HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Post removed

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:20 PM

 

Post removed

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 66 replies Author Time Post
Reply Post removed (Original post)
Post removed Jan 12 OP
JackRiddler Jan 12 #1
Post removed Jan 12 #53
hlthe2b Jan 12 #2
JackRiddler Jan 12 #4
hlthe2b Jan 12 #5
Codeine Jan 12 #3
ismnotwasm Jan 12 #7
MyOwnPeace Jan 12 #6
JackRiddler Jan 12 #17
MyOwnPeace Jan 12 #45
qazplm135 Jan 12 #8
JackRiddler Jan 12 #14
qazplm135 Jan 12 #16
irresistable Jan 12 #19
JackRiddler Jan 12 #22
Devil Child Jan 12 #30
backabby-blue Jan 12 #9
JackRiddler Jan 12 #15
backabby-blue Jan 12 #20
JackRiddler Jan 12 #23
backabby-blue Jan 12 #26
JackRiddler Jan 12 #29
backabby-blue Jan 12 #32
JackRiddler Jan 12 #33
backabby-blue Jan 12 #36
ismnotwasm Jan 12 #44
Cha Jan 12 #62
NotASurfer Jan 12 #10
JackRiddler Jan 12 #13
Achilleaze Jan 12 #37
David__77 Jan 12 #11
JackRiddler Jan 12 #12
irresistable Jan 12 #21
Devil Child Jan 12 #27
BannonsLiver Jan 12 #18
JackRiddler Jan 12 #24
BannonsLiver Jan 12 #39
Achilleaze Jan 12 #25
Tommy_Carcetti Jan 12 #28
JackRiddler Jan 12 #31
backabby-blue Jan 12 #34
JackRiddler Jan 12 #40
backabby-blue Jan 12 #41
JackRiddler Jan 12 #43
obamanut2012 Jan 12 #35
brooklynite Jan 12 #38
JackRiddler Jan 12 #42
dsc Jan 12 #46
brooklynite Jan 12 #47
JackRiddler Jan 12 #49
brooklynite Jan 12 #52
JackRiddler Jan 12 #59
dsc Jan 12 #66
OilemFirchen Jan 12 #54
JackRiddler Jan 12 #57
OilemFirchen Jan 12 #63
JackRiddler Jan 12 #65
dsc Jan 12 #64
JackRiddler Jan 12 #61
Codeine Jan 12 #48
JackRiddler Jan 12 #50
Codeine Jan 12 #51
JackRiddler Jan 12 #60
obamanut2012 Jan 12 #55
NastyRiffraff Jan 12 #56
JackRiddler Jan 12 #58

Response to Post removed (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:24 PM

1. "Gabbard scrambles ideological assumptions"

 

"and that’s fundamentally what her critics are so flustered by," the article concludes. Yes. Discuss/Debate. Thank you.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #1)


Response to Post removed (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:26 PM

2. She's her own worst enemy and will not be competitive IMO, so no need to debate

(for me)...

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:28 PM

4. Respectfully disagree

 

I'd say that applies quite severely to several other of the prospective candidates being advanced.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:29 PM

5. THat is probably true as well...

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:28 PM

3. I can't say much because I'm sick of hides,

but I will state I’m glad that her presidential campaign will amount to little more than a wet fart, and she will be among the first in the field to be a clear failure.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Codeine (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:34 PM

7. Yeah.



I just spent some time looking at her bone fides— not impressed

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:33 PM

6. Another look - from Charlie.............

"If you're looking to bet on the various people who can muck up the 2020 presidential election, you can do worse than put a little early money on Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat of Hawaii, whose flea-on-a-griddle semi-progressivism is beginning to look less like charming eccentricity, and more like calculated mischief. She's positioning herself for a possible run at the nomination herself, if there's room for someone whose history says she's more offended by Hawaii senator Mazie Hirono than she is by Bashar al-Assad in Syria."

(snip)

"Hirono is doing nothing more than being "concerned about their views, opinions, or their commitment to uphold their constitutional duties," which Gabbard concedes is part of their duties as members of the national legislature."

(snip)

"...and Mazie Hirono should tell Tulsi Gabbard to go suck up to another dictator and stop trying to run for president on Mazie's coattails."

Full story:

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a25836826/tulsi-gabbard-mazie-hirono-catholic-trump-judge-nominee/

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MyOwnPeace (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:55 PM

17. "more like calculated mischief"

 

Is this a case of Democratic candidate bashing? Hmmmm.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 03:40 PM

45. "Is this a case of Democratic candidate bashing? Hmmmm."

Or perhaps "discuss/debate?" Hmmmm.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:36 PM

8. to quote the kids of today...

stop trying to make Tulsi Gabbard happen. lol

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm135 (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:50 PM

14. Too late.

 

I suspect she understands exactly where her strengths lie.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:54 PM

16. non sequitor

odds are she gets about one more percent votes for nomination for President than I do. Give or take a percent.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:03 PM

19. She never gets pushed around on the news shows. She is too confident.

 

It is wishful thinking on the part of those who dismiss her.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to irresistable (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:28 PM

22. +1

 

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to irresistable (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:45 PM

30. +2

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:39 PM

9. It's not a canard.

 

Look where we are right now. We have a Russian asset for president. The American people have a right to be skeptical especially given the secrecy of the trip. She did not notify anyone that she was taking the trip. No one knows who paid for it and I am not aware of any fact finding report she has given anyone about what she found. Also, the people who support her are often the ones calling for purity test. She gets pass after pass for some reason. Her prior statements on Muslims and Gay marriage for example.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backabby-blue (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:54 PM

15. See post below on common Tulsi-bashing tropes.

 

Thanks.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:09 PM

20. I disagree.

 

FACTS are not Tulsi bashing. Facts are just facts. Her anti gay marriage comments were made when she was a congresswoman. It matters. Now that she is running for president I hope someone directly asks her if she believes homosexuality is a "sin."

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backabby-blue (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:34 PM

23. No doubt someone will ask her that and we will see what she says then.

 

What was Hillary Clinton's position during the same period?

Against an initially vast opposition in the culture, it took a lot of people time to shift.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/

Clinton came out in support of same-sex marriage in 2013 after more than a decade of opposing it. But her views are particularly in the spotlight now that she is a presidential candidate.

We decided to put Clinton’s statements about same-sex marriage on our Flip-O-Meter, which measures whether a candidate has changed their views without making a value judgment about such flips. We found that as public opinion shifted toward support for same-sex marriage, so did Clinton.

She has had plenty of company among members of her own party to change their stance on same-sex marriage. In 2012, we gave Obama a Full Flop when he announced his support for same-sex marriage.


Running for Senate in 2000, she expressed support for DOMA.

(Speaking of sin, let those who are without it cast the first stone.)

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:37 PM

26. Yes and the very people who support Tulsi

 

repeatedly held this position against Hillary.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backabby-blue (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:40 PM

29. Did you do a poll of 100% of them?

 

It's an interesting claim.

If it would be wrong to hold it against someone like Clinton that they did switch to the good position, then possibly it would also be wrong of you to hold it against Gabbard, right?

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:46 PM

32. If it were the only reason but it's not.

 

I don't have to deal with her she is not in my state. The people of Hawaii may like her but I promise a general electorate does not.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backabby-blue (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:47 PM

33. I'm glad we will be testing that out. Thank you.

 

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #33)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:51 PM

36. Yes.

 

I question her motive for running to be honest. I mean, Is she doing it to have foreign money thrown her way? She seemed to be drawing the attention of foreign dictators. That is my opinion.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 03:03 PM

44. Hillary by the time she ran had the support of the GBLTQ community

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #44)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 06:23 PM

62. UPDATED: Here's why the Hawaii LGBT Caucus doesn't support Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's reelection campaign

Mahalo for pointing that out, ismnotwasm!

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:41 PM

10. That is exactly how to frame it in terms red state voters will grasp immediately

America should decide what America does. Not Saudi kings. Not an authoritarian Turkish President. Not a North Korean dictator. Not a Russian oligarch bent on weakening Democracy. Tell them we need a President who puts America first (which is a phrase that a lot of my red state relatives have internalized so deeply that if they understand that something means it, then that understanding overrides common sense...sadly leading one of them to still be a collector of Trumpy Bears...I'm working on him); the guy in the Oval Office takes orders from all of the above and has to be replaced with somebody who puts America first

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NotASurfer (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:49 PM

13. Yes, it is.

 

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NotASurfer (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:52 PM

37. Well said. It is how to frame it.

repeat, rinse, repeat...

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:44 PM

11. I appreciate her entering the race.

...

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:48 PM

12. ANSWERS TO THE COMMON TULSI BASHING

 

From a supporter:

There are some repeated attacks, and how I respond to them.

1) Who? A strong congresswoman who wins elections by landslides. She is a veteran and she resigned her #2 position in the DNC to back Bernie. Remember Bernie was at about 3% in the polls in early 2015. Likewise Tulsi can become relevant real fast.

2) Anti-gay comments: those comments are from 1998 when she was a kid raised by conservatives. I too was raised by conservatives. We grow up when we meet the world. Her voting record on equality as a congresswoman is spotless. (NOTE: Gabbard is 37, in 1998 she was a teenager!)

3) Supports Hindu nationalists: what has she done to support them? The first Hindu congresswoman is supported and courted by Hindus of all stripes and invites to meet with the president of India. That is not a story.

4) Assad apologist: Tulsi went to Syria and met with many people looking for a path to reduce bloodshed. She opposes interventionist regime change as that is what has created ISIS. Regime change leads to destabilization more bloodshed and greater threats to the US every time.

5) Islamaphobe: I refer people to the article "Tulsi Gabbard is Our Friend" (a rebuttal to a Jacobin piece claiming otherwise).
https://medium.com/@na_rup/tulsi-gabbard-is-our-friend-2c46617c6ba3

And Tulsi spent a long time as a lone voice opposing the genocide in Yemen.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:21 PM

21. To some of her critics, Hindu is synonymous with "Hindu Nationalist".

 

The attacks on her are very thin, and based on a politically calculated interpretation of her actions.
Any discussion of policy disagreements that she has with another in the party are deemed bashing of said Democrat.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:37 PM

27. Thank you for this informative post!

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:01 PM

18. ...

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BannonsLiver (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:35 PM

24. If that's the level of objection, I like her chances.

 

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:53 PM

39. That's just about all the above twaddle is worth

But hey you keep on dreaming big m’kay!

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:35 PM

25. ...and being Putin's bitch does not enoble the republicans either

they have sold-out America

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:39 PM

28. The article you cited seems to insinuate there was a legitimate diplomatic purpose...

...for Trump meeting Kim Jong Un.

There was not.

It was a vanity shot for Trump, and a propaganda coup for Kim.

Diplomacy was not advanced in the least in that meeting.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:45 PM

31. Wow.

 

That is an American exceptionalist position, seems to be ignoring the whole damn world. Reviewing recent history: The hugely popular president of South Korea was elected on a peace platform. SK made all the moves toward peace, and luckily NK is open for it. Trump thank god saw a media op for himself and followed suit, switching away from his insane nuclear war threats to the United Nations in September 2017. Averting the risk of nuclear war that this madman promised is one of the best damn things that's happened in the last two years, and of course it is thanks to SK and President Moon, not Trump (whom Americans for some unfathomable reason credit or blame for the new Korean peace process).

For the sake of consistency, by the way, do you oppose the Iran deal negotiated by Obama?

PS - Insinuate injects a sinister characterization where it is unwarranted. The article doesn't insinuate, it SAYS exactly that.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:48 PM

34. Trump meeting Kim Jung Un

 

was not good for USA at all. He WEAKENED our power globally. Now Kim has a world stage and is seen as a legit leader globally.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backabby-blue (Reply #34)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:54 PM

40. Please don't purport to speak for "We"

 

I'm with the Americans who understand that threats of nuclear war are one of the worst possible and most unforgivable violations, whereas peace processes are desirable. Stepping back from the brink of nuclear war - thanks to President Moon of South Korea - was a happy thing for the whole world, including whatever "us" you wish to speak for. The Korean people - South and North - should be deciding, which is exactly what is happening.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #40)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:57 PM

41. I don't believe NK has good intentions

 

My belief is based by history.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backabby-blue (Reply #41)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:59 PM

43. Then you should take your complaint to SK.

 

Since South Korea is the main actor pushing forward the peace process in collaboration with NK, and the U.S. is merely for now choosing to follow (and hopefully will continue to do so).

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:48 PM

35. This is gonna be a long primary season, Tommy

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:52 PM

38. Tulsi Gabbard: Same-Sex marriage advocated by "homosexual extremists"

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #38)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:58 PM

42. Why does your attack graphic omit the date?

 

I think being incomplete with this information and presenting a quote from a very long time ago without specifying the date and the fact that her position changed is tantamount to defamation.

When did she say this thing? What were the positions of leading Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton or President Obama (if he was already president), at that time? What is Gabbard's position today? Omission and selective giving of facts can be a way of lying about history and the present.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #42)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 03:52 PM

46. they both favored civil unions

and neither advocated changing the constitution like she did.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #42)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 04:42 PM

47. That's how it appeared in Twitter

As for the positions of others, there's a major distinction between saying you're opposed to same sex marriage, and criticizing gays for supporting it.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #47)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 04:48 PM

49. Well then why do you reproduce it here?

 

Poor quality sources should not be reproduced, I'm sure you agree.

"I found it on the street somewhere just like you see it" is no explanation, is it?

- No date, thus also no sense of how old the currently 37 year-old Gabbard was at the time.

- No context of what others - Democrats - were saying at the same time.

- No acknowledgment of what her current position is.

Just a screen capture of some text without context, where the only apparent intent is to attack Gabbard for something she does not actually believe today, any more than Clinton (who supported DOMA) or Obama would. Good thing they also evolved in their once terrible positions on this issue.

Selectively attacking Gabbard for this is revealing, n'est-ce pas?

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #49)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 04:57 PM

52. I'll place a measure of trust in CNN...

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #52)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 06:14 PM

59. You are not answering the question.

 

- When was the quoted matter?

- What was the context in terms of common positions among Democrats at that time, including Clinton and Obama among others?

- What is Tulsi Gabbard's position today?

13-year-old bad statements by a 24-year-old that were very much like many other Democrats at the time are now being deployed selectively to smear her.

The content matters here, the supposed source does not. The exclusion of a date or place for the quoted matter is a serious journalistic violation, doesn't matter who that is coming from.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #59)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 06:33 PM

66. No they weren't like other Democrats at the time

they were only like the most conservative Democrats in existence at the time.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #42)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 05:52 PM

54. That was in 2004, when she was a State Legislator.

Calm thinkers often do their own research. Sometimes the information it returns is discomforting. Occasionally they accept the plain facts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

Gabbard previously opposed both civil unions and same-sex marriage. As a Hawaii state legislator in 2004, she argued against civil unions, saying, "To try to act as if there is a difference between 'civil unions' and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii who have already made overwhelmingly clear our position on this issue... As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists. Gabbard opposed Hawaii House Bill 1024, which would have established legal parity between same-sex couples in civil unions and married straight couples, and led a protest against the bill outside the room where the House Judiciary Committee held the hearing. In the same year, she expressed her opposition to Hawaii undertaking research on LGBT students, arguing that it would be a violation of their privacy and that "many parents would see the study as an indirect attempt by government to encourage young people to question their sexual orientation" She also disputed that Hawaii schools were rampant with anti-gay discrimination.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/

April 2000: Clinton again expressed support for civil unions. "I have supported the kind of rights and responsibilities that are being extended to gay couples in Vermont," she said.

July 2004: Clinton spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage. (The amendment ultimately failed.) Though she opposed it, she said that she believed that marriage was "a sacred bond between a man and a woman."

...

October 2006: Clinton told a group of gay elected officials that she would support same-sex marriage in New York if a future governor and Legislature chose to enact such a law.

"I support states making the decision," she said.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #54)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 06:08 PM

57. 2004 also means she was 24 years old and in a different family situation she has left.

 

2004 of course also means that many of the leading Democrats today were similarly in the wrong place on these issues.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #57)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 06:23 PM

63. Unresponsive.

But funny nonetheless!

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #63)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 06:33 PM

65. Irrelevant either way. See 61 or 58.

 

Ancient history about a young person - as relevant today as Clinton's time as a Goldwater girl - who has completely changed her views, voted flawlessly in recent years including to repeal DOMA, and has the same endorsement from HRC that HRC does. Sorry, this is not cricket. You want to disagree or attack Tulsi, use her actual positions, not projected false positions picked up from whatever source. Thank you.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #57)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 06:29 PM

64. that is out and out false

Most Democrats who weren't on the very conservative side of the spectrum favored civil unions. Exactly 2 Democrats in the Senate voted for an amendment to ban gay marriage (Byrd of WV and Nelson of NE). It is nothing short of bullshit to call the position that she had in 2004 a mainstream Democratic position. It was an off the charts conservative one.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #38)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 06:18 PM

61. False. Tulsi Gabbard on LGBT TODAY.

 

It is incredible how different the reality is from the falsehoods being put out here for whatever reason.

https://www.tulsigabbard.org/tulsi-gabbard-on-lgbt

Tulsi Gabbard on LGBT
Key Points
Tulsi is a vocal advocate of equality for our LGBTQ+ community
She is a member of the LGBT Equality Caucus in the House
Tulsi has been endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT lobby organization in the country


I think someone up thread suggested she was not!


"With the many challenges facing the LGBT community, we're honored to count Tulsi as an ally in standing up for issues of fairness. From her cosponsorship of the Equality Act to supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples and fighting for persons with HIV/AIDS, we applaud Tulsi's commitment to fundamental equal rights for all." - Mike Mings, Director Human Rights Campaign PAC
The Human Rights Campaign represents a force of more than 1.5 million members and supporters nationwide. As the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer civil rights organization, HRC envisions a world where LGBTQ people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
Tulsi believes that “equal treatment and opportunity are fundamental rights for all Americans. Discrimination on the basis of national origin, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, gender, or race undermines core American principles of respect and individual freedom.”
Tulsi is committed to fight to ensure all individuals are treated equally under the law regardless of race, sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
Legislation
H.R. 2282 Equality Act of 2017 which amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation
H.R. 1755 Employment Non-Discrimination Act
H.R. 2839 Restore Honor to Service Members Act
H.R 2532 Respect for Marriage Act
H.R. 197 Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act
H.R. 683 Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act
H.R. 1199 Safe Schools Improvement Act
H.R. 932 Healthy Families Act
H. Res. 549 Designating June 26th as LGBT Equality Day
H. Res. 208 Equality for All Resolution, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in areas that include credit, employment, education, federally funded programs, housing, jury service, and public accommodations
H.R. 3273 LGBT Data Inclusion Act
Signed the Marriage Equality Amicus Briefs
Advocated for LGBT Housing / Privacy Rights
Advocated to End Bullying and Harassment in Schools
Tulsi signs letter urging President Trump to reverse transgender military ban https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1197627/letter-to-donald-j-trump-president-of-the-united-states-representatives-urge-trump-to-reverse-transgender-military-ban#.XBfzFBNKikZ

ETC. ETC>


Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 04:47 PM

48. God this place is going to suck for two years straight

isn’t it?

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Codeine (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 04:49 PM

50. Thank you for kicking this important thread.

 

You already said the exact same thing above, I think?

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #50)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 04:51 PM

51. Oh noes, I've repeated myself.

So sorry, merely struck anew at the machinations being set in motion. Please enjoy your validation or whatever.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Codeine (Reply #51)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 06:15 PM

60. No, it's quite alright. Please do it again.

 

I feel nothing whatsoever regarding this matter, I'm merely thanking you for your contribution to this important thread.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Codeine (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 06:01 PM

55. yup

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 06:05 PM

56. I'm keeping an open mind about 2020 candidates

with 2 exceptions: Bernie Sanders & Tulsi Gabbard. Those are non-starters for me.

We have a strong, deep bench, any of whom I would be glad to vote for as a Democratic nominee (with the aforesaid exceptions). I want to hear all of them who choose to run present their case. Plenty of time to decide who I'll support in the primary.

Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 06:11 PM

58. "Tulsi Gabbard on LGBT"

 

It is incredible how different the reality is from the falsehods being put out here for whatever reason.

https://www.tulsigabbard.org/tulsi-gabbard-on-lgbt

Tulsi Gabbard on LGBT
Key Points
Tulsi is a vocal advocate of equality for our LGBTQ+ community
She is a member of the LGBT Equality Caucus in the House
Tulsi has been endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT lobby organization in the country


Note someone up thread suggested she was not!


"With the many challenges facing the LGBT community, we're honored to count Tulsi as an ally in standing up for issues of fairness. From her cosponsorship of the Equality Act to supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples and fighting for persons with HIV/AIDS, we applaud Tulsi's commitment to fundamental equal rights for all." - Mike Mings, Director Human Rights Campaign PAC
The Human Rights Campaign represents a force of more than 1.5 million members and supporters nationwide. As the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer civil rights organization, HRC envisions a world where LGBTQ people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
Tulsi believes that “equal treatment and opportunity are fundamental rights for all Americans. Discrimination on the basis of national origin, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, gender, or race undermines core American principles of respect and individual freedom.”
Tulsi is committed to fight to ensure all individuals are treated equally under the law regardless of race, sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
Legislation
H.R. 2282 Equality Act of 2017 which amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation
H.R. 1755 Employment Non-Discrimination Act
H.R. 2839 Restore Honor to Service Members Act
H.R 2532 Respect for Marriage Act
H.R. 197 Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act
H.R. 683 Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act
H.R. 1199 Safe Schools Improvement Act
H.R. 932 Healthy Families Act
H. Res. 549 Designating June 26th as LGBT Equality Day
H. Res. 208 Equality for All Resolution, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in areas that include credit, employment, education, federally funded programs, housing, jury service, and public accommodations
H.R. 3273 LGBT Data Inclusion Act
Signed the Marriage Equality Amicus Briefs
Advocated for LGBT Housing / Privacy Rights
Advocated to End Bullying and Harassment in Schools
Tulsi signs letter urging President Trump to reverse transgender military ban https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1197627/letter-to-donald-j-trump-president-of-the-united-states-representatives-urge-trump-to-reverse-transgender-military-ban#.XBfzFBNKikZ

ETC. ETC>


Cannot reply in removed threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink