What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Tulsi Gabbard 2020 (2 Viewers)

Probably a more accurate reflection of who she is than a clip from when she was a young impressionable 19 year old. 
I doubt that.

From a Jan 2019 HuffPo opinion piece by Michelangelo Signorile about Gabbard:

https://news.yahoo.com/tulsi-gabbards-evolution-lgbtq-rights-205832086.html

Tulsi Gabbard’s ‘Evolution’ On LGBTQ Rights Isn’t Convincing

[...]

However, in a 2016 interview with the publication Ozy, Gabbard suggested that her personal beliefs on homosexuality actually haven’t changed:

It was, she says, the days in the Middle East that taught her the dangers of a theocratic government “imposing its will” on the people. (She tells me that, no, her personal views haven’t changed, but she doesn’t figure it’s her job to do as the Iraqis did and force her own beliefs on others.)
It’s not exactly comforting as a gay man to know that a politician decided you should be afforded civil rights as a matter of policy while she still personally thinks you’re immoral. But even if we could separate these two things and believe that Gabbard would passionately defend LGBTQ rights the way that, say, now-deceased Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia — a Democrat who was once a member of the Ku Klux Klan — became a supporter of civil rights for African-Americans, it’s Gabbard’s actions right now that are still of great concern.

Recently, she wrote a Hill op-ed that was lauded by right-wing publications. In the piece she attacked those like Democratic Sens. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Kamala Harris of California who sharply questioned Brian Buescher, a religious extremist nominated by Trump to a federal district court vacancy in Nebraska, accusing them of “religious bigotry.” Although Gabbard did not name either senator in the op-ed, the fingerpointing was clear.

Buescher plainly said during his unsuccessful run for Nebraska attorney general, “I do not believe homosexuality should be considered the same way race or ethnicity is considered with regard to anti-discrimination laws which currently apply to race or ethnicity.” The Leadership Conference on Civil and Hum­­­­an Rights has come out strongly against Buescher, saying that “his track record of partisan activism and deep-seated hostility to LGBTQ equality and reproductive freedom” makes him unqualified for the bench and calling him “an ideological warrior.”

[...]

 
I haven't been following her or this situation at all, but I have a question.  What are the top 2 to 4 tenants of her campaign or platform that conservatives agree with or support?  
For me it's bringing our kids home stopping never ending  wars and diverting the war funds to something that matters.

 
This, incidentally, is why lots of people aren’t comfortable with her newer stances on things like gay rights.  Some see it as the same as Trump’s promise to protect LGBTQ citizens. Also, you never know when a mildly crazy person will just flip completely. 
So a self reflecting admission of past wrong beliefs and more recent record of trying to do the right thing can be described as a crazy person flipping?  I thought we want our politicians to recognize last mistakes, admit to them, then let their actions speak.  

 
So a self reflecting admission of past wrong beliefs and more recent record of trying to do the right thing can be described as a crazy person flipping?  I thought we want our politicians to recognize last mistakes, admit to them, then let their actions speak.  
No, she is separately a crazy person.  Aside from the flipping. 

 
I don't care about the David Duke endorsement. She didn't solicit it. She'll repudiate it. I don't think she's a racist.
Given her positions on some pretty high profile incidents, I’m not entirely convinced of that. Gujarat, for instance. 
 

It may be her focus is on Muslims, but it may be race based. I just don’t know. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess there are other ways to describe someone who says her views on gay marriage haven’t changed while now supporting LGBTQ legislation, but if they haven’t changed from believing homosexuality is an unclean abomination I don’t know what that is other than mildly crazy. 

 
Check out this thread of msm clips by Dan Cohen.  They’re not just bad at their jobs, they’re straightup disinformation outlets for the security state.  This was the inevitable aftermath of lionizing spooks as law and order heroes.  

 
This isn't suprising to anyone is it?  I mean Tulsi supported Bernie over Hilary in 2016.   Hilary is one mean, self-entitled women.   She just needs to lash out.  

 
I guess there are other ways to describe someone who says her views on gay marriage haven’t changed while now supporting LGBTQ legislation, but if they haven’t changed from believing homosexuality is an unclean abomination I don’t know what that is other than mildly crazy. 
It's exactly what every politician should be.  Viewing a subject in the context of its legality in the constitution instead of following a personal belief is now considered mildly crazy?

 
For me it's bringing our kids home stopping never ending  wars and diverting the war funds to something that matters.
Ditto.

However, hasn't this typically been a left-leaning democratic position over the past few decades?  One of the strongest criticisms of progressives of Obama was that he basically continued the military efforts left over from Bush when most thought he would do more to lessen our presence.  But I also remember the right been extremely critical of Obama any time he tried to do something where he was "weakening america."  

If more and more people feel like this, it's great...maybe we have a topic or an issue we can all agree on.  :thumbup:

 
I guess there are other ways to describe someone who says her views on gay marriage haven’t changed while now supporting LGBTQ legislation, but if they haven’t changed from believing homosexuality is an unclean abomination I don’t know what that is other than mildly crazy. 
How about realist?  I don’t know if she thinks homosexuality is an unclean abomination and neither do you.  Regardless, putting aside personal feelings on a topic like this one and recognizing that everyone should have a right to marry who they want is the right thing to do.  

Characterizing it as “mildly crazy” is not what I would expect from you.  

I am quite certain you’d agree that being personally against abortion but voting pro-choice is a laudable stance for any politician-even one that possibly attended pro life rallies or said some pretty terrible things 15 years ago about women who terminated pregnancies.  

This is no different.  Your take on this is way off imo.

 
How about realist?  I don’t know if she thinks homosexuality is an unclean abomination and neither do you.  Regardless, putting aside personal feelings on a topic like this one and recognizing that everyone should have a right to marry who they want is the right thing to do.  

Characterizing it as “mildly crazy” is not what I would expect from you.  

I am quite certain you’d agree that being personally against abortion but voting pro-choice is a laudable stance for any politician-even one that possibly attended pro life rallies or said some pretty terrible things 15 years ago about women who terminated pregnancies.  

This is no different.  Your take on this is way off imo.
She was in this commercial which compares gay marriage to marrying your sister or marrying a dog.  She gave a speech in the Hawaii House indicating that she didn't believe that children should be taught that gay marriage is normal and natural just because of homosexual extremists.  She unequivocally backed her father's views.  She was a vocal member of an organization that referred to it (by using bible quotes) as an abomination.  She said in an interview in 2015 that her views haven't changed, she just doesn't think that it should be illegal to get married.

I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree.  She's been pretty clear in the past what her views were.  She said recently that they haven't changed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
She was in this commercial which compares gay marriage to marrying your sister or marrying a dog.  She gave a speech in the Hawaii House indicating that she didn't believe that children should be taught that gay marriage is normal and natural just because of homosexual extremists.  She unequivocally backed her father's views.  She was a vocal member of an organization that referred to it (by using bible quotes) as an abomination.  She said in an interview in 2015 that her views haven't changed, she just doesn't think that it should be illegal to get married.

I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree.  She's been pretty clear in the past what her views were.  She said recently that they haven't changed.
Perhaps the issue is your choice of term “crazy”

None of those views are crazy.

Small minded, hateful, discriminatory and with a lack of humanity and compete lack of acceptance of another human being? Sure.  If ill will and a cold heart? Yeah that too.

sadly though, hardly crazy. 

 
I think you and I have a different definition of "powerful".  
adjective

having great power or strength.

Gabbard spoke out against Hillary directly and called her what she is. Who else has done that within the Democratic party? That's power and strength. Hillary wishes she'd never uttered those words now

 
Perhaps the issue is your choice of term “crazy”

None of those views are crazy.

Small minded, hateful, discriminatory and with a lack of humanity and compete lack of acceptance of another human being? Sure.  If ill will and a cold heart? Yeah that too.

sadly though, hardly crazy. 
I would consider the ability to hold two diametrically opposed ideas in one's head and simultaneously believe both as mildly crazy.

 
If Gabbard is being targeted by Hillary for her 2016 support of Bernie, why isn’t Hillary actually going after Bernie himself?  
Because everything is a conspiracy now.  1+1=2 has become 1+8-9+3+15-13-3=2 and that's not including the question about whether 2 even equals 2.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top