Tulsi Gabbard 2020

[Anonymous]

Anti-Muslim. Not a fan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anti-Muslim. Not a fan.

Who is anti-muslim? You or Gabbard? If you are saying Gabbard is, how do you know? Give evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-Muslim. Not a fan.

Who is anti-muslim? You or Gabbard? If you are saying Gabbard is, how do you know? Give evidence.

What reasons would you support her over Elizabeth Warren and Julian Castro?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As has been well-reported, she is a member of a cult. Optically, not where we want to be as a presidential candidate.

Wow, what a total kook.

Apparently anti-homosexuality was a major tenet of her family’s cultish religion. Her current husband was also raised in the same Hare Krishna religious group.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_6879588

Oh! Are you saying Christianity - Protestant, denominational, non-denominational, evangelical, and Catholic, Judaism, Islam, and whole bunch of other religions embrace, promote, give equal prominence, conduct same-sex marriages, promote LGBTQ to pastor/priesthood/rabbi/imam, etc. It is news to me. By the way, Gabbard's is not a religious cult. She and her family practice Hinduism. Hare Krishna is no more a cult than various segments of Christianity or Judaism, or Islam or whatever. If you don't know something better to cap your you know what instead of farting on this forum!

Your reading comprehension is very poor. She was a member of the Science of Identity Foundation - which is a cult.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe

[Anonymous]

So far no one who has announced will get my vote and none could beat Trump. Dems need a Midwest moderate who can attract moderate republicans who dislike Trump but would never vote for Warren, Sanders and the like. Dems lost in 2016 because people hated Clinton and would vote for anyone but her. And so we got Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So far no one who has announced will get my vote and none could beat Trump. Dems need a Midwest moderate who can attract moderate republicans who dislike Trump but would never vote for Warren, Sanders and the like. Dems lost in 2016 because people hated Clinton and would vote for anyone but her. And so we got Trump.

Exactly. 100%

[Anonymous]

Gretchen Whitmer?
Sherrod Brown?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So far no one who has announced will get my vote and none could beat Trump. Dems need a Midwest moderate who can attract moderate republicans who dislike Trump but would never vote for Warren, Sanders and the like. Dems lost in 2016 because people hated Clinton and would vote for anyone but her. And so we got Trump.

People hated Clinton because of an extended smear campaign that played directly into Trump's attack dog methods. Almost anyone who can successfully counter his attacks will beat him, and anyone who can't will lose. It doesn't matter if they are right, left or upside down, except on the issue of immigration. Trump made immigration an issue, but it's clear he has no real solutions. So the Democratic nominee will need a plausible plan for immigration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As has been well-reported, she is a member of a cult. Optically, not where we want to be as a presidential candidate.

Wow, what a total kook.

Apparently anti-homosexuality was a major tenet of her family’s cultish religion. Her current husband was also raised in the same Hare Krishna religious group.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_6879588

Oh! Are you saying Christianity - Protestant, denominational, non-denominational, evangelical, and Catholic, Judaism, Islam, and whole bunch of other religions embrace, promote, give equal prominence, conduct same-sex marriages, promote LGBTQ to pastor/priesthood/rabbi/imam, etc. It is news to me. By the way, Gabbard's is not a religious cult. She and her family practice Hinduism. Hare Krishna is no more a cult than various segments of Christianity or Judaism, or Islam or whatever. If you don't know something better to cap your you know what instead of farting on this forum!

What makes that a cult and Catholicism not a cult? All religions are cults.

Your reading comprehension is very poor. She was a member of the Science of Identity Foundation - which is a cult.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe

[Anonymous]

I've not seen one supported "fact" or reasonable opinion on this thread to support the vitriol I'm seeing directed toward her here.

I see a lot of blathering. Lots of blathering. But nothing of substance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-Muslim. Not a fan.

Who is anti-muslim? You or Gabbard? If you are saying Gabbard is, how do you know? Give evidence.

She’s a Steve Bannon acolyte. Let her in and it’s like the Trojan horse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've not seen one supported "fact" or reasonable opinion on this thread to support the vitriol I'm seeing directed toward her here.

I see a lot of blathering. Lots of blathering. But nothing of substance.

There are quotes of her own words. Read better.

[Anonymous]

We now have the gadfly of the field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The gay rights stuff is concerning, but the complaints about her meeting Assad are totally ignorant and uniformed. Gabbard is the only Dem in the field who actually wants to place limits on US wars abroad. Vast majority of "progressive" democrats are just totally in the dark about foreign policy and war.

I personally think that Putin was right about Assad, and that typical Syrians would be much better off living under the rule of an authoritarian dictator than with going through a civil war. Assad wasn’t evil enough to justify a civil war.

But Putin is trying to herd US here into having a hot civil war. He wants us to be at war with Canada, and the United Kingdom to be at war with Germany.

Putin hasn’t done one thing to try to clear away the impression that he’s trying to manipulate us, and to use poisonings and mass shootings to scare our leaders into doing his bidding.

Under these circumstances, distance from Putin’s grasp is more important than subtlety or accuracy of foreign policy thought.

Right now, I’d much rather have a candidate who’s a strong supporter of the EU, NATO, the World Bank, the IMF, and other international agreements and institutions than a candidate who’s right about a particular course of action.

All of those institutions have their faults, but this is a time to wear blindfolds and stick with the institutions, not to
let Putin use images of institutional horrors herd us into destroying ourselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've not seen one supported "fact" or reasonable opinion on this thread to support the vitriol I'm seeing directed toward her here.

I see a lot of blathering. Lots of blathering. But nothing of substance.

She openly sided with Putin’s darling against U.S. interests, and, no matter what her current position is, she said absurdly, insanely hateful things about gay people. What other facts do we need?