>>10274672

Gabbard is certainly no conservative, however defined. But we should keep in mind that coalition-building is a thing, and Reagan brought together disparate groups under a larger umbrella who otherwise agreed on nothing. Given what we're facing, casting a wide net is good strategy, and if Gabbard gives a speech it will not signal the transformation of the party agenda, but highlight the broad appeal of Trump's message, and show people all over the country that differences can be set aside to focus on the most pressing issues.

I'm for it.

>>10274713

She's always been fairly measured in her speech. Should she be afforded the opportunity to speak at the Repub convention, her career in the Dem party is over for good. Why burn down a second bridge?

>>10274723

Swing states can turn on only 1,000 votes, and there are a lot of pissed of Dems that are looking for a reason to support the other side. Paul Ryan is a greater threat to our movement than Tulsi Gabbard.

>>10274724

Nobody ever said that, but popular presidents cut across party lines. They always have.

>>10274748

I specifically stated she was no conservative, and I don't want her ideas in the Repub party, outside of foreign policy, only the votes she would bring. If a leftist picks one issue and votes for Trump, then I'll take their vote, wouldn't you? She could bring some of those votes. And you overestimate the reach my comments have within the wider movement. Calling me a shill is just plain dumb.

>>10274791

>once a commie always a commie

not always

Certainly Kyleigh will get a Q question today…right?

KEK