Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Pretty soon Tulsi is going to have a net favorable rating with Republicans.
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 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Franknbeans
- Start date
unckeyherb
Footballguy
So again, being personally against abortion, perhaps to the point of thinking it evil, while also recognizing a woman’s personal right to choose is crazy?Henry Ford said:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Being against it? No. Believing it's evil? I guess that depends on your definition, but potentially, yes. I've discussed evil on this board before, I think even in this context.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
If you legitimately think something is murder, you absolutely should believe it should be illegal. Otherwise what the heck do we have laws for?
I disagree with people who think abortion is murder and want it to be illegal. I do so on the basis of facts and scientific definitions. I believe such people are ill informed. If you believe it's the murder of babies and it should be legal, that's at least mildly crazy.
I disagree with people who think abortion is murder and want it to be illegal. I do so on the basis of facts and scientific definitions. I believe such people are ill informed. If you believe it's the murder of babies and it should be legal, that's at least mildly crazy.
Franknbeans
Footballguy
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
You people with your phony murder laws.
I haven't done much any research on Tulsi so I don't have an opinion, but saw this on reddit today. Sorry if already posted: https://i.redd.it/9linfab4spt31.jpg
This is such a bizarre story that should never have popped up to the national media.
Gabbard - like her or don't like her - she is not a factor in the Dem primary. She could shoot Clinton on 5th Avenue, and would still be a non-factor in the Dem primary.
Whether or not Russia bots are amplifying her message - it is not going to resonate with most Dem voters, and it will not prevent most Dem voters from supporting the eventual nominee.
Gabbard - like her or don't like her - she is not a factor in the Dem primary. She could shoot Clinton on 5th Avenue, and would still be a non-factor in the Dem primary.
Whether or not Russia bots are amplifying her message - it is not going to resonate with most Dem voters, and it will not prevent most Dem voters from supporting the eventual nominee.
Koya
Footballguy
Can't imagine why I have such an issue trusting her and get this queasy feeling that something's amiss with her. Hmmm.
Navin Johnson
Footballguy
So as a lawyer, do you only represent clients with values and beliefs that are the same as your own?Henry Ford said:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Tulsi Gabbard discussed her beliefs. Not those of her constituents. Hers. That her views have not changed and also that she does not believe gay marriage should be illegal because of her epiphany during her time serving her country.
If she had said I still believe that homosexuality is what the organizations I used to fight for think it is and also that my constituents have different views and I vowed to fight for what they want that would be a different conversation.
If she had said I still believe that homosexuality is what the organizations I used to fight for think it is and also that my constituents have different views and I vowed to fight for what they want that would be a different conversation.
Navin Johnson
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Does it? That seems like a different set of criteria than what I just spoke of, but I'm open to your thoughts.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Quotes below show me someone that HAS changed her views on this. Her previous views-when she was an impressionable 20 year-old-are not who she is now. It’s not how she’s voted and it’s not what she’s said.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard apologized Thursday for "wrong" and "hurtful" statements she made years ago touting her work for an anti-gay group, saying in a series of posts to Twitter that "my views have changed significantly since then."
"I grew up knowing that every person is a child of God, and equally loved by God. I have always believed in the fundamental rights and equality of all people," Gabbard wrote in a flurry of posts that was also accompanied by a video apology. "But I also grew up in a socially conservative household, where I was raised to believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. For a period of my life I didn’t see the contradiction in those beliefs."
"While many Americans may relate to growing up in a conservative home, my story is a little different because my father was very outspoken. He was an activist who was fighting against gay rights and marriage equality in Hawaii – and at that time, I forcefully defended him," she wrote on Twitter Thursday afternoon. "But over the years, I formed my own opinions based on my life experience that changed my views – at a personal level in having aloha, love, for all people, and ensuring that every American, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, is treated equally under the law."
Tulsi Gabbard said she has since changed her views and has repeatedly voted in Congress to protect gay rights. She is a member of the House LGBT Equality Caucus, and gay rights group the Human Rights Campaign gave her a score of 100 for her voting record.
The lawmaker previously apologized for her comments about LGBT issues in 2012 when she was first elected to Congress. But with a 2020 run increasing scrutiny on her past, she renewed her apology on Thursday.
"I know that LGBTQ+ people still struggle, are still facing discrimination, are still facing abuse and still fear that their hard-won rights are going to be taken away by people who hold views like I used to," the Hawaii Democrat wrote online. "I regret the role I played in causing such pain, and I remain committed to fighting for LGBTQ+ equality."
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard apologized Thursday for "wrong" and "hurtful" statements she made years ago touting her work for an anti-gay group, saying in a series of posts to Twitter that "my views have changed significantly since then."
"I grew up knowing that every person is a child of God, and equally loved by God. I have always believed in the fundamental rights and equality of all people," Gabbard wrote in a flurry of posts that was also accompanied by a video apology. "But I also grew up in a socially conservative household, where I was raised to believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. For a period of my life I didn’t see the contradiction in those beliefs."
"While many Americans may relate to growing up in a conservative home, my story is a little different because my father was very outspoken. He was an activist who was fighting against gay rights and marriage equality in Hawaii – and at that time, I forcefully defended him," she wrote on Twitter Thursday afternoon. "But over the years, I formed my own opinions based on my life experience that changed my views – at a personal level in having aloha, love, for all people, and ensuring that every American, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, is treated equally under the law."
Tulsi Gabbard said she has since changed her views and has repeatedly voted in Congress to protect gay rights. She is a member of the House LGBT Equality Caucus, and gay rights group the Human Rights Campaign gave her a score of 100 for her voting record.
The lawmaker previously apologized for her comments about LGBT issues in 2012 when she was first elected to Congress. But with a 2020 run increasing scrutiny on her past, she renewed her apology on Thursday.
"I know that LGBTQ+ people still struggle, are still facing discrimination, are still facing abuse and still fear that their hard-won rights are going to be taken away by people who hold views like I used to," the Hawaii Democrat wrote online. "I regret the role I played in causing such pain, and I remain committed to fighting for LGBTQ+ equality."
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Sorry, but the murder analogy is an illogical one. Murder or the legality of it, has never been in question. However, the legality of gay marriage was something that was not accepted by even the highest level politicians in the Democratic Party at the time where she (Tulsi) held the same views. Obama, Clinton, and a good swath of the rest of the Democratic Party still had not embraced gay marriage as a platform they’d be willing to champion or support after the point in time where she was against it. Context matters, especially with regards to this. She, like our former president, has evolved on this issue.
Sand
Footballguy
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
Trump Dismisses Doral Criticism: ‘You People With This Phony Emoluments Clause’
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-dismisses-doral-criticism-you-people-with-this-phony-emoluments-clause
Dickies
Footballguy
unckeyherb
Footballguy
ren hoek
Footballguy
Bernie Sanders @BernieSanders
Tulsi Gabbard has put her life on the line to defend this country. People can disagree on issues, but it is outrageous for anyone to suggest that Tulsi is a foreign asset.
Tulsi Gabbard has put her life on the line to defend this country. People can disagree on issues, but it is outrageous for anyone to suggest that Tulsi is a foreign asset.
An opinion piece, but one more voice to add to the mix: https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-being-used-russians-former-us-double-agent-evidence-clear-opinion-1466750
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
Tulsi is a much easier target, which actually proves how much of a coward Hillary is. Bernie has far fewer and less solid connections to Russia than Tulsi and has a smaller and less rabid support base, with fewer consequences for calling her out. She knows this. Of course, there are many other reasons as well. In the middle of another Red Scare here in America, those kinds of connections or riding the fence on the Russia issue are all that matter.fatguyinalittlecoat said:
ren hoek
Footballguy
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
It was a joke. Trump says “you people and your phony emoluments clause”.
i figured I’d give that approach a shot with other laws etc.
I don't think Bernie has a smaller support base than Gabbard, but aren't the first dozen words of what I've quoted kind of the point?
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek
Footballguy
“Tulsi Gabbard is being used by the Russians, and to a former U.S. double agent, the evidence is clear | Opinion”
This article, from a spook who thinks Assange should be prosecuted for publishing classified information, contains nothing indicating Gabbard is “being used by the Russians.” There is literally no evidence in the entire article. None.
KiddLattimer
Footballguy
ren hoek
Footballguy
Will the pundits and failed political elites who made this vacant, McCarthyite smear tactic possible apologize for normalizing this new climate? No. Will people who indulged the TrumpRussia fantasies, falling in love with the security state and its Cold War narrative, casually sliming people who disagreed with them as 'useful idiots' and 'traitors' admit how foolish and dangerous it was? No. Will they confess that this delusional conspiracy theorizing wasn't brought on by the MAGA Trumpguys they love to bash, but by wealthy, educated liberals that were supposed to be a lot smarter than that? No!A smear without evidence punching to the left? Color me shocked
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Right. The entire argument in that article is that Russia may decide to "amplify" the message of a candidate and that is something we as a nation should be wary of. The same could be said of anyone running. They could choose to "amplify" Bernie's message. They could choose to amplify numerous candidate's messages. That does not mean anything about the candidate. That they use Tulsi as the example is reckless as it implies to the casual observer that, again, there is coordination where there actually isn't.
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
I feel like she is the girl from Seinfeld that has a closet full of the same dress and that’s all she wears ever
rockaction
Footballguy
It actually sounds like the coordination is coming from the Democratic-driven media complex, who are now merely positing (not asserting! Oh my!) that she might be beneficial to Russian interests.
Talk about whose hand is shaking whose.
Talk about whose hand is shaking whose.
ren hoek
Footballguy
It's almost like it's an arbitrary smear tactic that can be used to stigmatize any dissenting opinion. I wonder what Tulsi has to do to avoid the appearances of being "used" by "the Russians." Should she become pro-war, and support the overthrow of Assad? Or would that make her an ISIS asset?
All the people who are saying that Gabbard is spouting Russian talking points are not doing so without evidence.
The reason people are saying that Gabbard has a weird thing going on with Russia and Assad, and are not saying the same thing about Buttigieg or Biden, is not because they rolled some dice which randomly landed on "Gabbard." The reason people are saying that Jill Stein had a weird thing going on with Russia, and are not saying the same about Harris or Warren, is not because they flipped some coins.
It's because of what Gabbard and Stein have said and done, which other candidates (besides Trump) have not.
The reason people are saying that Gabbard has a weird thing going on with Russia and Assad, and are not saying the same thing about Buttigieg or Biden, is not because they rolled some dice which randomly landed on "Gabbard." The reason people are saying that Jill Stein had a weird thing going on with Russia, and are not saying the same about Harris or Warren, is not because they flipped some coins.
It's because of what Gabbard and Stein have said and done, which other candidates (besides Trump) have not.
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek
Footballguy
Max Blumenthal @MaxBlumenthal
Naveed Jamali, author of a slanderous, evidence-free smear of Tulsi Gabbard, falsely identifies as an ex-“FBI double agent.” I perused his (ghostwritten) book and it’s clear he was at best a dangle. He was never an agent & only got this little league certificate for his bit part.
Naveed Jamali, author of a slanderous, evidence-free smear of Tulsi Gabbard, falsely identifies as an ex-“FBI double agent.” I perused his (ghostwritten) book and it’s clear he was at best a dangle. He was never an agent & only got this little league certificate for his bit part.
KiddLattimer
Footballguy
Stealing a line from Secular Talk but - the Russians are against nuclear war with America, so if she also opposes nuclear war then I guess she's an agent of Putin!It's almost like it's an arbitrary smear tactic that can be used to stigmatize any dissenting opinion. I wonder what Tulsi has to do to avoid the appearances of being "used" by "the Russians." Should she become pro-war, and support the overthrow of Assad? Or would that make her an ISIS asset?
If she says "I'm against nuclear war," that would be fine. If she says "I'm against nuclear war even though the West violated its pledge to the USSR not to expand NATO," that would be a lot less fine.
That's a major difference between Gabbard and Sanders. They both generally favor less foreign intervention. (Fine.) Only one does so in language borrowed from Russia Today. (Less fine.)
Last edited by a moderator:
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Maurile, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable about this. Can you link me to some specific quotes/policies that could only be interpreted as parroting/supporting Russian policy goals?
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
I know this is all a hypothetical, but take a step back and just think about all the effort and mental gymnastics you're going through to say that two people are on the correct side of an issue. You're the only one here doing it. Seems unnecessary.
rockaction
Footballguy
I'm on both sides of this issue but can see what Maurile is saying. If she looks at policy from a Russia-centric view, as in the NATO case Maurile describes, then she's really not putting "our" interest first (which presumably she asserts is the case). It can be easily seen as a proxy vote from an interested foreign party, then, and questions about loyalty to that which she professes loyalty to is up for question. In other words, her justification is just as important as her final position.
Plus the fact that Russia Today is hardly the most objective of news sources, but that's for another day...
Last edited by a moderator:
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Fair. And if you are talking about a lifetime politician that might have some skin in the game or Trump for example, then I'd agree. In this case we are talking about a decorated veteran who is STILL SERVING in our military. She has seen the impacts of these intervention wars firsthand and its from that reality that she is viewing this issue. To frame it as though she is doing this under Russian guidance for Russian benefit is really, really devious, IMO.
rockaction
Footballguy
Also a fair point.
Full disclosure: I am one of those that would not have voted for Trump in large part because of NATO and Russia's malfeasance around the world. I'd have preferred we kept the status quo in our foreign policy. I do not consider myself an endless war lover nor a dupe, either.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Right, to be clear, I quoted you, but was really making a broad statement-not directed at you per se.
rockaction
Footballguy
Oh yeah, I was just clarifying my own position so that anybody may judge it for potential bias regarding this issue.
I think what the media is doing is opportunistic, underhanded, and coordinated with Democrats or the DNC, but Maurile's point was a fair one, in my estimation.
Similar threads
