-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
2020 Presidential Democratic Primary Debates 3&4 |OT| July 30-31, 2019
- Thread starter SweetNicole
- Start date
- Status
someone in this thread advocated for her to be Bernie's running mate
We're on to you.
What I'm taking from some of this "y'all are low key Tulsi boosters" is if you so much as hold the same opinion as Tulsi or say "she has a point here", you're actually rooting for Tulsi and her homophobia.
Heavens to Betsy, some*one* said something on the internet. Tulsi is garbage in many ways and not a plausible candidate, but a person saying something on Era doesn't make it a mainstream opinion within the left.
it's ironic that the people complaining about signal boosting tulsi and the ones who have kept her in the discussion since the debate
Her character serves the purpose of nullifying legitimate criticisms of Kamala Harris's record.
It's the same thought process that led to dozens on here actually thinking that someone saying "Hey, maybe the US putting boots on the ground in Venezuela isn't a good idea" means "OH SO YOU SUPPORT MADURO HUH? YOU LOVE YOU SOME MADURO, DON'TCHA?"
Everything is always so black and white with a few people, jesus christ. It's how children think.
You have people in this thread fawning over her. Not just "she has a point", but people outright cheering for her. Hence the pushback in this thread.
Hmmm, named after the breed of Russian dog in your avatar Quite suspicious! He's a cute lil doggo tho.
Tulsi being terrible doesn't nullify legitimate criticisms of Kamala. And actually it's been helpful for people who apparently don't care about attacks on LGBTQ people to out themselves in the process.
Tulsi shouldn't be close to the Presidency or be considered for VP.
It's quite possible (probable even) that they are or were unaware of her record in that reguard, and the only context they'd have likely seen it in is the 'I've evolved' response from the first debate.
"God I want to have sex with his Climate Plan"
What was the question?
I dunno, does Inslee support radical Christian sects that push for reparative therapy?
He doesn't. Gabbard does and yes she is a piece of shit for that.
Literally all of this is
The fact that people think that Tulsi is still a Homophobe just shows how blatantly misinformed they are.
And what makes this more annoying is that the people criticising Tulsi for something she no longer believes in are the same people who support Clinton despite her also previously being a homophobe.
The term 'moving the goal post' comes to mind
And what makes this more annoying is that the people criticising Tulsi for something she no longer believes in are the same people who support Clinton despite her also previously being a homophobe.
The term 'moving the goal post' comes to mind
Last edited:
I feel like it has to be that, name recognition, the sort of "cool Joe" image that was built up towards the end of Obama's presidency and a desire to go back to how things were.
I hope more people will realize that going back isn't likely going to fix anything. 'How things were' played a huge part in how we ended up with this current administration. It's even more baffling that someone who was actually there, with Obama, could say something like the republican's "fever will break" once Trump is out of office, and they can work together to "get things done." I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the more people tune in and actually learn about Biden, the more his support will drop.
kHe doesn't. Gabbard does and yes she is a piece of shit for that.
Literally all of this is
She, THIS YEAR, went to bat for antigay extremists the Knights of Columbus. She hasn't changed, she's just running for president.
I mean, we could talk about how Bernie and Warren killed it on night 1 and how Jake Tapper is an ass.
Yes please!
Or how Tapper admitted they were intentionally giving leading moderate questions to the moderate candidates to challenge Warren and Bernie specifically because Biden wasn't there.
Last edited:
In 2015 just 4 years ago she said her personal views against homosexuality have not changed. That she still morally opposes homosexuality.
And to compare her to Clinton is a joke.
Did Hillary Clinton used homophobic slurs in public to attack gay people? Nope. Tulsi did!
Did Hillary Clinton ever say we need to ban all gay historic figures from history classrooms because it might brainwash kids into being gay? Nope. Tulsi did!
I can list you times Tulsi in her days of state politics used homophobic slurs to attack gay people. Hillary NEVER did that.
Are you suggesting that Tulsi is being called out because she's a woman of color and that a white man would get a pass if he held her bizarre, violently homophobic views?
Lol why are you doing this. Tulsi has no unique or interesting policy positions and has effectively no chance at winning.
Also Clinton was never as shit as Tulsi on LGBT issues. And that's coming from someone who still doesn't believe that Clinton personally gives a shit about gay rights.
As a queer person, I find the Bigotry Olympics argument to be devoid of any real value. Hillary was against same-sex marriage for far longer than she should have been, and she doesn't get a pass just because other bigots were more harmful with their words and/or actions. Nevertheless, I take her at her word that her views have changed as long as she supports the LGBTQ+ community with her actions now, even though you can never really know a person (the extent to which Hillary disliked gay people is unknowable to us). Likewise, as vile as Tulsi used to be with her homophobia, she has apologized, and as of 2019, has stated that her views have changed, and by way of her role in Congress, she continues to support the LGBTQ+ community, so I will take her at her word as well, and continue to not use bad faith arguments to put down a candidate that I don't like.
It's really dumb to make this about Clinton but if people want to play that, she was also the first First Lady to show up and march in a gay pride parade back in 2000. She was late as was just about everyone else on marriage equality. Personally, I almost skipped voting in '08 for Obama's homophobic comments about gay marriage.
I'm not making this about Clinton. I just don't like the argument that x person wasn't as bigoted as y person, even though they were still bigoted, as if they should get a cookie for not being as patently shitty as someone else.
Same with Obama. He didn't get a pass from me either.
I don't think she has any friends and I'm not sure anyone wants her as a friend, but ok.
LMAO, Tulsi Gabbard sucks. I don't know why you're all still talking about Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi Gabbard is ultimately irrelevant.
@VladamirPutin I await my money for the three mentions.
@VladamirPutin I await my money for the three mentions.
But, timing is important.
In the US at least, attitudes on homosexuality have had a compressed period of evolution. Yes, gays on the whole have been more accepted as time goes on, but we've seen a massive shift in just the last 10 years or so.
So to me, as unsavory as it seems, I'm willing to accept Hillary's public waffling on gay issues (even though Her Darn Emails proved she had been for gay rights for years) in the 90s and early 2000s.
Tulsi was holding anti-gay views as recently as 2015.
It took way WAY too goddamn long for politicians to turn around on gay marriage. Also fuck all the Dems still in congress that voted for DOMA. Here's an outdated list of who's still in office
Fuck Biden, Schumer, my rep Blumenauer, and the rest of these fucks
I don't really get why that would be an issue if she votes in a way that is pro LGBT though. Which she has done so, and consistently. It's not like any of us know her personally, so the only way she would affect any of us is through her policy positions. At least when it comes to LGBT issues, I would assume she's in line with pretty much everyone on this forum. I don't see why Gabbard really needs to be someone who morally agrees with us on everything if the way she votes is the same way we would.
That more people held shitty views back then doesn't excuse said shitty views for the time period. Wrong is wrong. We cannot blame these views completely on societal structures; there has to be some level of personal accountability.
Some people are simply less open-minded and accepting than others; which mainly comes from personality traits. It doesn't mean that anything can't be done about that, but these are the kind of people that will not be accepting of others until there is significant pressure to do so, and that is a fundamental character flaw. Conversely, some people, regardless of public opinion, are naturally inclined to egalitarianism, and for these people, it doesn't matter what time period it is, they're just good people.
So the way I see it, the types of people that will not be virtuous unless society tells them to be should not be given a pass just because the shitty opinions they held were popular at the time.
All in my opinion, of course.
- Status