Tulsi in Iowa, impresses many.

[IceSpear]

She's the one person I really would not want to see nominated...

[IceSpear]

I knew it. Tulsi Gabbard will be the Democratic nominee, if not her than Kamala Harris.

At least she's started to speak out in favor of diplomacy on North Korea. But given her background and shady connections I just don't trust her. Also, she could use some teeth whitening strips.

It's far too early to say that. We don't even know if she'll run, and 90% of Democrats probably don't even know who she is right now. Same for Harris.

[IceSpear]

What's with all the hate? She is one of my favorite politicians.

Well, she has railed against "homosexual extremists" on multiple occasions so I don't trust her "evolution" on that issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Against civil unions? Really? Even Dubya supported those in 2004!

She has some problematic stances on foreign policy. Such as constant Assad apologism and buying into conspiracies about how he never used chemical weapons and it was a false flag.

And the cult around her is annoying. As if she's some martyr who got turned into stone by Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Medusa gaze just because she endorsed Bernie and VOLUNTARILY resigned from the DNC.

[IceSpear]

What's with all the hate? She is one of my favorite politicians.

Well, she has railed against "homosexual extremists" on multiple occasions so I don't trust her "evolution" on that issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Against civil unions? Really? Even Dubya supported those in 2004!

She has some problematic stances on foreign policy. Such as constant Assad apologism and buying into conspiracies about how he never used chemical weapons and it was a false flag.

And the cult around her is annoying. As if she's some martyr who got turned into stone by Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Medusa gaze just because she endorsed Bernie and VOLUNTARILY resigned from the DNC.

She still endorsed SSM before the last Democratic Presidential nominee did.

Assad like Saddam is a bad person, but that doesn't justify a war. We have plenty of bad people (like the House of Saud) that are our "allies".

Yeah nice try. Hardly any Democrats opposed civil unions, much less consistently used hateful slurs like "homosexual extremists." Hell, even most Republicans didn't go that far.

[IceSpear]

the more I read about Tulsi, the more I like her.

How can anyone Democrat get mad at Bush over Iraq then be against Assad?

Gabbard isn't pro Assad, just like people against the Iraq war weren't pro Saddam. There are plenty of sh**tty leaders, some of whom are our "allies" like the House of Saud.

And about gay marriage, she'll be fine.

Sanders got people to believe he's always been pro-gay marriage although he didn't explicitly support it til 2009.

He had never opposed it. In the 1970s, he called for abolishing on laws dealing homosexuality, which could be implied as supporting SSM, but SSM wasn't really an issue talked about much until this century.

Sanders signed a resolution in the early 80s declaring marriage between a woman and man and as recently as 2006 said it should be left up to the states.

Yet he got everyone to think he's been at the forefront of gay rights lol.

Hell, Obama and Clinton got people to believe they're gay right innovators (even though Clinton is STILL personally against gay marriage).

And Assad is crappy but far better than letting Neocons take control. One of the best thing Trump did was stop the selling of weapons to the Al-Qaeda/ISIS I meant "rebels" my bad.

His 1980s thing wasn't against gay marriage, it just mentioned husband and wife at a time when gay marriage wasn't an issue. And in 2006, leaving it to the states was the view of most who supported SSM since Congress was still trying to pass a constitutional amendment to ban it.

Which was Hillary's exact position in 2006 as well. And unlike Gabbard, she never opposed civil unions or used anti-gay slurs.

[IceSpear]

"Tulsi Gabbard supported gay marriage before Hillary Clinton" is an inane and pointless comparison. In 2012 Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Secretaries of State by tradition do not speak on domestic or local issues, since they are irrelevant to their job, and can be seen as pushing an agenda which is not supposed to be what the office does. Hillary didn't even speak at the 2012 DNC. Neither did John Kerry in 2016, despite being a former nominee and the last Democratic nominee before the then sitting President. If Hillary had stayed in the Senate, it's a no brainer as to if she would've endorsed gay marriage in 2012, if not sooner.

It's a pointless comparison anyway, because Hillary has said she won't run in 2020. So Tulsi Gabbard, if she runs (which I doubt) should not be compared to Hillary Clinton on this, but rather the other Democrats running.

The point is it is fairly hypocritical for Clinton supporters to blast her on this issue when they supported Clinton on this issue without questions (with her opposition to SSM till 2013 & support for the homophobic DOMA). Gabbard was 29 or 30 when she supported SSM, in 2012. She was brought up in a homophobic household, she went to the Middle East & her views changed. She has since been a part of multiple pro-gay legislation in the House. Clinton got the approval of the HRC, multiple gay organizations.

If past actions are a disqualifier then - 

Clinton should be disqualified for the Iraq War which killed millions
Joe Biden should be disqualified for the Iraq War which killed millions.
Tim Kaine should not be a VP Candidate because of his anti-abortion history.

This whole talk of Gabbard is a way to "punish her" for supporting Sanders. Howard Dean & Neera Tanden have talking funding a primary against Gabbard. This is not about  Gabbard being the 2020 Nominee. She is atleast 10-12 years away if ever & Sanders/Warren/Merkley will be the progressive candidate. This is about punishing people for supporting Sanders (like Perez is doing at the DNC).

Punish her? lol. I couldn't care less that she endorsed Bernie, except to the extent that it is literally the only reason for her current "political fame." I'd consider voting for Bernie in the 2020 primary, depending on who else is in the race and how the campaigns/debates go. I'd never vote for Gabbard.