Please, not Tulsi Gabbard.

[MovingPictures]

Why are people on the left going so crazy for this bigot, what's the appeal?

Her entire family has a long history of anti-gay activism that went beyond even just opposition to same-sex marriage rights. No, her POS father went after gay people's rights up and down the board, making clear he sees them as not worthy of any human decency or respect.

Gabbard defended those views just 13 years ago, when she was 24 years old. She only did her 180' only when the Democratic party as a whole did.

She's awful, find somebody else.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Why are people on the left going so crazy for this bigot, what's the appeal?

Her entire family has a long history of anti-gay activism that went beyond even just opposition to same-sex marriage rights. No, her POS father went after gay people's rights up and down the board, making clear he sees them as not worthy of any human decency or respect.

Gabbard defended those views just 13 years ago, when she was 24 years old. She only did her 180' only when the Democratic party as a whole did.

She's awful, find somebody else.

The sins of the father are not the daughters.

Once upon a time people knew this.

WE USED TO BE BETTER!

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Not Donald Trump 2020

 

[truthatallcost]

Why are people on the left going so crazy for this bigot, what's the appeal?

Her entire family has a long history of anti-gay activism that went beyond even just opposition to same-sex marriage rights. No, her POS father went after gay people's rights up and down the board, making clear he sees them as not worthy of any human decency or respect.

Gabbard defended those views just 13 years ago, when she was 24 years old. She only did her 180' only when the Democratic party as a whole did.

She's awful, find somebody else.

She's not worthy of a second chance? I find that unacceptable.

 

[truthatallcost]

Not Donald Trump 2020

Haven't seen you around in a while Abba. Who are you liking for 2020?

 

[Oborosen]

Why are people on the left going so crazy for this bigot, what's the appeal?

Her entire family has a long history of anti-gay activism that went beyond even just opposition to same-sex marriage rights. No, her POS father went after gay people's rights up and down the board, making clear he sees them as not worthy of any human decency or respect.

Gabbard defended those views just 13 years ago, when she was 24 years old. She only did her 180' only when the Democratic party as a whole did.

She's awful, find somebody else.

Most of us have already said this. But for posterity, I'm going to say it again.

Just because "Orange man bad" does not mean it's a good idea. But if Obama could make it to the presidents chair and his history on the subject was just as shaky. Then she has just as much a chance. So as with Hillary, my stance is going to be the same.

I'm all for a woman as president, just not that woman.

 

[truthatallcost]

The sins of the father are not the daughters.

Once upon a time people knew this.

WE USED TO BE BETTER!

My thoughts exactly Hawk. Give her another chance anyway, she's cuter than AOC, and a lot smarter to boot!

 

[RabidAlpaca]

She's not worthy of a second chance? I find that unacceptable.

Oh? You're considering jumping off the Trump train to support Gabbard? Your opinion on Democrats you hate, hyperbolize about and will never vote for is deeply cherished by all of us.

 

[truthatallcost]

Most of us have already said this. But for posterity, I'm going to say it again.

Just because "Orange man bad" does not mean it's a good idea. But if Obama could make it to the presidents chair and his history on the subject was just as shaky. Then she has just as much a chance. So as with Hillary, my stance is going to be the same.

I'm all for a woman as president, just not that woman.

Obama kissed Farrakhan's ring in private, hoping Farrakhan would get his million Nation of Islam followers to vote for him. Farrakhan endorsed genocide of whites and Jews. Oh, how soon the people forget.

 

[truthatallcost]

Oh? You're considering jumping off the Trump train to support Gabbard? Your opinion on Democrats you hate, hyperbolize about and will never vote for is deeply cherished by all of us.

I just might RA. Gabbard is the only Dem hopeful yet who I'd consider voting for over Trump. Trump's first two years were not what I'd hoped they'd been, and he's probably only going to further appeasing his son in law.

 

[RAMOSS]

Why are people on the left going so crazy for this bigot, what's the appeal?

Her entire family has a long history of anti-gay activism that went beyond even just opposition to same-sex marriage rights. No, her POS father went after gay people's rights up and down the board, making clear he sees them as not worthy of any human decency or respect.

Gabbard defended those views just 13 years ago, when she was 24 years old. She only did her 180' only when the Democratic party as a whole did.

She's awful, find somebody else.

Well, when it comes to politicians, you have to remember the immortal words of Roseanne Roseannadanna , it just goes to show you, it's always something — if it ain't one thing, it's another.

You know, a lot of people changed their minds about gay marriage and gay rights over the last 13 years. I think she might be unseasoned yet, but people mature and grow up.

 

[Oborosen]

Obama kissed Farrakhan's ring in private, hoping Farrakhan would get his million Nation of Islam followers to vote for him. Farrakhan endorsed genocide of whites and Jews. Oh, how soon the people forget.

No, see that's the problem right there. They don't forget, they just don't care. So long as it serves their agenda and their own causes to the best that they can manage it. They will bed with any, be it a genocidal mad man. All the way to child peddling criminals and come hell, or high water. They will stick by that persons side, tote that shield and swing that sword.

 

[Hawkeye10]

My thoughts exactly Hawk. Give her another chance anyway, she's cuter than AOC, and a lot smarter to boot!

The sins of the father are not the sins of the kids........Full Stop.

*SEE SIG*

 

[MovingPictures]

No, see that's the problem right there. They don't forget, they just don't care. So long as it serves their agenda and their own causes to the best that they can manage it. They will bed with any, be it a genocidal mad man. All the way to child peddling criminals and come hell, or high water. They will stick by that persons side, tote that shield and swing that sword.

You're right, Democrats shouldn't have supported Roy Moore, reelected Duncan Hunter Jr and Steve King, and Obama should never have praised Kim and Putin.

Oh wait, that was the Republicans.:lol:

The thing you guys do best is projection.

 

[MovingPictures]

Well, when it comes to politicians, you have to remember the immortal words of Roseanne Roseannadanna , it just goes to show you, it's always something — if it ain't one thing, it's another.

You know, a lot of people changed their minds about gay marriage and gay rights over the last 13 years. I think she might not be a bit unseasoned yet, but people mature and grow up.

**** her.

There are dozens of better choices.

 

[Surrealistik]

Why are people on the left going so crazy for this bigot, what's the appeal?

Her entire family has a long history of anti-gay activism that went beyond even just opposition to same-sex marriage rights. No, her POS father went after gay people's rights up and down the board, making clear he sees them as not worthy of any human decency or respect.

Gabbard defended those views just 13 years ago, when she was 24 years old. She only did her 180' only when the Democratic party as a whole did.

She's awful, find somebody else.

Because Gabbard has pulled a complete 180 on the LGBTQ community since her earlier days, she isn't her family, and has a consummate pro-gay voting record, while stridently supporting popular policies that the party, and indeed the country at large wants, whereas most of the other declared candidates offer lukewarm commitments to them at best? Did you even pay attention to her launch speech?

In fact, Tulsi is the best declared candidate thus far barring possibly Warren.

 

[Amelia]

It's a long way to the primaries.

She'll make a good case, or she won't.


Without Hillary around, there is no heir apparent. There will be a lot of good discussions. If Gabbard rises to the top, it will be for good reason and most of the people who aren't Trump supporters will be able to say, "I wasn't sure at first, but she won me over."

 

[MovingPictures]

Because Gabbard has pulled a complete 180 on the LGBTQ community since her earlier days, she isn't her family, and has a consummate pro-gay voting record, while stridently supporting popular policies that the party, and indeed the country at large wants, whereas most of the other declared candidates offer lukewarm commitments to them at best?

In fact, Tulsi is the best declared candidate thus far barring possibly Warren.

She'd be a massive gift to the right.

They'd rightfully point her past record of anti gay activism and the hypocrisy of the Dems running her, and we would see enthusiasm drop because of it.

 

[Phys251]

Why are people on the left going so crazy for this bigot, what's the appeal?

Her entire family has a long history of anti-gay activism that went beyond even just opposition to same-sex marriage rights. No, her POS father went after gay people's rights up and down the board, making clear he sees them as not worthy of any human decency or respect.

Gabbard defended those views just 13 years ago, when she was 24 years old. She only did her 180' only when the Democratic party as a whole did.

She's awful, find somebody else.

Her anti-LGBTQ comments were one thing. Forgivable or not, that's not my call.

Her much more recent actions with al-Assad are absolutely inexcusable and a complete deal-breaker.

And then, there's this lovely endorsement. :thumbdown

 

[RAMOSS]

**** her.

There are dozens of better choices.

You have said that with practically every person who has announced they are running. I can not take your quick rush to judgement seriously. I have a whole year to choose who I will vote for in the primary, and I have not eliminated anybody yet.. although there are a number I am leaning against.

 

[Surrealistik]

She'd be a massive gift to the right.

They'd rightfully point her past record of anti gay activism and the hypocrisy of the Dems running her, and we would see enthusiasm drop because of it.

Um, I'm pretty sure the right isn't going to sling mud about any past anti-gay activism, limited as it is. First of all, it's throwing stones in a glass house, and secondly, it's all but irrelevant at this point over a decade later. Dredging up her past is more something that's likely to be specific to the primaries.

In the end, I don't think it will be an effective bludgeon given her stances and voting record, and the fact that the country as a whole has developed and matured with Tulsi during that time. Personally I do think it is a mark against her, but it's hardly anything terminal or even significant given how far she's come, and how long ago she held those prior stances.

 

[RAMOSS]

Because Gabbard has pulled a complete 180 on the LGBTQ community since her earlier days, she isn't her family, and has a consummate pro-gay voting record, while stridently supporting popular policies that the party, and indeed the country at large wants, whereas most of the other declared candidates offer lukewarm commitments to them at best? Did you even pay attention to her launch speech?

In fact, Tulsi is the best declared candidate thus far barring possibly Warren.

I don't think Warren is electable. She's too vulnerable to the 'Putting American Indian' down to get ahead claim. It might not be fair, but that's the reality when it comes to how the elections get won/lost.

 

[MovingPictures]

I don't think Warren is electable. She's too vulnerable to the 'Putting American Indian' down to get ahead claim. It might not be fair, but that's the reality when it comes to how the elections get won/lost.

Warren is toast.

 

[Oborosen]

You're right, Democrats shouldn't have supported Roy Moore, reelected Duncan Hunter Jr and Steve King, and Obama should never have praised Kim and Putin.

Oh wait, that was the Republicans.:lol:

The thing you guys do best is projection.

You do know that Obama did share pleasantries with the exact same people and I'm damn well not going to condemn him for "playing nice" on the public stage. Because doing so would a idiotic stance for me to take.

Also, while I don't really know anything about Duncan, or Steve King. I'm probably going to guess it falls into the same station as Roy Moore inhabited. Where multiple people, who have for some reason waited over three decades to come forward with allegations of sexual assault & misconduct. Doing so at the most opportune time to disrupt his election bid and then fade back into the either, to vanish just like their thinly veiled, unproven allegations and to be honest. I didn't really like Roy Moore. Though I do live close enough to the man to know that what was being spewed one the media were blatantly incorrect.

But here, I'm going to point something out to you MovingPictures. I was actually siding with you in my post, though I was still explaining for you why such an instance was coming about in the first place. Yet your first response was to berate and slander about things you most likely already know to be untrue. Though like I said, I don't know about King, or Duncan. So you might actually be onto something there.

This is the main problem with posters like you and those like you in politics and it's one of the main reasons no one takes you, or anyone remotely like you seriously. Especially when it concerns politics. Because you continually let your own bias and hate fuel whatever it is you speak on.

 

[Surrealistik]

I don't think Warren is electable. She's too vulnerable to the 'Putting American Indian' down to get ahead claim. It might not be fair, but that's the reality when it comes to how the elections get won/lost.

Yeah, that's where the 'possibly' comes from; not so much from the whole Indian fiasco as in her overall demeanour and presence.

Despite my affinity for Warren and her policies, I'm generally in agreement that she suffers from a deficit of charisma as Hillary did, albeit not nearly to the same extent. In her case it's more like an absence of appeal, versus active repulsion per the latter.