OK, I'm just reading up her... she supported Bernie Sanders so Strike One!

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!

She doesn’t have a chance anyway. All these people will split the progressive vote in a primary.

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

Anonymous wrote:
In 2004, Obama was against same sex marriage too.

Did he ever call LGBT people “homosexual extremists”?
Did he call for and craft legislation against same sex marriage?

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

Anonymous wrote:All of you who are railing against Gubbard for her initial opposition to LGBTQ rights even after she had change of heart on that issue - if only you so vehemently oppose racial discrimination (overt and covert) US would be a better place to live.

Uh, we do actively oppose racial discrimination. I think Gabbard has a very problematic past, including actively legislating against same sex marriage.

I’ll take Kamala any day, she’s much more qualified than Gabbard.

All of you who are railing against Gubbard for her initial opposition to LGBTQ rights even after she had change of heart on that issue - if only you so vehemently oppose racial discrimination (overt and covert) US would be a better place to live.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. She did a totally unauthorized trip and refuses to condemn him. It is very concerning.

Do you understand what her actual position on military intervention is? Or do you get all your foreign policy positions from Twitter?

You need to simmer down. I think she is highly problematic and will not vote for her. Her position on gay rights is awful and her inability to condemn Assad is nuts. Her military position of not intervening is not the issue. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER. If it comes down to Trump v her, I would sit out. Both are terrible. The Democratic Party can and needs to do better.

Ok, I see you are a other progressive with a shallow and totally uniformed understanding of foreign policy.

People like you are insufferable and why the Democrats have such a hard time winning elections.

People like you are why 100s of thousands of innocent civilians are killed by US bombs and starvation in Yemen, while you are fixated by whatever images of dead children in Syria on your FB feed, all the while you feel smug and virtuous about the MLK sign in your yard.

You are nuts.

Ok, I see you still have nothing to say of substance. Look, if you can provide an informed critique of her foreign policy views, why you prefer other candidates, and your own view on military intervention in the ME, go for it. I am all ears, and always learning.

Omg. Her meeting with Assad and inability to condemn him is crazy. If you are ok with that, you are nuts, too, so no further discussion is warranted. It doesn’t really matter. No way does she get the nomination. She is anti-gay and sympathetic to Assad. Crazy.

She is not "sympathetic to Assad." Her viewpoint was that US bomb strikes were likely to create more instability and civilian deaths, while being totally ineffective to actually stop future chemical attacks. This view is shared by actual experts: https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-09-26/what-you-need-know-about-chemical-weapons-use-syria

To the extent she initially voiced skepticism about Assad's responsibility ... my guess is she does not now. And in the immediate aftermath, skepticism is appropriate for a country that went to war based on fake WMDs. Remember that?

Anyway, curious about what you think about her other stances on Syria and Yemen?

+1
Smart and solid. Thanks for pushing back against the stupid!

LOL. No.

Ok, I am all ears to hear your views on foreign policy and how the other candidates stack up. Sincerly! Give me some information, not hit pieces.

In 2004, Obama was against same sex marriage too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

^^^
Why are you guys who are railing against political dynasties OK with Tulsi?

I'm not ok with her record on LGBT rights although she has a credible explanation for her change in position. My concern is the uniformes smearing of her view on US wars.

She is the Dem version of SHS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. She did a totally unauthorized trip and refuses to condemn him. It is very concerning.

Do you understand what her actual position on military intervention is? Or do you get all your foreign policy positions from Twitter?

You need to simmer down. I think she is highly problematic and will not vote for her. Her position on gay rights is awful and her inability to condemn Assad is nuts. Her military position of not intervening is not the issue. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER. If it comes down to Trump v her, I would sit out. Both are terrible. The Democratic Party can and needs to do better.

Ok, I see you are a other progressive with a shallow and totally uniformed understanding of foreign policy.

People like you are insufferable and why the Democrats have such a hard time winning elections.

People like you are why 100s of thousands of innocent civilians are killed by US bombs and starvation in Yemen, while you are fixated by whatever images of dead children in Syria on your FB feed, all the while you feel smug and virtuous about the MLK sign in your yard.

You are nuts.

Ok, I see you still have nothing to say of substance. Look, if you can provide an informed critique of her foreign policy views, why you prefer other candidates, and your own view on military intervention in the ME, go for it. I am all ears, and always learning.

Omg. Her meeting with Assad and inability to condemn him is crazy. If you are ok with that, you are nuts, too, so no further discussion is warranted. It doesn’t really matter. No way does she get the nomination. She is anti-gay and sympathetic to Assad. Crazy.

She is not "sympathetic to Assad." Her viewpoint was that US bomb strikes were likely to create more instability and civilian deaths, while being totally ineffective to actually stop future chemical attacks. This view is shared by actual experts: https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-09-26/what-you-need-know-about-chemical-weapons-use-syria

To the extent she initially voiced skepticism about Assad's responsibility ... my guess is she does not now. And in the immediate aftermath, skepticism is appropriate for a country that went to war based on fake WMDs. Remember that?

Anyway, curious about what you think about her other stances on Syria and Yemen?

+1
Smart and solid. Thanks for pushing back against the stupid!

LOL. No.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

^^^
Why are you guys who are railing against political dynasties OK with Tulsi?

I'm not ok with her record on LGBT rights although she has a credible explanation for her change in position. My concern is the uniformes smearing of her view on US wars.

She is a younger and better-looking version of Bernie.

Warren or Gabbard, for Bernie supporters, will decide her chance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. She did a totally unauthorized trip and refuses to condemn him. It is very concerning.

Do you understand what her actual position on military intervention is? Or do you get all your foreign policy positions from Twitter?

You need to simmer down. I think she is highly problematic and will not vote for her. Her position on gay rights is awful and her inability to condemn Assad is nuts. Her military position of not intervening is not the issue. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER. If it comes down to Trump v her, I would sit out. Both are terrible. The Democratic Party can and needs to do better.

Ok, I see you are a other progressive with a shallow and totally uniformed understanding of foreign policy.

People like you are insufferable and why the Democrats have such a hard time winning elections.

People like you are why 100s of thousands of innocent civilians are killed by US bombs and starvation in Yemen, while you are fixated by whatever images of dead children in Syria on your FB feed, all the while you feel smug and virtuous about the MLK sign in your yard.

You are nuts.

Ok, I see you still have nothing to say of substance. Look, if you can provide an informed critique of her foreign policy views, why you prefer other candidates, and your own view on military intervention in the ME, go for it. I am all ears, and always learning.

Omg. Her meeting with Assad and inability to condemn him is crazy. If you are ok with that, you are nuts, too, so no further discussion is warranted. It doesn’t really matter. No way does she get the nomination. She is anti-gay and sympathetic to Assad. Crazy.

She is not "sympathetic to Assad." Her viewpoint was that US bomb strikes were likely to create more instability and civilian deaths, while being totally ineffective to actually stop future chemical attacks. This view is shared by actual experts: https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-09-26/what-you-need-know-about-chemical-weapons-use-syria

To the extent she initially voiced skepticism about Assad's responsibility ... my guess is she does not now. And in the immediate aftermath, skepticism is appropriate for a country that went to war based on fake WMDs. Remember that?

Anyway, curious about what you think about her other stances on Syria and Yemen?

+1
Smart and solid. Thanks for pushing back against the stupid!