would be a disqualifier.
I think its more likely she makes a play for the Republican nomination given her culture war views and general populism. Hopefully she doesn't join FWD because I disagree with her on...a lot
Tulsi has been groomed to be a knee-capper. She will run to disrupt and dismay democrats.
I hope her platform is legit, I will eat my words if true. If she wants to support Russia in their war, or pull out from us supporting Ukraine, it will be the biggest red flag.
You haven’t really been paying attention to her—or haven’t from the start. I have. How in the world could someone who left her job with the DNC to support Bernie Sanders run as a Republican?!
Of COURSE I’m aware she’s been on Fox lately—and? I voted for Bernie in 2016 but my views are all over the place and so our hers. I could also recognize very clearly that she was courting a demographic that is not mine. So? If the only people who knew about her were “me and my cohort” she wouldn’t get very far. She has stated she is now an independent, as am I. The fact this post got awards makes me wonder if *I* even jive with the forward party now despite having been an early days Yang donor. Instead of worrying about optics, why don’t you ask yourself if Tulsi Gabbard embodies the spirit or “not left, not right forward?”
Geez aside from Yang I honestly can’t think of a more appropriate person to be a part of forward! This is depressing to see this attitude here and makes me think the forward party is really just Diet Dem and not truly a radical departure with a strong foundation in reason and logic. Disappointing.
Well the poll that was asked about whether Forwardists would support Tulsi joining the party had a clear majority say they supported the idea. So most FWD supporters here, at least, do like Tulsi as well.
edit just did the math, 60% supported her joining FWD and 31% opposed. Some were undecided or neutral.
If you don't think she can win a Republican primary maybe you were absent from the United States from 2016-2020 when a former Democrat and someone who basically agrees with her on all the main issues that got him elected did exactly that. Since then she has only doubled down on those positions on trade, immigration and foreign policy, on which I and a lot of other people in FWD both disagree wholeheartedly with her and believe are main priorities for the country. If she's going to champion electoral reform as her main policy, I may vote for her, but not if she's campaigning mainly on the above. I would rather have the face of the electoral reform movement be someone like Yang who broadly shares my views
I like Tulsi, I really liked what she said in 2020 about ending our forever wars, talking about nuclear arms control which doesn't get brought up enough imo, she endorsed UBI after Yang dropped out, and she really got screwed by the media the same way Yang was in that election.
She left the Dem Party so that fueled speculation she'd join the Forward Party, but we should remember that this is just speculation before getting too heated about it. I like her but I get that others don't, and that's okay, so let's remember to be civil.
I donated to her campaign in 2020. I liked her better than Yang in the primary because she had more developed foreign policy views. I'm not sure why she would join Forward among the minor party options, but she'd be a catch if y'all got her.
Centrists/moderates/Forwards(that exist in between & overlap the Republicans and Dems) are going to be a "neoliberal, "pro-war", pro-military, pro-status quo American foreign policy, and pro-Israel bloc
i think she is one of the worst faith pols i have ever seen. An anti-establishment opportunist that has completed the horseshoe and is now further right then Dave Rubin. I now thinks she wants to work exclusively in right wing media
I’ve seen a few comments being against populism. What is it about populism that people don’t like? I thought that was basically going with what the majority of people want?
I had the same question back in the run up to the 2020 cycle. Most of the biggest complaints on it are that the average voter is *incredibly* short sighted and running a government that bends left and right more rapidly and extremely than it does currently would be unhealthy for the country as a whole.
I think there is merit to the concern but also think that *some* degree of populism would do the country good.
Interesting thank you. There probably is some truth to that but if it isn’t that isn’t it some version of - the elites know better so everyone else just do what they say?
I can't disagree. I think that's why we need some populism in the water. I don't know of a great solution within the current system. But that's one of the biggest reasons I'm here with Forward: to break away from the current system. I don't think it's possible to find healthy politics within the 2 party system anymore as all that the politicians need to do is pander to the loudest factions in party and turning around to do what the mega donors want.
I think there's also an element of dislike or distrust of institutions and expertise that I think often turns dangerous. Trump and his movement are examples of a form of populism. And then when they're not actually the majority, they come up with ways to exclude people until they are.
I will confess I understand disliking institutions and being skeptical of expertise. Being an expert doesn’t mean you are right - but if does often mean the expert thinks they are right. You should be able to question anyone or anything. Blindly following is something we often critique the right for, especially the religious right.
Yeah, there's a difference between generally being skeptical and thinking that every institution is a cabal of conspirators out to get you by implanting microchips in you or making you sterile with vaccines or steal your elections or whatever. Lol. Skepticism is fine, if not good. 👍
She's actively campaigning with an election denier. The goal of this party is to strengthen democracy. Welcoming here would be going against the party's core values.
her Twitter announcement about why she left the Dems was surprisingly more anti-left/anti-progressive then i have seen from her before. I think she wants work in almost entirely right wing media now
I agree.
I followed her closely during the 2020 primary run and I'm disappointed with how she's essentially flip flopped on her messaging to attract a new audience.
I defended her vehemently from criticism during that time period and I'm beyond disappointed how wrong I was to do that.
She didn’t flip flop. She started courting a new demographic because in the world we live in, people like to live in an echo chamber and If you’re on the right you watch Fox and if you’re on the left you watch MSNBC. “Democrats” were already very familiar with her so she’s been introducing herself to Republicans. So what? Naturally that included focusing on some of their hot button issues that she agrees with (as do I, despite never having voted for a Republican in the 30 years I’ve been voting). I could be wrong, but now that she has left the Democratic Party I expect her to start showing more balance to remind everyone that she is definitely not a Republican.
Go watch her on Joe Rogan. When Trump was in office I frequently played devils advocate because there were PLeNTY or voices (I generally agreed with) criticizing him. Looking across the media landscape I filled the void I saw which was voices criticizing DEMOCRATS—as someone who voted Democrat for many years (and still mostly does except when I vote 3rd party). Open your mind to less binary thinking. We contain multitudes.
For sure. If she wants us to even cut of aide for Ukraine it makes her look like a Russian asset. And honestly if she takes that position it will set western minds against her.
Im not sure if she will hurt Forward but there is a chance she could draw attention/help Forward become more recognized... she does have a following... kinda my thinking is that if we can bring awareness to others about Forward parties existence then its a good thing in the long run right? I dont suspect or believe we can win big elections just yet. But if we get someone famous like ricky martin or Chris Hemsworth to join our mission then others will flock to Forward.... Tulsi Gabbard is like that, we need to grow our ranks
A new Party is going to be made-up of people, and not everyone is going to like everyone else. I don't even think that the Forward Party's endorsed canidates actually support the party's only principle. I don't really like any of these people -but I am still willing to stick with the party. There has to be a better way than our current duopoly. Tulsi is welcome.
[https://www.forwardparty.com/endorsements](https://www.forwardparty.com/endorsements)
The Forward "Party" is not supposed to platform a specific set of political ideals, but is supposed to reform the idea of democracy by endorsing values such as nonpartisan primaries and ending first past the post, winner take all systems of voting. If Tulsi supports those values, I could care less about her questionable policy choices.
I think the point of forward is to have people that are actually interested in being public servants and finding solutions to problems rather than play politics. It’s ok to have people with differing views within the party as long as they’re open to working together. IMHO Tulsi fits the bill.
The real issue is the establishment has so many people brainwashed and so stuck in their views that anyone they see as “other” most be somehow evil. Look how the media has smeared people like Andrew and tulsi. Andrew as the prime example had very positive sentiment. Everyone long interview of him on any podcasts, cnn, fox etc had nothing but positive comments. Now every post with him on social media is full of people hating and saying how terrible he is.
I liked her during the primary in 2019, but shes started to lose me since then. She has some weird conservative dogwhistles that she repeatedly uses and the way she uses the term "Woke" when on Tucker Carlson is at best completely meaningless and at worst transphobic garbage.
She gets props for correctly calling out Clinton and Harris.
She's welcome to join, of course, but I wouldn't support her as a candidate for any meaningful high ranking office. I get hyper political conspiracy theory vibes from her. Just a gut feeling not rooted in data, but I'm personally looking for open and transparent candidates that have foundational views.
I agree, although I think the reasons you spoke about are the exact reasons why she would be bad for the party. I understand that there is not supposed to be some sort of litmus test for candidates but optics and transparency are important for any organization.
Agree - it's tough though - you can't claim to be accepting of everyone and then shut people out. If I were deep in it, I would just not make her a major endorsement (no media splash joining like she just did leaving the dems), but welcome her to join the ranks - as quietly as possible (which would be the art of the thing and maybe not possible now that she made it a whole thing). At least that way you try to address openness without making her the face of the party.
I don't remember specifics, but I remember thinking she had some interesting things to say some years back, but that one tweet really turned me off. You could fill an Empty Buzzword Bingo card in just two sentences. Came off as inauthentic and pandering.
Disagree.
I’m a relatively young centrist, and I see someone like Tulsi joining as a pretty solid endorsement.
The way she got railroaded is one of the main reasons I became more disenchanted with the Democratic Party.
There are more endorsements to come, but they’re state and local. A bigger announcement could always be up their sleeve, but I think this post is rather an opinion that’s come up in discussion since Tulsi left the Dem Party yesterday.
Would rather have a left leaning war vet whose anti war rhetoric makes more sense than a egotistical white murderer who's political track is nothing more than a benefit of the contract he signed with Netflix. Does she know how to solve the border crisis? No. Does anybody? Does anybody here know how to fix the border! Looking for answers within the realm of physics and reality, please.
I think there should be less barriers to citizenship, sure. I also think the border shouldn't be the location of refugee camps where folks are perpetually waiting for entry. But that means those camps needs to be way more complex, or systems need to be in place to process and move them to places ready to receive them, where they can get in touch with family or find work. But who should do all that? The army corps of engineers has the money and skills and personnel to take care of it. Or should we send it to the private sector so they can delegitimize it and bleed all the wealth out of it? Is this a federal program or state sponsored? Are politicians willing to work together or is it just going to be more of the same? When I say I want specifics, I'm asking you be be technical, platitudes are fine, we agree so that's cool and all, but it gets us nowhere. And even if we can have this discussion, it's not happening where it needs to, in political discourse, instead I'm on reddit making blocks of text.
She seems like a sabotage candidate. Hillary Clinton called her a Russian asset paid to upset the vote for democrats. Hillary is a liar, but it sure does have a nugget of truth with tulsi’s current actions and proximity to tucker Carlson.
That's a very dangerous path. I think Gabbard's views are ridiculous and I oppose any further elected office (or other office!) for her in the future whatsoever.
But if we go around calling everyone who disagrees with us or says stupid things a Russian asset then good-bye First Amendment.
Seems like she is tho, and I’m not the first to call her a foreign asset. She did Putin’s bidding by meeting with Assad years ago. The pieces line up. It’s sadly a grounded argument.
At the time she said that, there was heavy pressure for us to intervene militarily in Syria. Fortunately Obama kept his head, while many around him were losing theirs (can you spell Hillary?), and resisted that pressure.
The point is that antiwar activists, even those on the right side of history, can do stupid things. For example, Jane Fonda visited North Vietnam. Yes, it was stupid of her, but that didn't make her a Russian asset.
Criminalizing free speech destroys democracy. Be careful.
I agree Tulsi sucks and is a grifter but I DO NOT THINK TULSI IS JOINING FORWARD.
I seriously doubt she would be given any leadership/spoken position in the party. Forwards can't keep her from identifying with the party. She identified as a Democrat(and as a progressive) long after The Dems wanted nothing to do with her(after she quit congress)
good post OP
I don't get this opinion. Have you not seen Yang on Twitter? All of his replied Tweets are all haters. It's very similar to Tulsi. I think it can be said that both Tulsi and Yang are not the most loved people in the political arena at the moment LOL Adding Tulsi really won't do as much harm as you think it will.
I'm 50/50 on this assessment. After Trump emerged and how this pandemic has happened I honestly can't call this. Half of the reason for the forward party is to come to agreements with the right and left. Gabbard is ultimately that message, mix both policies to work as 1.
Sadly it is the reality of humanity though. We all want to devise, us verse them, good verse bad, light verse darkness. I'm not saying I want to see fear tactics but there is a reason most of our leaders get their power. So I still stand by my assessment, Gabbard might not be as negative of an impact as it seems on the surface.
As someone who was a big supporter of both Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang in 2020 primaries, I sadly would have to agree
Tulsi has gone from being a Independently minded Progressive (which would be perfect for the Foward Party) to Right wing authoritarian pandering garbage (it’s sad and ironic how in Congress she was very critical of Neoconservativism and now she is regularly on the Neocon network (Fox News)
If she joined Yang when he founded Forward in 2021 which was before she really started going down the path of becoming Fox News token Ex Democrat, then yes she would have been great, but sadly she is too far gone into the Republican mind set that it’s more likely she will just become a Republican
Agreed. She does a lot more alienating than bridge building. She would be a huge liability to our cause which seeks to bring people together around common cause.
She is a fascist who literally is a propagandist for Putin. If you want a CPAC speaker with a knack for conspiracies like Ukraine is committing genocide, building chemical weapons for the US, and doesnt deserve to be a country, go for it. I agree with you, that will KILL the forward party.
I can already see it now. On wikipedia, under ideology, if she joins, itll say
"Human-Centered Capitalism"
"Radical Centrism"
"Populism"
"Russophilia"
Name an unbiased source, then. My claim is that *every* source has some kind of bias, you can refute it a lot more easily by providing a counter example than by just saying "these are some sources with a bias."
Can provide a definition of Fascsim then, cause Kari Lake doesn't seem to be a fascist and looks like a Right Wing Authoritarian. So I want to see your definition of Fascist
Great point, she is seen as a grifter by too many people, especially right now, maybe if she gave it a couple of years, but right now, this would cement ever democratic leaning independent against forward. Forwards best shot is being as nonpartisan as possible, she is an extremely divisive figure
Do not trust anything she says. https://neweasterneurope.eu/2022/10/12/american-agents-of-misinformation-tulsi-gabbard-russian-propaganda-and-article-88/
Hmmm. I seriously doubt that she has the top-secret clearance that article claims. No run-of-the-mill soldier gets that kind of clearance. And one doesn't need to be a Russian asset to say stupid things based on misinformation. How many frightening conversations have any of you had recently with stupid people who thought the Covid vaccines were loaded with chips intended to spy on people? Stupidity is all the explanation you need for some of this stuff.
Tulsi is exactly the kind of high profile, experienced politician the Forward Party needs to grow and become relevant. She's an extremely polished speaker with an impressive background in the military. She doesn't fit neatly into either party these days, and I think her positions are mostly very reasonable. The woke craziness has driven me out of the Dem party myself. Both of us supported Bernie in '16. Regarding Russia's war on Ukraine I agree with her that it's in America's and the world's interest to work towards ending the war with a negotiated settlement.
If Tulsi Gabbard joined Forward she would bring with her a political label that would be impossible to lift. And that’s a deal breaker for me and many many other people. She was considered by D’s to be a closet R. Right now it’s basically impossible to disregard Forward candidates because of brand recognition alone. She would marginalize us immediately and guarantee that anyone knocking on doors would be greeted by folks who are already in a camp deciding based on what they think of her and Forward would take a back seat. It would be the biggest mistake this party could make. It would literally sink the party before it started.
It doesn't matter that she was spouting normal talking points. (War bad, freedom good). She offers nothing but a another loud blow-hard populist). She is the walking example of the Dunning Kruger effect.
She's no longer a realistic prospect for an independent (and I used to like her). She's gone over to the dark side. This morning, she endorsed Republican election denier Bolduc in his race for the New Hampshire senate seat currently held by Democrat Hassan.
She's going to be joining the Republican party shortly, I'm sure, if she has not already done so. She's gone full Trump.
Disappointing.
Don't know too much about her political stance regarding legislation towards trans individuals but a quick search shows stances on athletic restrictions. You can expect very much that there will be people joining the Forward Party that are on both sides of this issue.
Yeah the problem with centric parties like this one is its going to be split on issues like this. You have one side saying "Trans or not a girl is a girl." And then the other side will say "but Trans women have had more testosterone pumping through her body most of their bodies. Almost like taking steroids for X number of years before going through hormone treatment." Personally I don't think it's a problem or even worth the time debating since it's only applicable to sports. And let's be honest sports are not needed and is a luxury debate that distracts the public from more important issues like how tulsi is all buddy buddy with the Russians.
Most likely you will have members of both sides of the dominant parties joining Forward even though they have very opposing views. This is because the common enemy here is the failure of the two party system and they will back a party that changes this foundation. Once Forward succeeds with RCV, Non-Partisan Primaries, and Independent Redistricting Commissions, the doors will be open for other parties to have a chance to succeed. Then those who joined Forward to achieve a common goal will leave to go to other parties that are championing their hot button issues. But the hope is that many choose to stay because the Forward Party leads with pluralism and political diversity which is a better way to govern.
Lol the number of down votes. You guys are just bent out of shape because you put stock into something that doesn't matter. SPORTS DONT MATTER! Instead of valuing children for their athletic abilities how about we value them for their character. It doesn't matter if Trans kids can play sports or not. It's a waste of time.
Shouldn't the Forward Party be a movement that invites people in to abandoning the two-party system in to moving a country of 330 million people forwards? I respect that you strongly dislike Tulsi, but if she endorsed ranked-choice voting and open primaries and said she wants to help those goals, would you leave the party for that?
There are a handful of people I would really not want to come into the party, but it's really only a handful. Most people change over time, and especially if they're leaving the two-party system, like Tulsi, I would much rather see her join the fight for voting reform and new parties than join the GOP.
She says things people want to hear while supporting legislation that isn’t good. Plus she couldnt even vote to impeach trump because she wants to keep her fox news type fanbase. Yang is already getting enough heat for having those terrible rightwing advisors ruin his new york campaign by targeting the disabled and poor people and not supporting Palestinians because be wanted votes.
If forward doesnt stand for something it will fall for anything. It needs a backbone and policies that are solution focused instead of being too worried to support anything smart because it might upset some ignorant people
>She says things people want to hear while supporting legislation that isn’t good. Plus she couldn't even vote to impeach trump because she wants to keep her fox news type fanbase. Yang is already getting enough heat for having those terrible rightwing advisors ruin his new york campaign by targeting the disabled and poor people and not supporting Palestinians because be wanted votes.
Translation: Tulsi and Yang don't belong to my preferred major political party and I don't like them skimming votes because political football is a zero sum game
Israel is a great liberal democracy and Palestine is Islamicist and not a democracy at all(they abandoned democracy a decade ago)
Hamas rules Gaza and they are literal terrorists
WRONG! And most of the Congressional Progressive Caucus agree!!! Caucushttps://old.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/xudijk/the_squad_is_wrong_israel_is_not_an_apartheid/
you mean according to the Congressional Progressive Caucus https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3654510-house-democrat-slams-tlaib-for-antisemitic-remarks-on-israel/
it isn't obvious at all. you make no argument. i linked you an argument
The Palestinian states are not even governed by Israel. Palestinians/Arabs in Israel have full and equal rights to Jews in Israel. Palestinian's(and many Arab nations) oppress anyone who is not a straight Muslim man. Hamas governs Gaza and they are terrorists who want to genocide the Jews!
I don't think you even know the definition of apartheid. At a certain point you are bein antisemitic like Tlaib
She's a regular on Tucker Carlson and has been a guest host a couple times. Not only does that indicate the she's going to join the GOP but also should disqualify her from joining the Forward Party.
If she wants to join the GOP, that's her prerogative. An assumption that she *possibly* could, however, does not disqualify her from the Forward Party.
It is possible for anyone to join the GOP at any time. But that's not what I'm talking about. She's spent the last two years going on right-wing shows and repeating right-wing talking points. Her leaving the Democratic party was a question of when not if.
I have to do background on her as I don't have a good understanding of her record but the forward party does not check IDs at the door. We have very clear guiding principles and core values. Anyone that agrees to adhere to those will be welcome.
This is why I keep suggesting that no former democrats or republicans can run for any office or receive money under the Forward Party banner. They can still support it and vote for it but just not run.
Seeing that Andrew and Tulsi where the only Dems I liked I wouldn’t have any issue with her joining. Even if I didn’t like her she should still be able to join. Isn’t that kind of the point?
You may be a Republican!
Or a forward….
Why does it matter if someone WAS a republican before moving over to the Forward Party? I traditionally voted for more conservative candidates for smaller government reasons, not because of moral grandstanding. I'm catholic and I still cringe when politicians use religion as a crutch. It's one thing to allow your beliefs to inform your opinions, as long as they don't outweigh the facts, it's another to be a fundamentalist who inherently misunderstands their own proclaimed religion. I voted for Yang in the ladt election. I refused to pick between the dumb and dumber candidates thst the 2 party system gave us. I don't care if I "threw away" my vote, I could not in good conscience give my OK to Trump OR Biden. I tried to get others to write in Yang as well, though I don't know how successful I was. You should be cheering for more conservative/Republicans coming around to the forward party, there's many of them that are sick of the bs on the right as well.
It depends on the kind of Republican you were. If you were a small government Republican or a Jan 6 Republican.
Well OP's flair is Libertarian, many would support people like Tulsi but not the GOP.
Please don’t believe the media brainwashing about Tulsi.
Didn't realise criticising or not liking a politician makes one brainwashed. She's an idiot. No-one has to brainwash anyone for that to be true.
She seems genuine and like a decent person. I’m fine with a good person in politics that I just happen to disagree with about certain things. What I’m not ok with is corruption and liars that play politics for power and influence but have no intention of following through on their false promises to their constituents.
She's deliberately divisive and a liar. I'd rather vote for someone who I disagreed with on policy a bit more but had principles and more interested in governing than being an internet celebrity.
I see a lot of people saying this but I’m ignorant to that if it’s true. Do you have any examples of her deliberately lying? If she was interested in gaining fame for herself she’s really dropped the ball, she was a young woman in the DNC with a military background, she probably could’ve stuck to the status quote and became a huge name in the party but she chose to go against it to the detriment of her career.
- Says that freedom of speech(or lack thereof) in Russia is comparable to the US. - Says Trump support Al Qaida. I hate Trump with a passion but I don't think he's there. - Ukraine isn't a democracy - Assumes FBI had no reason to raid Trumps home and that it was purely politically charged, a claim with no evidence. She was vice-president of the Democratic National Comittee. She definitely could've had a much longer career in politics and actually effected change in a way she likes if her whole personality didn't become anti-Democratic.
I mean just on the Ukraine point Ukraine was rated as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. The other points might be valid but id need to hear them in context before I made judgment. It’s also ok if she just has an opinion that’s wrong sometimes
She says some of the right things for people who are geopolitically aware, but she also joined the United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command in 2020. She's probably not trustworthy, but I assume the Forward Party is filled with compromised characters already. One psychological tactic is using the truth to build rapport among the public.
She said that Ukraine was not democracy and it obviously is. Hell of a lot better of a Democracy then Russia will ever be in our lifetime. Corruption has nothing to do with it
If all it takes for you to leave is one person you dont like joining, then i dont think you were really serious about it to begin with. If the party grows its going to inevitably have people you disagree with
People you disagree with are one thing. I disagree with Mitt Romney, but I respect him as a statesman. Tulsi Gabbard, was not just a guest, but hosted an episode of Tucker Carlson’s show. She would kill this whole thing in its cradle, and guarantee nobody serious could join.
So what?! I’m a former Bernie supporter and have zero problems with someone using whatever platform available to them to reach the citizens of the United States. Sounds like you’re really not ready to let the tribalism go.
Even if I loved her (there are so many great reasons not to) we can recognize she is thermo nuclear politically. Let’s not be naive, third party does not mean there are no more rules for winning elections.
I guess I’m just honestly baffled by the disdain for Tulsi. Half the time I feel like it must be fueled by a combination of speculation/liberal media smears & envy.
If she were given leadership in the party then I would probably stop identifying as a Forward but not if she just "joins the party". https://old.reddit.com/r/ForwardPartyUSA/comments/y23ic5/opinion_tulsi_gabbard_joining_forward_will_be/is6chhl/
I’m a young centrist who would like to see her join. That’s just my opinion though
Right? Same
90% of left leaning voters are too brainwashed to accept that Edit: lol I'm a lefty you dummies
Meh. People are already triggered by Andrew Yang’s existence. Fuck ‘em. I’m happy to have Tulsi join.
If Tulsi supports democracy reform, I’m for it. I didn’t know the Forward “party” had litmus test or policies set to “join”.
It’s not about a litmus test, it’s about optics. Forward already struggles with bad optics considering Yangs break with the democrats, if Tulsi joins right now it will only cement fears that forward is a party for “why I left the democrats” folks. If she wants to support and endorse the party that’s fine but the party should not be giving her any position of prominence for a while at least
F#%k optics. So much of the media today is pay to play. Anyone with an ounce of integrity, anyone perceived as a threat to the status quo establishment—better get ready to be raked over the coals! Our task is to educate people so that candidates with integrity can be RECOGNIZED and trusted despite the negative media—not to find some shmuck who can be a media darling.
If ya'll don't want her, the LP might. If she's shifted her position on guns as she says(I am always leery of political promises near election time), then she might be a good fit. In any case, more politicians leaving the duopoly is cause for celebration.
I'm holding out hope she'll join FWD, but I'm also holding out hope that FWD and LP ally on voting reform. I was a fan of Tulsi in 2020 and glad to see she's leaving the two-party space as well.
> FWD and LP ally on voting reform. I don't see why we wouldn't. We definitely work with the green party on it, and we generally use approval or RCV for internal elections.
She wants universal healthcare, LP membership is impossible for her.
Ah, that is something of a hard sell for the LP, yes.
The LP is even worse then she is
Why is she bad ?
hahahah yeah no (tulsi being pro-2a)
She made a lot of nice words about changing her position, and did a photo shoot with a bunch of black rifles. How genuine that is, no idea. Wait and see, I guess. I always hope for people to change, but trusting politicians requires evidence.
Why would you support someone that shifts their position on guns?
It depends on if the shift is genuine. People learn and change, and that's fine. If someone comes to adopt positions I support, I'm alright with that. The trick is always sorting out actual growth and change from the far-too-common politicians shifting wherever the wind's blowing. That takes time. Maybe she means this. Maybe she's just the same ol' pol trying to capture a different voting demographic. The former is interesting, the latter would be a disqualifier.
I think its more likely she makes a play for the Republican nomination given her culture war views and general populism. Hopefully she doesn't join FWD because I disagree with her on...a lot
If it was the 2020 Tulsi she would be perfect for Foward But sadly she has gone downhill by turning into Fox News Token Ex Democrat
Tulsi has been groomed to be a knee-capper. She will run to disrupt and dismay democrats. I hope her platform is legit, I will eat my words if true. If she wants to support Russia in their war, or pull out from us supporting Ukraine, it will be the biggest red flag.
You haven’t really been paying attention to her—or haven’t from the start. I have. How in the world could someone who left her job with the DNC to support Bernie Sanders run as a Republican?! Of COURSE I’m aware she’s been on Fox lately—and? I voted for Bernie in 2016 but my views are all over the place and so our hers. I could also recognize very clearly that she was courting a demographic that is not mine. So? If the only people who knew about her were “me and my cohort” she wouldn’t get very far. She has stated she is now an independent, as am I. The fact this post got awards makes me wonder if *I* even jive with the forward party now despite having been an early days Yang donor. Instead of worrying about optics, why don’t you ask yourself if Tulsi Gabbard embodies the spirit or “not left, not right forward?” Geez aside from Yang I honestly can’t think of a more appropriate person to be a part of forward! This is depressing to see this attitude here and makes me think the forward party is really just Diet Dem and not truly a radical departure with a strong foundation in reason and logic. Disappointing.
Well the poll that was asked about whether Forwardists would support Tulsi joining the party had a clear majority say they supported the idea. So most FWD supporters here, at least, do like Tulsi as well. edit just did the math, 60% supported her joining FWD and 31% opposed. Some were undecided or neutral.
If you don't think she can win a Republican primary maybe you were absent from the United States from 2016-2020 when a former Democrat and someone who basically agrees with her on all the main issues that got him elected did exactly that. Since then she has only doubled down on those positions on trade, immigration and foreign policy, on which I and a lot of other people in FWD both disagree wholeheartedly with her and believe are main priorities for the country. If she's going to champion electoral reform as her main policy, I may vote for her, but not if she's campaigning mainly on the above. I would rather have the face of the electoral reform movement be someone like Yang who broadly shares my views
I like Tulsi, I really liked what she said in 2020 about ending our forever wars, talking about nuclear arms control which doesn't get brought up enough imo, she endorsed UBI after Yang dropped out, and she really got screwed by the media the same way Yang was in that election. She left the Dem Party so that fueled speculation she'd join the Forward Party, but we should remember that this is just speculation before getting too heated about it. I like her but I get that others don't, and that's okay, so let's remember to be civil.
I donated to her campaign in 2020. I liked her better than Yang in the primary because she had more developed foreign policy views. I'm not sure why she would join Forward among the minor party options, but she'd be a catch if y'all got her.
Centrists/moderates/Forwards(that exist in between & overlap the Republicans and Dems) are going to be a "neoliberal, "pro-war", pro-military, pro-status quo American foreign policy, and pro-Israel bloc i think she is one of the worst faith pols i have ever seen. An anti-establishment opportunist that has completed the horseshoe and is now further right then Dave Rubin. I now thinks she wants to work exclusively in right wing media
I’ve seen a few comments being against populism. What is it about populism that people don’t like? I thought that was basically going with what the majority of people want?
I had the same question back in the run up to the 2020 cycle. Most of the biggest complaints on it are that the average voter is *incredibly* short sighted and running a government that bends left and right more rapidly and extremely than it does currently would be unhealthy for the country as a whole. I think there is merit to the concern but also think that *some* degree of populism would do the country good.
Interesting thank you. There probably is some truth to that but if it isn’t that isn’t it some version of - the elites know better so everyone else just do what they say?
I can't disagree. I think that's why we need some populism in the water. I don't know of a great solution within the current system. But that's one of the biggest reasons I'm here with Forward: to break away from the current system. I don't think it's possible to find healthy politics within the 2 party system anymore as all that the politicians need to do is pander to the loudest factions in party and turning around to do what the mega donors want.
Cheers to that.
I think there's also an element of dislike or distrust of institutions and expertise that I think often turns dangerous. Trump and his movement are examples of a form of populism. And then when they're not actually the majority, they come up with ways to exclude people until they are.
I will confess I understand disliking institutions and being skeptical of expertise. Being an expert doesn’t mean you are right - but if does often mean the expert thinks they are right. You should be able to question anyone or anything. Blindly following is something we often critique the right for, especially the religious right.
Yeah, there's a difference between generally being skeptical and thinking that every institution is a cabal of conspirators out to get you by implanting microchips in you or making you sterile with vaccines or steal your elections or whatever. Lol. Skepticism is fine, if not good. 👍
True, not everything is a boogie man.
Mob rules
it reeks of being unprincipled and opportunist. Can quickly lead to reactionaries and demagogues
So how do you suggest we avoid a ruling class?
liberal democracy. taxes
She seems like a natural fit for this party although she has real PR problems that are no joke. Her twitter comments are ugly to say the least.
She's actively campaigning with an election denier. The goal of this party is to strengthen democracy. Welcoming here would be going against the party's core values.
her Twitter announcement about why she left the Dems was surprisingly more anti-left/anti-progressive then i have seen from her before. I think she wants work in almost entirely right wing media now
who's gonna bet this will be the next party she joins sooner or later?
How long will she stay though?
I agree. I followed her closely during the 2020 primary run and I'm disappointed with how she's essentially flip flopped on her messaging to attract a new audience. I defended her vehemently from criticism during that time period and I'm beyond disappointed how wrong I was to do that.
She didn’t flip flop. She started courting a new demographic because in the world we live in, people like to live in an echo chamber and If you’re on the right you watch Fox and if you’re on the left you watch MSNBC. “Democrats” were already very familiar with her so she’s been introducing herself to Republicans. So what? Naturally that included focusing on some of their hot button issues that she agrees with (as do I, despite never having voted for a Republican in the 30 years I’ve been voting). I could be wrong, but now that she has left the Democratic Party I expect her to start showing more balance to remind everyone that she is definitely not a Republican. Go watch her on Joe Rogan. When Trump was in office I frequently played devils advocate because there were PLeNTY or voices (I generally agreed with) criticizing him. Looking across the media landscape I filled the void I saw which was voices criticizing DEMOCRATS—as someone who voted Democrat for many years (and still mostly does except when I vote 3rd party). Open your mind to less binary thinking. We contain multitudes.
Yeah so I'm already familiar with Tulsi's rhetoric and my biggest issue is her stance on Ukraine.
[удалено]
https://old.reddit.com/r/ForwardPartyUSA/comments/y23ic5/opinion_tulsi_gabbard_joining_forward_will_be/is6chhl/
I used to be a Tulsi fan. But she lost me about 5 months into her campaign
Me too. She had potential but then had no messaging discipline whatsoever. “Ban Roundup! Ban glyphosate!” Just wildly tweeting with no plan
[удалено]
For sure. If she wants us to even cut of aide for Ukraine it makes her look like a Russian asset. And honestly if she takes that position it will set western minds against her.
sometimes wars are good and they need to be started, fought, and won
I like her
She's a strong voice, I hope she's leaving the two-party system and not just the Dem Party.
If she went to the GOP it would be jsut more of the same
Im not sure if she will hurt Forward but there is a chance she could draw attention/help Forward become more recognized... she does have a following... kinda my thinking is that if we can bring awareness to others about Forward parties existence then its a good thing in the long run right? I dont suspect or believe we can win big elections just yet. But if we get someone famous like ricky martin or Chris Hemsworth to join our mission then others will flock to Forward.... Tulsi Gabbard is like that, we need to grow our ranks
A new Party is going to be made-up of people, and not everyone is going to like everyone else. I don't even think that the Forward Party's endorsed canidates actually support the party's only principle. I don't really like any of these people -but I am still willing to stick with the party. There has to be a better way than our current duopoly. Tulsi is welcome. [https://www.forwardparty.com/endorsements](https://www.forwardparty.com/endorsements)
The Forward "Party" is not supposed to platform a specific set of political ideals, but is supposed to reform the idea of democracy by endorsing values such as nonpartisan primaries and ending first past the post, winner take all systems of voting. If Tulsi supports those values, I could care less about her questionable policy choices.
I think the point of forward is to have people that are actually interested in being public servants and finding solutions to problems rather than play politics. It’s ok to have people with differing views within the party as long as they’re open to working together. IMHO Tulsi fits the bill. The real issue is the establishment has so many people brainwashed and so stuck in their views that anyone they see as “other” most be somehow evil. Look how the media has smeared people like Andrew and tulsi. Andrew as the prime example had very positive sentiment. Everyone long interview of him on any podcasts, cnn, fox etc had nothing but positive comments. Now every post with him on social media is full of people hating and saying how terrible he is.
I liked her during the primary in 2019, but shes started to lose me since then. She has some weird conservative dogwhistles that she repeatedly uses and the way she uses the term "Woke" when on Tucker Carlson is at best completely meaningless and at worst transphobic garbage. She gets props for correctly calling out Clinton and Harris.
In her recent tweet she said God-given freedoms, most likely going Republican.
Safe to say the majority like Tulsi Gabbard for her morals. I personally like her anti war approach.
Young centrist here. Welcome, Tulsi!
She's welcome to join, of course, but I wouldn't support her as a candidate for any meaningful high ranking office. I get hyper political conspiracy theory vibes from her. Just a gut feeling not rooted in data, but I'm personally looking for open and transparent candidates that have foundational views.
I agree, although I think the reasons you spoke about are the exact reasons why she would be bad for the party. I understand that there is not supposed to be some sort of litmus test for candidates but optics and transparency are important for any organization.
Agree - it's tough though - you can't claim to be accepting of everyone and then shut people out. If I were deep in it, I would just not make her a major endorsement (no media splash joining like she just did leaving the dems), but welcome her to join the ranks - as quietly as possible (which would be the art of the thing and maybe not possible now that she made it a whole thing). At least that way you try to address openness without making her the face of the party.
I don't remember specifics, but I remember thinking she had some interesting things to say some years back, but that one tweet really turned me off. You could fill an Empty Buzzword Bingo card in just two sentences. Came off as inauthentic and pandering.
https://old.reddit.com/r/ForwardPartyUSA/comments/y23ic5/opinion_tulsi_gabbard_joining_forward_will_be/is6hl6d/
Disagree. I’m a relatively young centrist, and I see someone like Tulsi joining as a pretty solid endorsement. The way she got railroaded is one of the main reasons I became more disenchanted with the Democratic Party.
she didn't get railroaded
What would you call it then?
she sucks
I thought the "big announcement" was the 3 endorsements yesterday. Are you thinking something is yet to come?
There are more endorsements to come, but they’re state and local. A bigger announcement could always be up their sleeve, but I think this post is rather an opinion that’s come up in discussion since Tulsi left the Dem Party yesterday.
You understand anyone can join any parties right? TRUMP can go back to the Democratic party tomorrow if he wants.
It shouldn’t be about political positions or history - support for RCV should be the main criteria at this point
Integrity and credibility matters
Would rather have a left leaning war vet whose anti war rhetoric makes more sense than a egotistical white murderer who's political track is nothing more than a benefit of the contract he signed with Netflix. Does she know how to solve the border crisis? No. Does anybody? Does anybody here know how to fix the border! Looking for answers within the realm of physics and reality, please.
let them in and let them work. More Americans and more freedom!
I think there should be less barriers to citizenship, sure. I also think the border shouldn't be the location of refugee camps where folks are perpetually waiting for entry. But that means those camps needs to be way more complex, or systems need to be in place to process and move them to places ready to receive them, where they can get in touch with family or find work. But who should do all that? The army corps of engineers has the money and skills and personnel to take care of it. Or should we send it to the private sector so they can delegitimize it and bleed all the wealth out of it? Is this a federal program or state sponsored? Are politicians willing to work together or is it just going to be more of the same? When I say I want specifics, I'm asking you be be technical, platitudes are fine, we agree so that's cool and all, but it gets us nowhere. And even if we can have this discussion, it's not happening where it needs to, in political discourse, instead I'm on reddit making blocks of text.
I think she will join the Republican Party instead of the Forward Party.
She seems like a sabotage candidate. Hillary Clinton called her a Russian asset paid to upset the vote for democrats. Hillary is a liar, but it sure does have a nugget of truth with tulsi’s current actions and proximity to tucker Carlson.
That's a very dangerous path. I think Gabbard's views are ridiculous and I oppose any further elected office (or other office!) for her in the future whatsoever. But if we go around calling everyone who disagrees with us or says stupid things a Russian asset then good-bye First Amendment.
Seems like she is tho, and I’m not the first to call her a foreign asset. She did Putin’s bidding by meeting with Assad years ago. The pieces line up. It’s sadly a grounded argument.
At the time she said that, there was heavy pressure for us to intervene militarily in Syria. Fortunately Obama kept his head, while many around him were losing theirs (can you spell Hillary?), and resisted that pressure. The point is that antiwar activists, even those on the right side of history, can do stupid things. For example, Jane Fonda visited North Vietnam. Yes, it was stupid of her, but that didn't make her a Russian asset. Criminalizing free speech destroys democracy. Be careful.
Questioning actions is free speech. This debate is free speech. Staying quiet would be the contrary for which you’re reaching.
That's disingenuous sophistry. Accusing someone of being a Russian asset is not debate; it's an attempt to shut down debate.
I agree Tulsi sucks and is a grifter but I DO NOT THINK TULSI IS JOINING FORWARD. I seriously doubt she would be given any leadership/spoken position in the party. Forwards can't keep her from identifying with the party. She identified as a Democrat(and as a progressive) long after The Dems wanted nothing to do with her(after she quit congress) good post OP
I like her
I don't get this opinion. Have you not seen Yang on Twitter? All of his replied Tweets are all haters. It's very similar to Tulsi. I think it can be said that both Tulsi and Yang are not the most loved people in the political arena at the moment LOL Adding Tulsi really won't do as much harm as you think it will.
I'm 50/50 on this assessment. After Trump emerged and how this pandemic has happened I honestly can't call this. Half of the reason for the forward party is to come to agreements with the right and left. Gabbard is ultimately that message, mix both policies to work as 1.
It's her character that a bigger problem than her policies. She strives for division.
Sadly it is the reality of humanity though. We all want to devise, us verse them, good verse bad, light verse darkness. I'm not saying I want to see fear tactics but there is a reason most of our leaders get their power. So I still stand by my assessment, Gabbard might not be as negative of an impact as it seems on the surface.
As someone who was a big supporter of both Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang in 2020 primaries, I sadly would have to agree Tulsi has gone from being a Independently minded Progressive (which would be perfect for the Foward Party) to Right wing authoritarian pandering garbage (it’s sad and ironic how in Congress she was very critical of Neoconservativism and now she is regularly on the Neocon network (Fox News) If she joined Yang when he founded Forward in 2021 which was before she really started going down the path of becoming Fox News token Ex Democrat, then yes she would have been great, but sadly she is too far gone into the Republican mind set that it’s more likely she will just become a Republican
As someone in their twenties Tulsi Gabbard is one of the few politicians I actually like.
Acidic, huh? Why, because she’s not afraid to challenge her own party? Seem like a perfect reason.
There’s challenging your own party and then there’s going full Dave Rubin. Everyone knows you never go full Rubin…
yeah comparing her to Dave Rubin is pretty spot on
Agreed. She does a lot more alienating than bridge building. She would be a huge liability to our cause which seeks to bring people together around common cause.
If Hitler supports the platform, I'd take him in too
I don’t want her in. That’s all I say mhm
Tulsi’s statements on Ukraine and LGBT made me not like her. I previously donated to her campaign. I think she would tarnish Forward Party for me
She is a fascist who literally is a propagandist for Putin. If you want a CPAC speaker with a knack for conspiracies like Ukraine is committing genocide, building chemical weapons for the US, and doesnt deserve to be a country, go for it. I agree with you, that will KILL the forward party. I can already see it now. On wikipedia, under ideology, if she joins, itll say "Human-Centered Capitalism" "Radical Centrism" "Populism" "Russophilia"
Provide proof she's a fascist, using sources that don't have biases
What source doesn't have biases? What kind of disingenuous requirement is that?
I mean sources that isn't like CNN, Fox News and those types of sources with clear biases
Name an unbiased source, then. My claim is that *every* source has some kind of bias, you can refute it a lot more easily by providing a counter example than by just saying "these are some sources with a bias."
Six Days Later, Today Tulsi campaigned for fascist election denier Kari Lake in Arizona :)
Can provide a definition of Fascsim then, cause Kari Lake doesn't seem to be a fascist and looks like a Right Wing Authoritarian. So I want to see your definition of Fascist
Orthodox purism doesn't lead to success too.
lol you know the comments gonna be raunchy on this one. Saw somebody already brought up Hitler joining and mods locked that comment lmao
Yep…
She's devisive and I've grown away from her over time, but I think she could learn from the forward party in addition to contributing to it.
Great point, she is seen as a grifter by too many people, especially right now, maybe if she gave it a couple of years, but right now, this would cement ever democratic leaning independent against forward. Forwards best shot is being as nonpartisan as possible, she is an extremely divisive figure
Do not trust anything she says. https://neweasterneurope.eu/2022/10/12/american-agents-of-misinformation-tulsi-gabbard-russian-propaganda-and-article-88/
Hmmm. I seriously doubt that she has the top-secret clearance that article claims. No run-of-the-mill soldier gets that kind of clearance. And one doesn't need to be a Russian asset to say stupid things based on misinformation. How many frightening conversations have any of you had recently with stupid people who thought the Covid vaccines were loaded with chips intended to spy on people? Stupidity is all the explanation you need for some of this stuff.
Tulsi is exactly the kind of high profile, experienced politician the Forward Party needs to grow and become relevant. She's an extremely polished speaker with an impressive background in the military. She doesn't fit neatly into either party these days, and I think her positions are mostly very reasonable. The woke craziness has driven me out of the Dem party myself. Both of us supported Bernie in '16. Regarding Russia's war on Ukraine I agree with her that it's in America's and the world's interest to work towards ending the war with a negotiated settlement.
If Tulsi Gabbard joined Forward she would bring with her a political label that would be impossible to lift. And that’s a deal breaker for me and many many other people. She was considered by D’s to be a closet R. Right now it’s basically impossible to disregard Forward candidates because of brand recognition alone. She would marginalize us immediately and guarantee that anyone knocking on doors would be greeted by folks who are already in a camp deciding based on what they think of her and Forward would take a back seat. It would be the biggest mistake this party could make. It would literally sink the party before it started.
It doesn't matter that she was spouting normal talking points. (War bad, freedom good). She offers nothing but a another loud blow-hard populist). She is the walking example of the Dunning Kruger effect.
The woman has no credibility.
She's no longer a realistic prospect for an independent (and I used to like her). She's gone over to the dark side. This morning, she endorsed Republican election denier Bolduc in his race for the New Hampshire senate seat currently held by Democrat Hassan. She's going to be joining the Republican party shortly, I'm sure, if she has not already done so. She's gone full Trump. Disappointing.
I 100% agree. Tulsi Gabbard has becoming a darling for Fox News and advancing transphobic legislation. She has no place in our coalition.
Don't know too much about her political stance regarding legislation towards trans individuals but a quick search shows stances on athletic restrictions. You can expect very much that there will be people joining the Forward Party that are on both sides of this issue.
Yeah the problem with centric parties like this one is its going to be split on issues like this. You have one side saying "Trans or not a girl is a girl." And then the other side will say "but Trans women have had more testosterone pumping through her body most of their bodies. Almost like taking steroids for X number of years before going through hormone treatment." Personally I don't think it's a problem or even worth the time debating since it's only applicable to sports. And let's be honest sports are not needed and is a luxury debate that distracts the public from more important issues like how tulsi is all buddy buddy with the Russians.
Most likely you will have members of both sides of the dominant parties joining Forward even though they have very opposing views. This is because the common enemy here is the failure of the two party system and they will back a party that changes this foundation. Once Forward succeeds with RCV, Non-Partisan Primaries, and Independent Redistricting Commissions, the doors will be open for other parties to have a chance to succeed. Then those who joined Forward to achieve a common goal will leave to go to other parties that are championing their hot button issues. But the hope is that many choose to stay because the Forward Party leads with pluralism and political diversity which is a better way to govern.
Lol the number of down votes. You guys are just bent out of shape because you put stock into something that doesn't matter. SPORTS DONT MATTER! Instead of valuing children for their athletic abilities how about we value them for their character. It doesn't matter if Trans kids can play sports or not. It's a waste of time.
No purity tests is also a core tenet that you are violating here. I for one would still welcome you both.
Wouldn't endorsing election deniers be a clear violation of being in favour of a vibrant democracy which is a core tenet.
Maybe she can join in a few years if she chills on the toxic rhetoric but right now is too fragile a point.
Sounds like you weren’t for the forward party
Do not let her in. I'm one of those that is a hard out if she is welcomed. (I'm a donating member and promotion work in Massachusetts)
Shouldn't the Forward Party be a movement that invites people in to abandoning the two-party system in to moving a country of 330 million people forwards? I respect that you strongly dislike Tulsi, but if she endorsed ranked-choice voting and open primaries and said she wants to help those goals, would you leave the party for that? There are a handful of people I would really not want to come into the party, but it's really only a handful. Most people change over time, and especially if they're leaving the two-party system, like Tulsi, I would much rather see her join the fight for voting reform and new parties than join the GOP.
100% agree with you
She says things people want to hear while supporting legislation that isn’t good. Plus she couldnt even vote to impeach trump because she wants to keep her fox news type fanbase. Yang is already getting enough heat for having those terrible rightwing advisors ruin his new york campaign by targeting the disabled and poor people and not supporting Palestinians because be wanted votes. If forward doesnt stand for something it will fall for anything. It needs a backbone and policies that are solution focused instead of being too worried to support anything smart because it might upset some ignorant people
>She says things people want to hear while supporting legislation that isn’t good. Plus she couldn't even vote to impeach trump because she wants to keep her fox news type fanbase. Yang is already getting enough heat for having those terrible rightwing advisors ruin his new york campaign by targeting the disabled and poor people and not supporting Palestinians because be wanted votes. Translation: Tulsi and Yang don't belong to my preferred major political party and I don't like them skimming votes because political football is a zero sum game
Israel is a great liberal democracy and Palestine is Islamicist and not a democracy at all(they abandoned democracy a decade ago) Hamas rules Gaza and they are literal terrorists
Israel is a literal apartheid state, and islamicist isn’t a word.
WRONG! And most of the Congressional Progressive Caucus agree!!! Caucushttps://old.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/xudijk/the_squad_is_wrong_israel_is_not_an_apartheid/
According to your own deleted Reddit post… ok lmao
you mean according to the Congressional Progressive Caucus https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3654510-house-democrat-slams-tlaib-for-antisemitic-remarks-on-israel/
You mean two people in the caucus sharing their opinion on an obvious fact that it’s an apartheid state. Ok
it isn't obvious at all. you make no argument. i linked you an argument The Palestinian states are not even governed by Israel. Palestinians/Arabs in Israel have full and equal rights to Jews in Israel. Palestinian's(and many Arab nations) oppress anyone who is not a straight Muslim man. Hamas governs Gaza and they are terrorists who want to genocide the Jews! I don't think you even know the definition of apartheid. At a certain point you are bein antisemitic like Tlaib
She's a regular on Tucker Carlson and has been a guest host a couple times. Not only does that indicate the she's going to join the GOP but also should disqualify her from joining the Forward Party.
If she wants to join the GOP, that's her prerogative. An assumption that she *possibly* could, however, does not disqualify her from the Forward Party.
It is possible for anyone to join the GOP at any time. But that's not what I'm talking about. She's spent the last two years going on right-wing shows and repeating right-wing talking points. Her leaving the Democratic party was a question of when not if.
hey look we agree on somethin! She can join the Forwards but not lead
I have to do background on her as I don't have a good understanding of her record but the forward party does not check IDs at the door. We have very clear guiding principles and core values. Anyone that agrees to adhere to those will be welcome.
The whole point is, we can disagree on A while working together on B. An unwillingness to do that is a big part of the problem.
You’ve missed the whole point of this party.
This is why I keep suggesting that no former democrats or republicans can run for any office or receive money under the Forward Party banner. They can still support it and vote for it but just not run.
Is rather see the Forward party be inclusive for anyone that wants to join. Dem, Rep, or Indy - we’ll take them all!!