Active Now

Randy D
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Chickensh** deadhead usually go together. This time a chickensh** woman votes PRESENT. Tulsie Gabby?

Chickensh** deadhead usually go together. This time a chickensh** woman votes PRESENT. Tulsie Gabby?

Allegedly a DEM whose ties are supportive of RUSSIA and allegiance is to the deadhead but is too chickensh** to be a Republican? I don't get it. What the he** is PRESENT supposed to mean other than an admission of COWARDICE DUPLICITY WORTHLESSNESS?

Posted - December 19, 2019

Responses


  • 32700
    Tulsi should have voted No.

    She is not a Rep. She agrees with Dem party positions.

    Good for her showing some courage. It would have been more courageous to vote No though. As 3 other Dems did. 
      December 19, 2019 7:01 AM MST
    0

  • 19942
    Voting "present" is not courageous.  Voting the courage of your convictions is.  That tells me she has no convictions, not an admirable trait for a supposed presidential candidate.
      December 19, 2019 7:51 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    She has been outed as being a Russian "useful idiot" though she masquerades as a Dem. Poor us. Her kind is unwanted by anyone who cares about America. Tulsie Gabbard..tulsie gabby. Flabby tabby. Useless. Thank you for your reply L and Happy Thursday! :)
      December 19, 2019 11:15 AM MST
    1

  • 19942
    I agree.  Happy Thursday. :)
      December 19, 2019 11:22 AM MST
    0

  • 32700
    And Reps get accused of spouting conspiracy theories. 

    Hillary lost..she needs to realize it was her fault. And just go away. 
      December 19, 2019 11:31 AM MST
    0

  • Since the Democrat Party in recent months have treated the lady like she was dirt, or worse, like something they scrapped off their shoes after walking the streets of San Francisco, she was completely within her rights to thumb her nose at their malevolent machinations. With the speed at which the capricious Dems change the rules of the game, it's amazing that you can actually still vote "present".
      December 19, 2019 9:56 AM MST
    1

  • 1152
    There is a 2 word reply to your post above:

    Merrick Garland.

    OK, that was more than 2 words but the point stands. If GOP is OK with Turtle McConnell arbitrarily deciding not to consider Supreme Court nominees because...well, because it's not to his partisan political advantage to do so, then GOP have ZERO basis for whinging about how the Democrats are "changing the rules of the game."  This post was edited by my2cents at December 19, 2019 11:42 AM MST
      December 19, 2019 10:15 AM MST
    1

  • 1152
    I would like to note the grammatical errors introduced into my post above were due to the editing of....not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent...another person, with whom I have significant disagreements about what constitutes a "personal attack" versus attacking very poorly presented arguments.





    This post was edited by SaltyPebble at December 20, 2019 4:22 AM MST
      December 19, 2019 3:01 PM MST
    1

  • 113301
    Wasn't that George H.W. Bush who was all about "prudent"? Didn't Dana Carvey do a masterful takeoff on that as part of his schtick? Gonna ask a question about it kinda sorta.
      December 20, 2019 4:23 AM MST
    0

  • 1152
    That was, indeed, Dana Carvey doing his wonderful Bush 41 impression.

    Gosh, remember those days when we worried about the GOP being indifferent to people's suffering instead of scrambling like mad to try to stop them from generating it?
      December 20, 2019 7:24 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    I surely do. Them wuz the days my friend we thought they'd never end....! SIGH. Thank you for your reply SP and Happy Friday to thee! :)
      December 20, 2019 7:28 AM MST
    0