Tulsi Gabbard 2020

[dandyrandy]

Boner list. 12 years old...

 

[PJ Diaz]

Did russian state media write 20 fawning articles about any other democratic candidate

I'm not sure, I guess I'd have to research that.

 

[PJ Diaz]

Boner list. 12 years old...

Haha, yeah I don't necessarily have a hard on for her. I had my first job at 12. Too bad that first year didn't count towards social security since it was illegal employment (I didn't know, I swear, but the $2.50/hr they paid this 12-year was good 33 years ago).

 

[captainmorgan]

I don't know. She's not high enough on my boner list to know all that much about her. I'm just looking for facts here. If you have facts that's great. Disinformation, not so great. Which cult is it?

Try googling Chris Butler and the Science of Identity. That's the cult leader that she claimed to have left, but pays big money to work on her campaign.

 

[Fogdog]

I'm talking about a specific post that contained incorrect misinformation. Did you not see what they did just a couple of posts prior?

Man, you have difficulty admitting you are wrong.

Or something like that. The post I'm referring to is this one:

Is that belief you have the reason you post misinformation? I noticed you didn't have anything to say about my correction to your "info".

It is not misinformation to say that Gabbard still has ties to the same homophobic, religious wacko cult that she grew up in.

Also it is completely true that she has not changed her personal views on abortion or gay marriage. Like it or not, we can hold this against her because it informs us that she doesn't understand the issue very well and holds a false belief on the rights of others. I feel the same way when a politician professes to believe in white supremacy but swears it will not affect his support for civil rights of black people. Civil rights aren't negotiable nor are they a matter of belief. They are rights.

 

[PJ Diaz]

Man, you have difficulty admitting you are wrong.

Or something like that. The post I'm referring to is this one:




It is not misinformation to say that Gabbard still has ties to the same homophobic, religious wacko cult that she grew up in.

Also it is completely true that she has not changed her personal views on abortion or gay marriage. Like it or not, we can hold this against her because it informs us that she doesn't understand the issue very well and holds a false belief on the rights of others. I feel the same way when a politician professes to believe in white supremacy but swears it will not affect his support for civil rights of black people. Civil rights aren't negotiable nor are they a matter of belief. They are rights.

Well first of all the post your referencing is not connected to the post I was calling misinformation on. You are comparing apples to bananas.

I too agree strongly in equality for all people regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc. I'm wondering have you actually see her say that her views on gay marriage haven't changed, or are you just assuming? This is an honest question, because I don't know the answer. I don't keep up on all her stats.

With that in mind, I do wonder, do you feel that people are incapable of changing their deep rooted views? For example do you think a KKK leader can grow up to be person open to all ethnicity, and effectively unlearn hate, or is it too deep rooted to ever change?

 

[UncleBuck]

Well first of all the post your referencing is not connected to the post I was calling misinformation on. You are comparing apples to bananas.

I too agree strongly in equality for all people regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc. I'm wondering have you actually see her say that her views on gay marriage haven't changed, or are you just assuming? This is an honest question, because I don't know the answer. I don't keep up on all her stats.

With that in mind, I do wonder, do you feel that people are incapable of changing their deep rooted views? For example do you think a KKK leader can grow up to be person open to all ethnicity, and effectively unlearn hate, or is it too deep rooted to ever change?

Speaking of KKK leaders, didn’t KKK leader david duke endorse tulsi?

did you ever get around to verifying that Russian state media wrote 20+ fawning articles about tusli in the 20 days after she announced?

i mean, it’s a fact and it happened but we are all waiting for your highness to acknowledge it and explain it

 

[Fogdog]

Well first of all the post your referencing is not connected to the post I was calling misinformation on. You are comparing apples to bananas.

I too agree strongly in equality for all people regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc. I'm wondering have you actually see her say that her views on gay marriage haven't changed, or are you just assuming? This is an honest question, because I don't know the answer. I don't keep up on all her stats.

With that in mind, I do wonder, do you feel that people are incapable of changing their deep rooted views? For example do you think a KKK leader can grow up to be person open to all ethnicity, and effectively unlearn hate, or is it too deep rooted to ever change?

Yep, in an interview that directly quoted her saying point blank that she hasn't changed her personal views on gay marriage or abortion. It was a while ago, maybe 2015 or earlier. She hasn't said anything to refute that interview. So, OK, she also said she'd honor the law. I can respect that but would not choose her unless my only other choice was a Republican.

People can change their views but goddam man, they have to do more than say their views have changed, not just sneek past the discussion. Also they should consistently show through their actions that they are different and at least apologize to people they have hurt through their rhetoric.

People with strong racist views sometimes don't even recognize their own racism so this is a tricky topic. More is needed than just words. Like Bernie who bounces all over the racist spectrum. He says the right thing and then goes off in another speech at another time to show he doesn't get it.

 

[PJ Diaz]

Speaking of KKK leaders, didn’t KKK leader david duke endorse tulsi?

did you ever get around to verifying that Russian state media wrote 20+ fawning articles about tusli in the 20 days after she announced?

i mean, it’s a fact and it happened but we are all waiting for your highness to acknowledge it and explain it

Yes he did, and she promptly rejected his endorsement by stating “I have strongly denounced David Duke’s hateful views and his so-called ‘support’ multiple times in the past, and reject his support”.

Sorry I haven't had time to research your Russian state media article thing yet. You are welcome to supply me with facts if you like instead of hollow rhetoric. I like facts.

 

[PJ Diaz]

Yep, in an interview that directly quoted her saying point blank that she hasn't changed her personal views on gay marriage or abortion. It was a while ago, maybe 2015 or earlier. She hasn't said anything to refute that interview. So, OK, she also said she'd honor the law. I can respect that but would not choose her unless my only other choice was a Republican.

Can you link me to that interview where she said it, because I did research that 2015 interview with OZY, which is the one I assume you're referencing, and in fact she didn't state that. Perhaps there is a different interview, but the OZY one is the one that people say she said that. In fact she wasn't quoted saying that in the article. Here's what she did say in the article in regards to views not changing, but it references nothing relating to gay marriage:



I'd certainly like to see where she does say what you say she said however, so fee free to link me to it.

 

[UncleBuck]

Yes he did, and she promptly rejected his endorsement by stating “I have strongly denounced David Duke’s hateful views and his so-called ‘support’ multiple times in the past, and reject his support”.

Sorry I haven't had time to research your Russian state media article thing yet. You are welcome to supply me with facts if you like instead of hollow rhetoric. I like facts.

You say you like facts but I state facts and you call them hollow rhetoric. You tell people to “do your research!” then you literally state you will not do any research and haven’t taken 20 seconds to google the fact I’ve stated which you will forever refuse to verify or acknowledge

and you are on the same side as steve bannon and KKK leader david duke

you come into politics right as primary season is heating up and spew all this bullshit.

sorry, but you reek of 100% horse shit

 

[PJ Diaz]

You say you like facts but I state facts and you call them hollow rhetoric. You tell people to “do your research!” then you literally state you will not do any research and haven’t taken 20 seconds to google the fact I’ve stated which you will forever refuse to verify or acknowledge

and you are on the same side as steve bannon and KKK leader david duke

you come into politics right as primary season is heating up and spew all this bullshit.

sorry, but you reek of 100% horse shit

It's not a fact because you say it's a fact. It becomes a fact when you are able to back it up with a valid source which corroborate said fact.

How am I on the same side as David Duke? Because I want accurate info, and you just spew headlines, and insults? Come man, step up your game, and bring some facts forward which you are able to substantiate. I'm getting kind of tired disproving the info posted in this thread on my own. Show me your 20 second google search result, it must be true if google said so right?

 

[Fogdog]

Can you link me to that interview where she said it, because I did research that 2015 interview with OZY, which is the one I assume you're referencing, and in fact she didn't state that. Perhaps there is a different interview, but the OZY one is the one that people say she said that. In fact she wasn't quoted saying that in the article. Here's what she did say in the article in regards to views not changing, but it references nothing relating to gay marriage:

View attachment 4413135

I'd certainly like to see where she does say what you say she said however, so fee free to link me to it.

As you most definitely show, we gather information and assemble it not always in chronological order.

The Times article I saw said this regarding her views on gay marriage:

Congressional candidate Tulsi Gabbard's star shines at convention

Congressional candidate Tulsi Gabbard's star shines at convention

www.latimes.com

“It brought me to a deeper understanding of the meaning of freedom in our country,” Gabbard said in an interview. “We cannot afford to walk down that dangerous path of government overstepping its boundaries into the most personal parts of our lives.”

Note that she hasn't said what she believes here, just that she doesn't feel the govt should be involved. Of special note is that she is still tied to the homophobic, anti-choice and radical religious cult that she grew up in. What she's done would be like a former grand wizard of the KKK recanting their white supremacist beliefs but retaining klan members as PR consultants.

I probably did read the Jacobin article in which she said her own beliefs should not be forced upon others and am mixing that up with other stuff I read.

Her former stance against civil rights bothers me about Tulsi but is not a deal breaker. Where I come to an end in the discussion of Gabbard Is when we bring up her recent actions to misrepresent Assad and Putin's actions in Syria. That is a clear and bright line that puts me on the opposite side from her. She glossed over Assad's use of torture and poison gas and she defended Putin's bombing of US allies in Syria. Also defended Putin's attack on our elections system. These are deal breakers for me and I can think of no reason why anybody would say otherwise.

 

[Fogdog]

It's not a fact because you say it's a fact. It becomes a fact when you are able to back it up with a valid source which corroborate said fact.

How am I on the same side as David Duke? Because I want accurate info, and you just spew headlines, and insults? Come man, step up your game, and bring some facts forward which you are able to substantiate. I'm getting kind of tired disproving the info posted in this thread on my own. Show me your 20 second google search result, it must be true if google said so right?

I don't understand why you are defending Gabbard when it's clear she supports the actions of a brutal dictator. We don't need that in the WH. We don't need it now and we won't need it in 2020.

 

[PJ Diaz]

I don't understand why you are defending Gabbard when it's clear she supports the actions of a brutal dictator. We don't need that in the WH. We don't need it now and we won't need it in 2020.

I'm not defending her per se. I just want to see factual info posted, not misinformation. Why is that a problem? I would like things which are presented as "facts" to be actually factual. This applies to whether I support a person or ideology or not.

My issue is that three times in this thread I followed up to check "facts" which were posted by users of this board, and found them to be misinformation. I can only check one fact at a time.

 

[Fogdog]

I'm not defending her per se. I just want to see factual info posted, not misinformation. Why is that a problem. I would like things which are presented as "facts" to be actually factual. This applies to whether I support a person or ideology or not.

OK, so the facts are she backs a brutal dictator. She called the facts of her actions that were laid out by a reporter in an interview "fake news" but they were verifiable facts. Isn't that the end of the line with her for you? It is for me.

 

[PJ Diaz]

Her former stance against civil rights bothers me about Tulsi but is not a deal breaker. Where I come to an end in the discussion of Gabbard Is when we bring up her recent actions to misrepresent Assad and Putin's actions in Syria. That is a clear and bright line that puts me on the opposite side from her. She glossed over Assad's use of torture and poison gas and she defended Putin's bombing of US allies in Syria. Also defended Putin's attack on our elections system. These are deal breakers for me and I can think of no reason why anybody would say otherwise.

Yeah, that is a problem, if it's true, but with all the misinfo posted in this thread, I can't be sure it's true until I check all the actual facts to support such a statement. I'm not here to be a Tulsi fact checker, so I will likely just check out of this thread and let trolls carry on with their misinformation campaigns.

 

[PJ Diaz]

OK, so the facts are she backs a brutal dictator. She called the facts of her actions that were laid out by a reporter in an interview "fake news" but they were verifiable facts. Isn't that the end of the line with her for you? It is for me.

Well, I never said I was gonna vote for her in the first place, so at the end of the day it's a neutral sum anyway.

 

[Fogdog]

Well, I never said I was gonna vote for her in the first place, so at the end of the day it's a neutral sum anyway.

Your concession is accepted.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm not defending her per se. I just want to see factual info posted, not misinformation. Why is that a problem? I would like things which are presented as "facts" to be actually factual. This applies to whether I support a person or ideology or not.

My issue is that three times in this thread I followed up to check "facts" which were posted by users of this board, and found them to be misinformation. I can only check one fact at a time.

Why don’t you busy yourself by checking on the fact I posted about russian state media writing 20 fawning articles about her in the 10 days after she announced?

congrats on being on KKK leader david dukes side