She's the Democrat Party's version of Liz Cheney. Opportunistic sell outs who should never be welcomed with any opened arms by anyone.

She's the Democrat Party's version of Liz Cheney. Opportunistic sell outs who should never be welcomed with any opened arms by anyone.

I too, smell an opportunist.

I too, smell an opportunist.

Really?

An opportunist, by definition, takes advantage of any opportunity to achieve an end, often with no regard for principles or consequences.

So, is she an opportunist, or do her principles just conflict with the 2A community and the implementation of certain rights?

Mitt Romney gave an early morning press conference just after the Benghazi attack hours before Obama gave his statement before jetting off to Vegas to campaign.  That's an opportunist in full form.

So, is she an opportunist, or do her principles just conflict with the 2A community and the implementation of certain rights?

So you've characterized her as either an opportunist or someone who's principles are against the implementation of rights that will protect or advance the 2nd Ammendment.

In the same way anyone on the right would scorn some turncoat like Liz Cheney, why would anyone on the right welcome someone like Tulsi who is cut from the same cloth?

So you've characterized her as either an opportunist or someone who's principles are against the implementation of rights that will protect or advance the 2nd Ammendment.

In the same way anyone on the right would scorn some turncoat like Liz Cheney, why would anyone on the right welcome someone like Tulsi who is cut from the same cloth?

I'm simply pointing out that someone acting on their principles and values is not an opportunist -- by definition.

I'm simply pointing out that someone acting on their principles and values is not an opportunist -- by definition.

Fair. I should not have characterized her as an opportunist.

At the same time, sounds like her principles and values are contrary to the 2A.

So then why bother celebrating her leaving the Democratic party? Why bother opining if she is pro-2A?

I'd trust some anti gun progressive from deep blue NYC to tell me that he hates me than some "former Democrat" like Tulsi Gabbard making grand statements about how she's leaving the Democrats for any reason other than that it promotes her brand.

Let's not also remember that being a "maverick" in terms of political parties is an attractive storyline that the MSM on both sides loves to gobble up. You can thank the late king of RINOs John McCain for that. The fool spawned people like Tulsi and Liz Cheney.

So yes, you are right that she's not an opportunist. She's just an attention ho`

Fair. I should not have characterized her as an opportunist.

At the same time, sounds like her principles and values are contrary to the 2A.

So then why bother celebrating her leaving the Democratic party? Why bother opining if she is pro-2A?

I'd trust some anti gun progressive from deep blue NYC to tell me that he hates me than some "former Democrat" like Tulsi Gabbard making grand statements about how she's leaving the Democrats for any reason other than that it promotes her brand.

Let's not also remember that being a "maverick" in terms of political parties is an attractive storyline that the MSM on both sides loves to gobble up. You can thank the late king of RINOs John McCain for that. The fool spawned people like Tulsi and Liz Cheney.

So yes, you are right that she's not an opportunist. She's just an attention ho`

Money -- plain and simple.

The fewer highly visible Democrats out campaign fundraising, the smaller the party's "war chest" for Democrat candidates.

Since she began running for office in the 2014 election cycle, she's raised $7,776,251. 

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/tulsi-gabbard/summary?cid=N00033281&cycle=CAREER&type=I

....
An opportunist, by definition, takes advantage of any opportunity to achieve an end, often with no regard for principles or consequences.
....

Notice your own definition does not use the word "always", but rather "often"... could as well be "sometimes" or "occasionally".

She's "tak[ing] advantage of an opportunity to achieve an end", with or without "regard for principles or consequences".

She's an opportunist.

Notice your own definition does not use the word "always", but rather "often"... could as well be "sometimes" or "occasionally".

She's "tak[ing] advantage of an opportunity to achieve an end", with or without "regard for principles or consequences".

She's an opportunist.

"Always" indicates without exception.  In labeling human behavior there are always exceptions.

My point is, even IF she's taking advantage of an opportunity -- an opportunity to do WHAT, you haven't said -- it doesn't mean she's not doing it because she's just as pissed at the double standards as we are.  Maybe she got her hopes up that Trump would actually get us out of these never-ending foreign wars, and then Biden comes along to start new ones?  Maybe she saw change in our relationship with N. Korea only to have Biden screw that up, and now Rocket Man has tested what? 6 missiles in a little over a week?

Maybe the way Biden is trampling on the 1A via Social Media and MSM censorship of opposing ideas and criticism, giving tons of money and weapons to Ukraine while trying to give the ATF more power to harass legal gun owners here while telling the people to "suck it up" over inflation and oil prices is part of it?

Maybe she realized the decisions being made in DC are no longer part of the Democrat Party's stated platform, but are part of an agenda that she never signed onto.

If we have to trust someone in high level politics, how about naming someone YOU'D trust.  Not a new candidate, but someone who's done the job, is electable, and who can "lure" others from that party to join them.

I heartily welcome her to join the Independent Party -- which historically syphons votes from the Democrats.

By your definition, anyone who takes an opportunity to achieve something they want is an opportunist regardless of motive.  Maybe that includes you, too?

Easy there Flapper.
And that was a shit ton of “maybe”s

An opportunist, by definition, takes advantage of any opportunity to achieve an end, often with no regard for principles or consequences.

Yup.

Except you’re wrong on no regard for consequences. She knows the consequences fall In her financial favor. She has regard for the consequences.
So what does that make her “by definition” ?

She’s not electable on any level in this State. She’s not looking to get elected and can’t lure anyone.
Opportunity to do what ? Make the almighty dollar and maybe be famous.

True story ...

I was watching Scream tonight since it's getting close to Halloween -- I like scary movies during October.

Finished the first movie, and started Scream 2.

About 3 minutes ago I was thinking about how the reporter and author Gale Weathers (played by Courteney Cox) was the epitome of the label "opportunist," since it was not that long after discussing the definition here.

Not more than a couple minutes later, while Randy and Dewey are discussing potential suspects in the recent murders, Randy says, "How about Gale weathers?" 

Dewey says, "Gale?  A killer?"

Randy:  "Sure.  Why not?"

Dewey:  "Well, she is vicious."

Randy:  "She's an opportunist.  Isn't it conceivable she's planning her next book?"

Just thought I'd toss that out here for poops and laughter.

Easy there Flapper.
And that was a shit ton of “maybe”s

Yup.

Except you’re wrong on no regard for consequences. She knows the consequences fall In her financial favor. She has regard for the consequences.
So what does that make her “by definition” ?

She’s not electable on any level in this State. She’s not looking to get elected and can’t lure anyone.
Opportunity to do what ? Make the almighty dollar and maybe be famous.

Sorry but that makes zero sense. Clintons, Pelosis, Bushes, Obamas, Cheneys and Bidens rake in hundreds of millions of dollars selling out this nation and enjoy protection from the intelligence agencies, mainstream media, big tech, and the Chinese Communist Party.

They are literally sending goon squads and the IRS to kick down the doors of their political enemies and stealing elections out in the open.

Tulsi was set for life if she played ball and went along with stealing the nomination from Bernie, but now she has a target on her back.

You may not agree with her, but this woman is the real deal. We just haven’t seen it in so long that nobody remembers what it looks like.

And I thought you were in the know….

President, speaker of House, President, President, Vice President, President…who is Tulsi ?
She’s now a talking head. (And set for life.)
I hope you’re right HvyB.
But right now she’s a clown like Tucker.

Definitely zero effect on Hawaii.
Nationally…who gives a rat’s ass about Tulsi ? Other than as a talking head ?

https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/tulsi-gabbard-totalitarian-demands-guns/389654

“We could go on, but the point is made: “Conservative” media outlets are happy to bring their viewers and readers statements from Gabbard they can agree with, and then form positive opinions that she’s somehow a “good Democrat.” No doubt she had made some declarations we can all agree with, but there’s one other common factor all such stories seem to share:

None of them also reveal that she is a citizen disarmament extremist.

“Tulsi has a consistent record of advocating for sensible gun control,” a 2018 campaign statement announced. “She has long called for reinstating a federal ban on military-style assault weapons and high capacity magazines, requiring comprehensive pre-purchase background checks, closing the gun-show loophole, and making sure that terrorists are not allowed to buy guns. Tulsi has an F-rating from the NRA, a 0% rating by the Hawaii Rifle Association, and a 100% rating by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “

She’s a sheep in wolf’s clothing. IMO.

 Someone tried to kill a scotus justice and then they gave us Concealed Carry. A lot of folks don’t understand gun rights until it takes on a personal meaning. Now she’s a free agent so she doesn’t have to follow the party line.

I thought politicians went into "news" after departing office.
Isn't Gabbard a Fox contributor?

I am going with the opportunist.  If you tread over to her main page, https://www.tulsigabbard.com/ you can bounce to her substack.  She has up her address to the people as to why she has left the communist party.  I don't think it is fair to deceased democrats to call it the democratic party. 
Anyway this is just snipped out from her address. 
"Today’s Democratic Party does not believe in our constitutionally protected right to bear arms. Our founders passed the Second Amendment out of a recognition that every one of us has a right to defend ourselves and our loved ones, and to serve as a check on a tyrannical government seeking to take away our God-given freedoms. The Democratic Party’s hatred of the Second Amendment and their increasing authoritarian instincts pose a serious threat to our freedoms. "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” Beto O'Rourke said at a debate when he was running for president. Our founders intentionally passed the Second Amendment right after the First Amendment. The majority ruling from the recent Supreme Court ruling striking down New York’s law that barred people from concealed carry firearms summarized very clearly why Democrats are wrong to try to take away our rights: “Just as we do not need to seek a permit to stand on the street corner and exercise our right to free speech, we shouldn’t have to seek permission for a law abiding citizen to carry their firearm. We as a society don’t get to pick and choose which of our rights in the constitution are more worthy of protecting than another.”  Protecting our freedom to defend ourselves and those we love, and protecting our rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution against a tyrannical power is exactly why we must ensure our right to bear arms “shall not be infringed.”"
https://tulsi.substack.com/p/why-im-leaving-the-democratic-party
These are, as demonstrated by her past voting record, her new values.  She may have fought and possibly bled for her country but does this match to what her past actions, in congress, have shown?

I thinking we give her the tissue treatment.  Use her for what we need, wrap her up after we are done and toss her in the trash. 
Half of what you see and none of what you hear.

The “Fox News Opportunist” talking points some of you guys are repeating are the exact same ones coming form the left

That’s because they all eliminated from the same CIA echo chamber

She’s the only anti regime change national figure right now, and regime change is the only reason the CIA exists

I want to see all of her arguments and reputed facts that she used to justify her support and vote for "an assault weapons ban" compared to her "new found" arguments and reputed facts about why Americans should own "assault weapons" if they so choose. A clear, detailed "Then" and "Now" with a large column for "Why". "Everything I KNEW was wrong!"

Same with all her other bullsh*t arguments/facts re abortion, Green New Deal, free college, etc., including those subjects (like abortion, Green New Deal, free college, etc.) upon which she apparently hasn't changed her mind.

Seems only fair, transparent and honest to reveal both what she really believes, and why. What "new" facts led her diametrically opposing conclusions from just two years ago.

Otherwise, some people might think she might be saying what she's saying (exclusively?) for personal gain.

The “Fox News Opportunist” talking points some of you guys are repeating are the exact same ones coming form the left

That’s because they all eliminated from the same CIA echo chamber

She’s the only anti regime change national figure right now, and regime change is the only reason the CIA exists

Every once in a while even "the left" and/or the CIA utter a non-false statement.

Or are you claiming that every utterance by "the left" and/or the CIA, ever, have been and are false?

Every once in a while even "the left" and/or the CIA utter a non-false statement.

Or are you claiming that every utterance by "the left" and/or the CIA, ever, have been and are false?

I’m saying that when we hear some people on the right start repeating the exact same word-for-word talking points as the leftist mainstream media then maybe it’s not a coincidence