Why do Democrat voters hate Tulsi so much?

[Kleine Scheiße]

It's complicated.

A number of criticisms of her are indeed smears, many of them racist in nature. She is as bad as some of the smears would indicate, but the specific substance of many Tulsi criticisms is not nearly as clear as some seem to think.

[HAnnA MArin County]

She dared to criticize Obama's pro ISIS foreign policy. If only she had been a good Democrat like John Kasich, then she would have been invited to speak at the DNC.

Keep on keep on owning those neolibs, jfern.

Anywho, back to the topic at hand.

As others have said, the voting "present" on impeachment was inexcusable. Yes, her father is a homophobic bigot and at one point in time she was too, but I guess "evolution" is better late than never. Her attacks against Hillary were too calculated and uncalled for and then she goes full-on Trump and threatens to sue Hillary for saying mean (but probably true) things about Russians boosting her "campaign."

She did, however, do a great service to the primary by actually going after Queen Kamala Harris in that one debate and holding her accountable for her despicable record as Attorney General of California. It's hard for the corporate media elites and Beltway pundits to play the "you're a racist sexist" card for daring to criticize the Second Coming of Obama when you're a woman of color too like Tulsi is. So I applaud <1% Tulsi for bringing down "top-tier" and highly overrated candidate KDH a few pegs.

Ultimately though, Tulsi's cons outweigh the pros for me and she seems to do more harm than good to the party. I sometimes think she would probably be a Republican if she wasn't from Hawaii, and then I wonder if she would have "evolved" on LGBTQIA+ rights or maintained her past homophobic views. Probably the latter since the Republican Trump Party hates the gays.

[BaldEagle1991]

She basically is a moron who thinks that having the same foreign policy of George W. Bush would get her anywhere in 2020 and in the Democratic Party.

[Coldstream]

Anyone who describes her as “anti-war” is a liar. Back in 2015 she was saying the Saudis should have their own nukes and attending CUFI. She also literally called herself a hawk on terrorism. The only practical difference between her and the Neocons is that the Neocons want to take out secular dictators too whilst she only wants to take out Islamists.

[McGarnagle]

It really comes down to her not voting to impeach Trump.

[Rookie Yinzer]

It's complicated.

A number of criticisms of her are indeed smears, many of them racist in nature. She is as bad as some of the smears would indicate, but the specific substance of many Tulsi criticisms is not nearly as clear as some seem to think.

What racist smears are there about her being perpetuated by the Democratic Party?

[Brittain33]

She’s a concern troll who uses her D label as an asset to increase her value to Republicans.
She contributed to the destruction of Hillary Clinton and exists to pick fights with good Democratic women with higher profiles and accomplishments than her.
She draws in well-meaning leftists by being anti-war when really it’s because she hates Muslims and loves Assad for starving and killing his (I forget if Sunni or Shia) majority.
Her record shows she’s been a nasty conservative on gay rights, which is personal to us.
She’s like Susan Collins and George Conway rolled up into one.

[MasterJedi]

She also has one of the most conservative voting records for a Democrat too. Why would liberals want that?

[BlueSwan]

Well, you can start with this chart, which shows that Tulsi Gabbard's supporters, unique among candidates, only like Tulsi Gabbard and HATE every single other 2020 candidate.  Including a net -79% favorability rating for Biden!

Alternatively, you can read this post I wrote very early in the primary.

Tulsi Gabbard.

Origin story

Born and raised by a notorious conservative bigot, she joined a cult where you eat the cult leader's toenails, and was active in the anti-gay movement.  Somehow she still got elected as a Democrat.

She was first known for being a right-wing useful idiot, teaming up with Breitbart to call Obama a pussy for not saying "radical Islamic terrorism."

Rise To Power

Somehow she climbed through the ranks of the DNC, before deciding to declare the entire primary "rigged" based on internet conspiracy theories, and throw her full support behind Bernie Sanders.  Throughout the primary she was one of the surrogates giving voice to conspiracy theories Bernie wasn't able to say himself.  She was frequently mentioned as his VP candidate.

The Calm Before The Storm

Tulsi became a favorite of Russian state media, Syrian state media, Alt-Right media, QAnon conspiracy theorists, white nationalists and the KKK.  Around this time she decided to define herself as an "anti-war" candidate by becoming the world's most vocal defender of the world's #1 genocidal maniac, Bashar al-Assad.

She went on alt-right and alt-left media networks like Jimmy Dore (who was being paid under the table by the Assad regime this whole time) to promote Russian-invented conspiracy theories and outright hoaxes about Syria, sh*t all over the Democratic Party and U.S. foreign policy, and continue repeating conspiracy theories about Bernie Sanders' 2016 loss.  A small army of foreign botnets promoted her all over social media.

The Storm

Tulsi declared she was running in 2020.  The only two notable things she's done are her scorched-earth attack on Kamala Harris (using false talking points widely propagated by alt-left media) and her declaration that the Democratic Party is rigging the 2020 primary just like they rigged the 2016 primary.

If you go on her website right now she has a push poll asking the following:

• Did you know in 2016 DNC rigged the election against Bernie Sanders?
• Do you believe the DNC and its corporate parents are taking the democratic process away from early state voters?
• Do you believe boycotting the next debate is the best option to bring attention to what the DNC is doing?
• Or do you believe it’s better to attend the next debate and bring attention to the corporate corruption during the debate?

and so on and so forth.

Since that post was written:

She was the only "Democrat" to abstain from impeaching Trump.  Peterson and Golden voted against, but they are both trying to save deep-red seats.  Tulsi had no excuse other than being a loon.

Tulsi is the only candidate to receive overwhelmingly favorable coverage from Russian propaganda outlets.

Hillary said "someone in this race is a favorite of the Russians", and Tulsi said HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A RUSSIAN SECRET AGENT and sued Hillary Clinton for $50,000,000.

Tulsi called the entire 2020 election rigged and threatened to "boycott" a debate she wasn't invited to anyway.  Then, by sheer luck, she did score an invite, and decided to attend after all.  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-debate.html

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

[Crumpets]

Anyone who describes her as “anti-war” is a liar. Back in 2015 she was saying the Saudis should have their own nukes and attending CUFI. She also literally called herself a hawk on terrorism. The only practical difference between her and the Neocons is that the Neocons want to take out secular dictators too whilst she only wants to take out Islamists.

Not to mention she also refused to say she wouldn't allow the US to torture people for information.

[Kleine Scheiße]

It's complicated.

A number of criticisms of her are indeed smears, many of them racist in nature. She is as bad as some of the smears would indicate, but the specific substance of many Tulsi criticisms is not nearly as clear as some seem to think.

What racist smears are there about her being perpetuated by the Democratic Party?

By the capital-P Party? None that I can think of, nor really from established party leaders. Hillary's comments during the primary were fair game, if blunt. The people who know what's going on and those nearest to actual party power aren't really trafficking in that kind of garbage, far as I can tell.

A lot of people who happen to be Democrats or who vote Democratic do, however, either misunderstand or are not interested in understanding the situation with the Science of Identity Foundation (with which she is associated) in particular. Much was made in some circles of Tulsi's identity as the first Hindu member of Congress, but the SIF is not fully representative of Hinduism. It's up for debate how much of that was enabled by certain Hindu/Hindu-adjacent organizations' support for Tulsi earlier on, but I think it would be pretty unrealistic to expect that no one in the community should have been excited in good faith about gaining some kind of representation, even though I can also tell you that I know plenty of Hindus who strongly dislike Tulsi Gabbard. I know Hindus who think that she isn't a real Hindu -- and that's obviously just a very different conversation when in-community rather than involving non-Hindus. Just look at a couple of the above posts about this topic. Say what you will about the Science of Identity Foundation; these are obviously not people interested in sincerely answering that question.

So, there are a few different ways that manifests -- first off, there's preexisting bias against non-"mainstream" (read: "white," to far too many) Protestants seeking elective office in general. I haven't seen many "Tulsi is a devil worshipper" takes or anything that gutterish, but I have seen plenty of takes like "she is an insane cult member." Whether or not the SIF constitutes a "cult" is up for debate -- I don't personally have a position on that because the connotations of that word change heavily depending on context, especially within traditions like Hinduism, which is to a real extent historically practiced very regionally. Combine that with press like the Honolulu Civil Beat, which is otherwise usually quite thorough, calling the SIF "the Hare Krishna group," a brazen and offensive mischaracterizarion of the people most often actually called "Hare Krishna" -- ISKCON, a completely different organization with widely different teachings and a much longer history. That's not to suggest ISKCON is great, or that they have a sterling track record, but they're certainly not the SIF. The SIF is way sketchier, like, pretty objectively, I think.

But again, the SIF is a rather private organization, and the question of "who is a Hindu?" is not one with a clear answer -- opinions are almost more divided within Hinduism than outside of it.

A lot of it comes down to poor lanestaying among white leftists and Twitter liberals, really. None of this is necessarily specific to Tulsi Gabbard, either; she just happens (rightly) to be the Hindu politician with the most controversial political and personal background to the highest number of people right now. The removal of agency to define oneselve's group and individual identity from people of faiths that aren't on a bi-polar "atheism (though still widely disliked in some parts of the country) vs. white American Christianity" scale, though, would have appeared if another self-identified Hindu candidate had run. We've already seen a bit of this regarding Kamala's Indian heritage. Temple attendance among other things will be scrutinized to open up the "this candidate has an un-American or fake or threatening religion" line of attack. I can't speak for the entire community because there is no consensus, but I and many other Hindus (in my circles, at least) have serious concerns about what might happen in that event. Those feelings don't cancel out the importance of representation, at the same time.

Another reason I don't personally feel I can speak for the entire community is because I am white; I would probably be spared from most of the bigotry because few people would expect me to be part of the community visually. I'm worried about my friends and my colleagues, both those already-met and not. There are also non-religiously oriented parts of the Desi-American community's experience with racism, of course, which I am not qualified to speak on, but are real and it would be wrong to not mention that here. My race obviously impacts my religious identity, inasmuch, and white American Hindus don't exactly have the best collective track record of recognizing that; but I am still what I am, identity-wise.

Point is, Hinduphobia directed toward Hindus who are not white is an exercise of racism, and Tulsi caught some of it because she identifies as a Hindu while not being white. Lots of people like to give opinions on this situation who don't have very much context or interest in the topic.

Tulsi's attempts to frame all of this as a "religious liberty" question in Pence-style language during the primary did not help, I will say. The tone of some of the Hindu nationalist ties investigations was really otherizing and roughshod, but I personally believe Modi needs to be countered so much of the substance was fair game. Hindu nationalism may have been an idea worthy of debate at one time, if it had been practiced and theorized in a way very different than how it played out -- and there are a few organizations that I think are falsely accused of being Hindu nationalist, but society should really be beyond nationalism in general. It is bad for everyone, Hindus included.

[LastMcGovernite]

My roommate in grad school was a blind Muslim man who grew up in Indore and the BJP made life for him and his family he’ll when he was young. I’m not inclined to be supportive of a politician enamored of Hindu nationalist politics.

[free my dawg]

For being the 2020 board's resident Bernie simp and hater of the anti-Democratic establishment, I actually don't like Tulsi either. To put it simply, she's a right-wing fraud.

MacArthur actually summed a lot of the dislike for Tulsi up well. She had ties to a virulently anti-gay cult, and her father was the face of Hawaiian social conservatism. I believe she's said that she's still very socially conservative personally, and only votes the way she does out of political convenience.

There's also the fact that she's very close to dictators and other far-right individuals like Vladimir Putin, Hindu nationalists, and Bashar al-Assad. Considering the Democrats' turn towards neoconservative #NeverTrumpers, this isn't going to play well with them. I'm not really a fan of the BlueAnon stuff about Russia, but as someone who's closer to the Obama/Biden wing than my comrades on fopo, I never was really a fan of Tulsi's approach to dictators.

She didn't really have a niche in the primary, aside from "Bernie 2016 voters with similar fopo beliefs". Sure, she got some of the vocal minority, but the silent majority of Bernie supporters stuck with him. To put it plainly, she didn't have the policy chops to distinguish herself. She pivoted away from M4A (the Bernie movement's sacred cow), and her vote to not impeach Trump. There was also her staying in well past her for some reason, even though she had no chance. Bernie voters had the misconception that she was siphoning votes away from him - she didn't have a tangible impact in any of the states.

I've always thought her anti-establishment "stances" were an act. I've been very consistent about the downballot, especially after seeing the losses in 2010. For all my sperging over downballot support/endorsements, Tulsi's PAC's previous Congressional contributions prove that her stances are fraudulent.

If you look at her Congressional contributions, most of the candidates you see are fairly bland, establishment-leaning candidates. In 2016, the only firmly anti-establishment candidates she donated to were Lucy Flores and Zephyr Teachout. Even then, the latter had locked her primary nomination fight up, and she donated a bit to Ruben Kihuen. The rest were either incumbents or DCCC-backed, line-towing centrists.

2018's contributions were where they start to get egregious. You'll notice that there's no contributions to prominent Bernie-aligned challengers like AOC, Kara Eastman, Brent Welder, or even Andrew Gillum. Most of her donations are like 2016 - largely to incumbents in non-competitive primaries, and largely to more centrist-leaning candidates. There's only one instance where she donated in a competitive primary. It sticks out not because it's my congressional district, but because the candidate she backed is the total opposite of what she represents.

NH-1 had a crowded primary. Out of the 11 candidates running, six of them were Bernie-aligned. Two more were strong progressives in their own right. Sure, Levi Sanders was a meme candidate who was everything the MacArthurs, KYWildmans, and Lyndons of the world thought Bernie was, but the other five were qualified. The most prominent was Mindi Messmer, a scientist, environmental activist, and former state representative who was impeccably qualified for the job. Tulsi could have helped narrow the field and give her platform to a candidate who needed it.

Tulsi Gabbard chose to contribute to Maura Sullivan instead. Sullivan is an alt-centrist carpetbagger in the Buttigieg/Moulton mold. Putting aside the fact that she moved to my district to run for Congress, she was far to the right of the retiring incumbent, was to the right of the field on issues like immigration and marijuana, and even went as far as to "both sides" Confederate monuments. She was so bad that I decided to vote for Chris Pappas strategically because I felt stopping her was more important. A lot of progressives (myself included) actually refused to vote for Maura if she won - she was not only a bothsidesist moderate hero, she had never set foot in the district before running for office.

Basically, Tulsi Gabbard is a right-wing snake oil saleswoman, and you shouldn't trust her either.

[Kleine Scheiße]

^Agree with most of this, nuance re: "cult" notwithstanding

[MATTROSE94]

For being the 2020 board's resident Bernie simp and hater of the anti-Democratic establishment, I actually don't like Tulsi either. To put it simply, she's a right-wing fraud.

MacArthur actually summed a lot of the dislike for Tulsi up well. She had ties to a virulently anti-gay cult, and her father was the face of Hawaiian social conservatism. I believe she's said that she's still very socially conservative personally, and only votes the way she does out of political convenience.

There's also the fact that she's very close to dictators and other far-right individuals like Vladimir Putin, Hindu nationalists, and Bashar al-Assad. Considering the Democrats' turn towards neoconservative #NeverTrumpers, this isn't going to play well with them. I'm not really a fan of the BlueAnon stuff about Russia, but as someone who's closer to the Obama/Biden wing than my comrades on fopo, I never was really a fan of Tulsi's approach to dictators.

She didn't really have a niche in the primary, aside from "Bernie 2016 voters with similar fopo beliefs". Sure, she got some of the vocal minority, but the silent majority of Bernie supporters stuck with him. To put it plainly, she didn't have the policy chops to distinguish herself. She pivoted away from M4A (the Bernie movement's sacred cow), and her vote to not impeach Trump. There was also her staying in well past her for some reason, even though she had no chance. Bernie voters had the misconception that she was siphoning votes away from him - she didn't have a tangible impact in any of the states.

I've always thought her anti-establishment "stances" were an act. I've been very consistent about the downballot, especially after seeing the losses in 2010. For all my sperging over downballot support/endorsements, Tulsi's PAC's previous Congressional contributions prove that her stances are fraudulent.

If you look at her Congressional contributions, most of the candidates you see are fairly bland, establishment-leaning candidates. In 2016, the only firmly anti-establishment candidates she donated to were Lucy Flores and Zephyr Teachout. Even then, the latter had locked her primary nomination fight up, and she donated a bit to Ruben Kihuen. The rest were either incumbents or DCCC-backed, line-towing centrists.

2018's contributions were where they start to get egregious. You'll notice that there's no contributions to prominent Bernie-aligned challengers like AOC, Kara Eastman, Brent Welder, or even Andrew Gillum. Most of her donations are like 2016 - largely to incumbents in non-competitive primaries, and largely to more centrist-leaning candidates. There's only one instance where she donated in a competitive primary. It sticks out not because it's my congressional district, but because the candidate she backed is the total opposite of what she represents.

NH-1 had a crowded primary. Out of the 11 candidates running, six of them were Bernie-aligned. Two more were strong progressives in their own right. Sure, Levi Sanders was a meme candidate who was everything the MacArthurs, KYWildmans, and Lyndons of the world thought Bernie was, but the other five were qualified. The most prominent was Mindi Messmer, a scientist, environmental activist, and former state representative who was impeccably qualified for the job. Tulsi could have helped narrow the field and give her platform to a candidate who needed it.

Tulsi Gabbard chose to contribute to Maura Sullivan instead. Sullivan is an alt-centrist carpetbagger in the Buttigieg/Moulton mold. Putting aside the fact that she moved to my district to run for Congress, she was far to the right of the retiring incumbent, was to the right of the field on issues like immigration and marijuana, and even went as far as to "both sides" Confederate monuments. She was so bad that I decided to vote for Chris Pappas strategically because I felt stopping her was more important. A lot of progressives (myself included) actually refused to vote for Maura if she won - she was not only a bothsidesist moderate hero, she had never set foot in the district before running for office.

Basically, Tulsi Gabbard is a right-wing snake oil saleswoman, and you shouldn't trust her either.

I agree 100%. Tulsi Gabbard is definitely my least favorite Democrat currently in office and the only Democrat that I would not have voted for had she won the 2020 Democratic nomination (I actually would have voted for Donald Trump if Tulsi Gabbard won the Democratic nomination, and the forum knows how much I despite Donald Trump and everything he stands for). Tulsi Gabbard is basically a closeted right winger who in all likelihood voted for/will vote for Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020. I think that Tulsi Gabbard’s rhetoric during the 2016 campaign negatively impacted Hillary Clinton’s campaign and contributed to her losing to Donald Trump. If I recall correctly, Tulsi Gabbard also somewhat supports Donald Trump’s policy towards Iran as well as the Iranian monarchist movement. 

[Saint Milei]

Because she's willing to work with the right on foreign policy. She knows war is the health of the state and the most important issue in modern history

[SInNYC]

There are many reasons for Ds to dislike Gabbard. The main ones are:

1. her past anti-gay stuff. I think she adequately atoned for this, certainly more than other Ds who have had unsavory pasts.

2. Her Hindu nationalism, which goes along with her BJP ties and Islamaphobia. I hope that nobody cares that she is Hindu (it might be a good thing actually), but I do care that she is fundamentalist and her sect is connected with Hare Krishnas (as an offshoot). Her policies still seem to be informed by this.

3. Ds are in this anti-Russia kick after 2016, which she doesn't belong to.  I am no fan of Putin but this anti-Russia thing is mainly just today's D boogieman. Along with this, she endorsed Bernie in 2016, which made her public enemy #1 to Hillary and mainstream Ds. The establishment also hates that she is not Assad's enemy, and Assad is today's Saddam - this is the same establishment that supported the Iraq war.

Number 3 is the main reason the D establishment hate her so much. There have certainly been other Ds who have horrid histories that the establishment is willing to overlook.

[jaymichaud]

I like her but the Hare Krishna cult sh*t is weird

[Real Texan Politics]

Her impeachment vote, the fact she gets a lot of positive attention from republicans and Fox News, the whole thing of her being a "Russian asset", maybe some neolibs hate her foreign policy stance as well.

[All Along The Watchtower]

She dared to criticize Obama's pro ISIS foreign policy.

what

[BlueSwan]

For being the 2020 board's resident Bernie simp and hater of the anti-Democratic establishment, I actually don't like Tulsi either. To put it simply, she's a right-wing fraud.

MacArthur actually summed a lot of the dislike for Tulsi up well. She had ties to a virulently anti-gay cult, and her father was the face of Hawaiian social conservatism. I believe she's said that she's still very socially conservative personally, and only votes the way she does out of political convenience.

There's also the fact that she's very close to dictators and other far-right individuals like Vladimir Putin, Hindu nationalists, and Bashar al-Assad. Considering the Democrats' turn towards neoconservative #NeverTrumpers, this isn't going to play well with them. I'm not really a fan of the BlueAnon stuff about Russia, but as someone who's closer to the Obama/Biden wing than my comrades on fopo, I never was really a fan of Tulsi's approach to dictators.

She didn't really have a niche in the primary, aside from "Bernie 2016 voters with similar fopo beliefs". Sure, she got some of the vocal minority, but the silent majority of Bernie supporters stuck with him. To put it plainly, she didn't have the policy chops to distinguish herself. She pivoted away from M4A (the Bernie movement's sacred cow), and her vote to not impeach Trump. There was also her staying in well past her for some reason, even though she had no chance. Bernie voters had the misconception that she was siphoning votes away from him - she didn't have a tangible impact in any of the states.

I've always thought her anti-establishment "stances" were an act. I've been very consistent about the downballot, especially after seeing the losses in 2010. For all my sperging over downballot support/endorsements, Tulsi's PAC's previous Congressional contributions prove that her stances are fraudulent.

If you look at her Congressional contributions, most of the candidates you see are fairly bland, establishment-leaning candidates. In 2016, the only firmly anti-establishment candidates she donated to were Lucy Flores and Zephyr Teachout. Even then, the latter had locked her primary nomination fight up, and she donated a bit to Ruben Kihuen. The rest were either incumbents or DCCC-backed, line-towing centrists.

2018's contributions were where they start to get egregious. You'll notice that there's no contributions to prominent Bernie-aligned challengers like AOC, Kara Eastman, Brent Welder, or even Andrew Gillum. Most of her donations are like 2016 - largely to incumbents in non-competitive primaries, and largely to more centrist-leaning candidates. There's only one instance where she donated in a competitive primary. It sticks out not because it's my congressional district, but because the candidate she backed is the total opposite of what she represents.

NH-1 had a crowded primary. Out of the 11 candidates running, six of them were Bernie-aligned. Two more were strong progressives in their own right. Sure, Levi Sanders was a meme candidate who was everything the MacArthurs, KYWildmans, and Lyndons of the world thought Bernie was, but the other five were qualified. The most prominent was Mindi Messmer, a scientist, environmental activist, and former state representative who was impeccably qualified for the job. Tulsi could have helped narrow the field and give her platform to a candidate who needed it.

Tulsi Gabbard chose to contribute to Maura Sullivan instead. Sullivan is an alt-centrist carpetbagger in the Buttigieg/Moulton mold. Putting aside the fact that she moved to my district to run for Congress, she was far to the right of the retiring incumbent, was to the right of the field on issues like immigration and marijuana, and even went as far as to "both sides" Confederate monuments. She was so bad that I decided to vote for Chris Pappas strategically because I felt stopping her was more important. A lot of progressives (myself included) actually refused to vote for Maura if she won - she was not only a bothsidesist moderate hero, she had never set foot in the district before running for office.

Basically, Tulsi Gabbard is a right-wing snake oil saleswoman, and you shouldn't trust her either.

I agree 100%. Tulsi Gabbard is definitely my least favorite Democrat currently in office and the only Democrat that I would not have voted for had she won the 2020 Democratic nomination (I actually would have voted for Donald Trump if Tulsi Gabbard won the Democratic nomination, and the forum knows how much I despite Donald Trump and everything he stands for). Tulsi Gabbard is basically a closeted right winger who in all likelihood voted for/will vote for Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020. I think that Tulsi Gabbard’s rhetoric during the 2016 campaign negatively impacted Hillary Clinton’s campaign and contributed to her losing to Donald Trump. If I recall correctly, Tulsi Gabbard also somewhat supports Donald Trump’s policy towards Iran as well as the Iranian monarchist movement. 

Eh, that's taking it too far. I hate Tulsi as much as the next guy, but I'd still walk through fire to vote for her against Trump. Let's keep some perspective here.

[DaleCooper]

I don't think Tulsi actually is a closeted Trump supporter or anything close, as much as I don't trust her. She clearly has no political future other than perhaps as a commentator, so if she really wanted to use what little influence she has to hurt Biden then she would've either not endorsed him at all or endorsed a third-party candidate.

[roxas11]

Look lets not sugar coat it Tulsi record on the LGBT is Horrific and I can't blame anybody at all for not buying into her evolution on that issue

1.She working for two anti-LGBT organizations that promoted harmful conversion therapy.
2 she railed against “homosexual extremists” in 2004, came out against same-sex civil unions in her state

3. she opposed anti-bullying legislation meant to protect gay students, arguing that it would teach young people that homosexuality is “normal and natural.”

4. She opposed Hawaii House Bill 1024, which would have established legal parity between same-sex couples in civil unions and married straight couples, and led a protest against the bill outside the room where the House Judiciary Committee held the hearing.


4. In 2015 she said this about her own personal views on the LGBT...


"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."



some people tried make the comparison to Obama evolution on same sex marriage but Obama was never that anti gay nor did he ever actively try to stop same sex marriage and civil unions like Tulsi did

[vitoNova]

It's actually rather simple.   

Wasn't she like in her 30s when she was still hatin' on the gayz?

That is why.

Social conservatives are dead on arrival amongst the Democratic base.  

[Kamala's side hoe]

It's actually rather simple.   

Wasn't she like in her 30s when she was still hatin' on the gayz?

That is why.

Social conservatives are dead on arrival amongst the Democratic base.  

She’s still in her 30s lol, and supposedly had a change of heart after being elected to Congress. From her Wiki page:

In 2012, Gabbard apologized for her "anti-gay advocacy"[14] and said she would "fight for the repeal" of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).[13] In June 2013, she was an initial cosponsor of the legislation to repeal DOMA.[236] After launching her presidential campaign in 2019, she apologized again and said that her views had been changed by her experience in the military "with LGBTQ service members both here at home and while deployed".[237][238] She has been a member of the House LGBT Equality Caucus during her first,[239] third,[240] and fourth[241] terms in Congress, and received a 100% rating in her third term (improving from 88% and 92% in her previous two terms) for pro-LGBT legislation from the Human Rights Campaign, a group that advocates for LGBT rights.[242]