Tulsi Gabbard 2020

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

thanks for a thoughtful comment. But, I'm still not comfortable with how comfortable/incurious progressives are about what happened in Yemen under Obama and now Trump's watch. I've been reading more about Gabbard today and people are making a persuasive argument that she's anti-Islamic radical terrorism, not anti-war. But I'm having a hard time processing why that's so bad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

How is civil war in Syria in the US interests? serious question.

[Anonymous]

Homophobic with cult ties. No way she makes it to the round of 15.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

How is civil war in Syria in the US interests? serious question.

In my opinion: Putin was at least temporarily right about Syria, in a depressing way. The United States hasn’t benefited from civil war in Syria. In Syria: in the long run, the United States has a stake in easing Assad out and judging Syria toward being less repressive. In the short run, the United States and Russia both had a shared interest in Syria beings place where children can live in houses and grow up to be adults.

But the United States has an interest in Poland and Scandinavia having self-determination, in Alaska continuing to be a U.S. state, and in submarine-launched missiles not wiping out the cities on the coasts. We can’t have another president who puts Poland on a plate and asks Putin if he wants that with whipped cream or with sprinkles.

[Anonymous]

Previously I was neutral; now I'm leaning towards a hard pass. I don't care who you are. If you don't like members of the LGBTQ community getting to enjoy the same rights that I do as a cis straight male, I'm not going to support you. Period.

[Anonymous]

Lesbian here. Hard pass.

[Anonymous]

She was a conservative until she wanted to run for office. And now she pretends to be somewhat liberal. That is why the crazies here like her. Hard no.

[Anonymous]

Obama’s political stance was against gay marriage to until he flip flopped. All politicians go the direction that best serves them in the moment.

One of his many quotes on the topic.

“He also says, repeatedly, that he is against gay marriage. “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix,” he tells pastor Rick Warren at the Saddleback Presidential Forum”

http://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-rights/
.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/11/barack-obama/president-barack-obamas-shift-gay-marriage/

While we’re at it, look at both of Clintons’ records. Bill signed the Defence of Marriage Act into law.

One of Hillary’s quotes: “ "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.slate.com/human-interest/2015/10/hillary-clinton-on-gay-rights-a-new-email-is-troubling.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/hillary-clinton-had-the-chance-to-make-gay-rights-history-she-refused/2016/08/28/843a5cfc-58cf-11e6-9767-f6c947fd0cb8_story.html?utm_term=.f361277d2efb



This is a non-issue for me regarding Gabbard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama’s political stance was against gay marriage to until he flip flopped. All politicians go the direction that best serves them in the moment.

One of his many quotes on the topic.

“He also says, repeatedly, that he is against gay marriage. “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix,” he tells pastor Rick Warren at the Saddleback Presidential Forum”

http://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-rights/
.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/11/barack-obama/president-barack-obamas-shift-gay-marriage/

While we’re at it, look at both of Clintons’ records. Bill signed the Defence of Marriage Act into law.

One of Hillary’s quotes: “ "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.slate.com/human-interest/2015/10/hillary-clinton-on-gay-rights-a-new-email-is-troubling.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/hillary-clinton-had-the-chance-to-make-gay-rights-history-she-refused/2016/08/28/843a5cfc-58cf-11e6-9767-f6c947fd0cb8_story.html?utm_term=.f361277d2efb



This is a non-issue for me regarding Gabbard.

True, but I think a history of an anti-gay stance disqualifies candidates going forward.

That said, I really hope voters take the time to learn and care about foreign policy and what we're doing to civilians abroad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama’s political stance was against gay marriage to until he flip flopped. All politicians go the direction that best serves them in the moment.

One of his many quotes on the topic.

“He also says, repeatedly, that he is against gay marriage. “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix,” he tells pastor Rick Warren at the Saddleback Presidential Forum”

http://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-rights/
.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/11/barack-obama/president-barack-obamas-shift-gay-marriage/

While we’re at it, look at both of Clintons’ records. Bill signed the Defence of Marriage Act into law.

One of Hillary’s quotes: “ "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.slate.com/human-interest/2015/10/hillary-clinton-on-gay-rights-a-new-email-is-troubling.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/hillary-clinton-had-the-chance-to-make-gay-rights-history-she-refused/2016/08/28/843a5cfc-58cf-11e6-9767-f6c947fd0cb8_story.html?utm_term=.f361277d2efb



This is a non-issue for me regarding Gabbard.

True, but I think a history of an anti-gay stance disqualifies candidates going forward.

That said, I really hope voters take the time to learn and care about foreign policy and what we're doing to civilians abroad.

I see it as a chance for the evolved candidate to actually do more with propelling gay rights forward to prove their new stance, just as was the case with Obama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama’s political stance was against gay marriage to until he flip flopped. All politicians go the direction that best serves them in the moment.

One of his many quotes on the topic.

“He also says, repeatedly, that he is against gay marriage. “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix,” he tells pastor Rick Warren at the Saddleback Presidential Forum”

http://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-rights/
.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/11/barack-obama/president-barack-obamas-shift-gay-marriage/

While we’re at it, look at both of Clintons’ records. Bill signed the Defence of Marriage Act into law.

One of Hillary’s quotes: “ "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.slate.com/human-interest/2015/10/hillary-clinton-on-gay-rights-a-new-email-is-troubling.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/hillary-clinton-had-the-chance-to-make-gay-rights-history-she-refused/2016/08/28/843a5cfc-58cf-11e6-9767-f6c947fd0cb8_story.html?utm_term=.f361277d2efb



This is a non-issue for me regarding Gabbard.

True, but I think a history of an anti-gay stance disqualifies candidates going forward.

That said, I really hope voters take the time to learn and care about foreign policy and what we're doing to civilians abroad.

I see it as a chance for the evolved candidate to actually do more with propelling gay rights forward to prove their new stance, just as was the case with Obama.

I don't see any evidence she would do that ... social progressive issues are not her core issues.

[Anonymous]

I am curious. What is the LGBTQ vote as a percent of total votes in Democratic primaries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am curious. What is the LGBTQ vote as a percent of total votes in Democratic primaries?

Hi, Tulsi.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am curious. What is the LGBTQ vote as a percent of total votes in Democratic primaries?

Not sure but I'm not a LGBT but feel strongly that a candidate's approach to the issue is a litmus test of their moral values so the impact is greater than the actual community....I that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious. What is the LGBTQ vote as a percent of total votes in Democratic primaries?

Not sure but I'm not a LGBT but feel strongly that a candidate's approach to the issue is a litmus test of their moral values so the impact is greater than the actual community....I that makes sense.

Did you have that litmus test for Hilary?