2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[Dushan]

Tulsi Gabbard is my homegirl for 2020.

[Knockturn Alley]

Her positions on Islamic extremism are also somewhat alarming. While I think Islamic extremism is certainly a horrible thing, she used to constantly call out Obama and others for not using the words "Islamic extremism". While I could agree, she seems to think that "Islamic extremism" is the only driving force behind ISIS and other radical Muslim states. It's as if Gabbard is saying Muslim people are born extremist and will fight for an extremist ideology simply because, well, they will, rather than because of lack of governance and stability, and other factors which induce people to join extremist organizations.

I think if you choose to fight for a terrorist group that burns people alive after torturing them you are a bad person regardless of how shitty your economic situation is. Stop making excuses for bad people.

[Bahktar]

Her positions on Islamic extremism are also somewhat alarming. While I think Islamic extremism is certainly a horrible thing, she used to constantly call out Obama and others for not using the words "Islamic extremism". While I could agree, she seems to think that "Islamic extremism" is the only driving force behind ISIS and other radical Muslim states. It's as if Gabbard is saying Muslim people are born extremist and will fight for an extremist ideology simply because, well, they will, rather than because of lack of governance and stability, and other factors which induce people to join extremist organizations.

I think if you choose to fight for a terrorist group that burns people alive after torturing them you are a bad person regardless of how shitty your economic situation is. Stop making excuses for bad people.

The debate is not about if you're a "bad person". My point is that Gabbard seems to think that Muslims are radical Muslims only and simply because "radical Muslim bad" not because of economic reasons, which are probably one of the main reasons why people would participate in an extremist organization - because it offers payment, housing and security, which is something that the national government couldn't offer at the time in Iraq and Syria.

You don't get my point, I don't expect you to.

[Pasong Tirad]

I just want to punch my hand into something really hard out of frustration that so many people seem completely oblivious to her record which should disqualify her as a Democratic candidate. I mean, there would be riots if Hillary Clinton was a homophobic, racist, antisemitic, bigoted former cultist masquerading as a Democrat, who supports Assad and other dictators. She'd have been run out of the country. And yet so many on the far left seem quick to jump on the Tulsi Train. It just dumbfounds me why they don't do their own research. I only hope that the media vets her, which they failed to do for Bernie.

It's so peak liberalism.

[Knockturn Alley]

I think if you choose to fight for a terrorist group that burns people alive after torturing them you are a bad person regardless of how shitty your economic situation is. Stop making excuses for bad people.

The debate is not about if you're a "bad person". My point is that Gabbard seems to think that Muslims are radical Muslims only and simply because "radical Muslim bad" not because of economic reasons, which are probably one of the main reasons why people would participate in an extremist organization - because it offers payment, housing and security, which is something that the national government couldn't offer at the time in Iraq and Syria.

You don't get my point, I don't expect you to.

Ok, so your point is that radical muslims dont really believe in radical Islam and simply join terrorist groups because it lures them by offering them a luxurious life? Ok so what? If a terrorist offers you a fine mansion and fifty virgins to seduce you and you choose to join them you are still a bad person. And also my policy is the policy of Maya Angelou: When someone shows you who they are, believe it the first time.

[Thermodolia]

Oh so sad that people don’t want your uber crazy lady who said that the second amendment should be repealed. I’m so sorry the rest of us want someone who can ya know win in places that aren’t NY and CA.

Except, Hillary Clinton never said she wants to repeal the second amendment.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... nton-want/

No Clinton isn’t the crazy lady, that’s Harris. I never said that Clinton wanted to repeal the 2nd, she’s too focused groupped to even think about saying that

I didn’t see any riots when Clinton was nominated. Also Gabbard isn’t racist or antisemitic or homophobic. And unlike Hillary “I’m against gay marriage” Clinton she changed her mind after serving in Iraq and not because her opponent for the nomination said gays are cool.

You misunderstood him here. He's making a comparison that if Clinton was like Gabbard, which said person thinks is "homophobic, racist, antisemitic," then there would have been riots. He's not saying Clinton is.

I know he didn’t say that. I am.

Hillary Clinton didn't change her mind because her opponent said "gays are cool", as public opinion shifted for same-sex marriage, so did Clinton's views.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... -marriage/

But yet Gabbard is bad for changing her views. Strange. And Clinton pretty much did switch to “gays are cool” after Obama said it first. She’s been a lifelong opponent to us in the gay community.

Yes because invading every goddamn nation on the planet because dictator man bad is the best thing ever and has never ever messed up. Pay no mind to the fact that Iraq and Libya are worse off than before we “helped”

Cosying up to authoritarian dictators who use chemical weapons against their own people also isn't the best thing ever. Pay mind to the fact that Libya and Syria started their revolts by themselves and the USA didn't instigate said revolts.

We supported them when we should have stayed out. It wasn’t our war to be involved in.

And that’s why Trump and Pence aren’t in office. Oh wait...

His point here is that if Hillary Clinton was such a person, she would be even more vilified, trashed and blamed, because she's Clinton.

And I say different. Gabbard isn’t Clinton. She doesn’t have the focus groupped, I’m better than you air about her.

I’m sure they actually have do there own research and the majority aren’t for invading every goddamn nation on the planet, they aren’t for candidates who are super crazy, and nor are they for supper polished focus groupped candidates

Yes, I did my own research and googled "Hillary Clinton repeal second amendment repeal" and "Hillary Clinton gay marriage", which seemed to disprove your statements earlier, unless something has changed since those Politifact analysis pages were made, I think I did my research.

Except I never claimed that Clinton wanted to repeal the 2nd. That’s Harris, who Natan thinks will win in the US. And you really didn’t disprove shit when it comes to Clinton and gay marriage.

There are many reasons to dislike Gabbard. While she is an "anti-Democratic establishment Democratic politician", which is probably one of the reasons why she gained attention in 2016, I don't really like Gabbard because to me, she, to me, embodies the chance of another shift to the right for the Democratic Party.

I doubt that. She has a stone Nationalist stance but she’s in many ways to the left of sanders.

Her father, Mike Gabbard was a senator and Honolulu councilman and was known for his high profile anti-gay activism against same-sex marriage, going even so far to create an educational nonprofit organization "Stop Promoting Homosexuality" and a show on the local radio station to denounce LGBT people. Of course, early in her career, Gabbard took after her father, opposing abortion and supporting a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and woman. in 2004, Gabbard accused a magazine supporting his fathers' opponent, calling them "homosexual extremist supporters", the same year she testified against civil unions and stated, "As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists."
Of course, since then, she has done a total 180 degree turn, the same for her stance on abortion. However, her Democratic Party LGBT caucus distrusts her and backed her primary opponent in 2016. When she was asked to send someone to testify at a legislative special session on same-sex marriage, they were told that Gabbard "doesn't get involved in state politics," while all her Hawaii'an colleagues sent representatives.
While she doesn't actively work against gay rights, her loyalty to such a cause still remains questionable.

Because we should always judge someone based on their parents beliefs and actions and not their own. So why then does she have a 100% rating from Equality Hawaii? Strange. Maybe the DNC LGBT caucus doesn’t like her because she dared to go against Clinton.

Her positions on Islamic extremism are also somewhat alarming. While I think Islamic extremism is certainly a horrible thing, she used to constantly call out Obama and others for not using the words "Islamic extremism". While I could agree, she seems to think that "Islamic extremism" is the only driving force behind ISIS and other radical Muslim states. It's as if Gabbard is saying Muslim people are born extremist and will fight for an extremist ideology simply because, well, they will, rather than because of lack of governance and stability, and other factors which induce people to join extremist organizations.

"Gabbard’s insistence that economic factors play no role in fostering extremism, and in fueling ISIS specifically, is belied by the facts. The group pays its recruiters thousands of dollars, and Hamas officers have explicitly outlined how the promise of money has drawn Gazans to ISIS. “Those in Syria often send pictures back home showing large banknotes to lure others out,” one officer told journalist Sarah Helm."

That’s not a bad thing at all.

Her hardline stance is also carried over to refugees, wherein she joined Democrats in 2015 to pass the SAFE Act, which would have added extra requirements for the already onerous refugee vetting system and would effectively halt to the ground the admission of Syrian & Iraqi refugees. Two months before that, she also introduced a resolution for the US to prioritize religious and ethnic minorities, such as Christians and Yezidis when granting refugee status, which in essence is a position putting more roadblocks in the admission of Syrian refugees, while prioritizing and making an exception for Christians, simply because they are Christians.

Again not seeing the problem.

Following the 2016 elections, she also cosied up to Republicans when holding talks with Trump in a meeting with Steve Bannon, wherein sources said that at the time, Bannon "loves her," and "wants to work with her on everything," and that she would fit in the administration, interestingly enough, she was also missing from a letter House Democrats signed calling for Trump to rescind Bannon's appointment. She also has a great friend - Narenda Modi - who is India's Prime Minister, but who started his political career as an activist in a right-wing nationalist organization which was banned for four times, in 2014, he threatened to deport undocumented immigrants, most of which who are Muslim, calling them "infiltrators" and was Gujarat's state minister during the time when anti-Muslim riots left around 800 dead Muslims and 1,000 dead in total, with a former police officer testifying that Modi had said the night before the riots that Muslims needed to be taught a lesson.

And? That’s supposed to make me dislike her? That just proves she’s able to reach out to the other side.

In the end, she didn't get the job in Trump's cabinet, which might explain her softening stances recently.
I don't think Tulsi Gabbard is especially bad. But should the Democratic Party really nominate someone like her, who has questionable friends and her positions themselves have been questionable in the past.
However, I don't think the Democratic Party should be supporting someone, who back a year or so ago, would have been an easy candidate for Trump's cabinet.

Again I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Someone who says that I thought Trump was great but now he’s not would go over quite well in places that voted Trump in 2016 but now aren’t too sure

[Bahktar]

No Clinton isn’t the crazy lady, that’s Harris. I never said that Clinton wanted to repeal the 2nd, she’s too focused groupped to even think about saying that

Alright, misunderstanding on my part.

I know he didn’t say that. I am.

Except Hillary Clinton isn't racist, antisemitic or homophobic, which I don't think Gabbard is, at least anymore. I think her positions are just too Republican for a Democratic Party nomination.

But yet Gabbard is bad for changing her views. Strange. And Clinton pretty much did switch to “gays are cool” after Obama said it first. She’s been a lifelong opponent to us in the gay community.

Except Gabbard has said inflammatory statements in regards to LGBT supporters in the past as I stated in my post and there's doubt cast on if she's really a supporter.
Clinton did swap after Obama said it, but the difference is that at that point, Obama wasn't her opponent anymore, while you claim that she did it when her opponent supported gay marriage. Obama fully flopped to support gay marriage in 2012, while Clinton did in 2013, at which point they weren't real political opponents since the 2008 primaries.

We supported them when we should have stayed out. It wasn’t our war to be involved in.

Well, that's your position. I think watching Gaddafi slaughter his civilians for revolting and likewise for Assad also isn't a very good picture for the USA. I think if you're using chemical weapons on your own people, it's reasonable if some countries support the rebels.

And I say different. Gabbard isn’t Clinton. She doesn’t have the focus groupped, I’m better than you air about her.

Pretty sure everyone would jump at the option to vilify Clinton even more, especially the Republican Party.

Except I never claimed that Clinton wanted to repeal the 2nd. That’s Harris, who Natan thinks will win in the US. And you really didn’t disprove shit when it comes to Clinton and gay marriage.

I made a misunderstanding there. I'd like to think I did disprove "shit", read what I said above.

I doubt that. She has a stone Nationalist stance but she’s in many ways to the left of sanders.

She is to the left of many Democratic politicians, but the fact she could have easily been in Trump's cabinet and that she received praise from Republicans for her right-wing positions on other matters doesn't perplex me to support her as a presidential candidate.

Because we should always judge someone based on their parents beliefs and actions and not their own. So why then does she have a 100% rating from Equality Hawaii? Strange. Maybe the DNC LGBT caucus doesn’t like her because she dared to go against Clinton.

Except you missed the part where in 2004 she called a magazine "homosexual extremist supporters".
No, not really. Here's the real reason, which is more or less "we're not so sure as we'd like".
https://mauitime.com/news/politics/here ... -campaign/

That’s not a bad thing at all.

Except that, as I said, she seems to think Islamic extremism happens "just because", not because of political and economic problems in said respective countries. I guess you don't understand my point.

Again not seeing the problem.

I suppose discriminating against war refugees that aren't minorities is OK.
You could treat everyone fairly, no?

And? That’s supposed to make me dislike her? That just proves she’s able to reach out to the other side.

Reach out to the other side?
I don't want the Democratic Party to nominate someone who wanted to work in Trump's cabinet. Do you really not see the problem here?
You casually ignore the fact that she is close with Narenda Modi, despite all the anti-Muslim actions and rhetoric he has undertaken and supported riots that killed 800 Muslims and 1,000 in total.

Again I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Someone who says that I thought Trump was great but now he’s not would go over quite well in places that voted Trump in 2016 but now aren’t too sure

We need a candidate that can be approached by independent voters, not the Republican core. I don't think the Democratic Party needs a candidate, who as I said, could easily be apart of Trump's cabinet right now.

I would rather nominate someone who isn't as conflicted as Gabbard.

[Bahktar]

Ok, so your point is that radical muslims dont really believe in radical Islam and simply join terrorist groups because it lures them by offering them a luxurious life? Ok so what? If a terrorist offers you a fine mansion and fifty virgins to seduce you and you choose to join them you are still a bad person. And also my policy is the policy of Maya Angelou: When someone shows you who they are, believe it the first time.

You don't get it once again. My first sentence was literally saying "the debate is not about if you're a bad person," but about how Gabbard thinks Muslims are radical Muslims because Muslims are radical Muslims, but have you ever thought there might be more to it than just simply radical rhetoric inducing people to join? It's the economic and political circumstances turning these people to bad people and to follow radical Islam. First, they join because they need money and next, they start believing what they're actually saying. In the spirit of "There is no choice between being a communist on 1,500 calories a day and a believer in democracy on 1000 calories.", I think there can be a parallel drawn to the Middle East and people supporting radical organizations.
There's no choice between being a radical Muslim on 100 dollars a month and a believer in the lawful & legal Iraqi government on 50 dollars.

[Knockturn Alley]

She is to the left of many Democratic politicians, but the fact she could have easily been in Trump's cabinet and that she received praise from Republicans for her right-wing positions on other matters doesn't perplex me to support her as a presidential candidate

Ah, so you're one of those "Republican = bad by default" people. Can you point out which of her stances you object to apart from her former anti-LGBT stance?

[Knockturn Alley]

Ok, so your point is that radical muslims dont really believe in radical Islam and simply join terrorist groups because it lures them by offering them a luxurious life? Ok so what? If a terrorist offers you a fine mansion and fifty virgins to seduce you and you choose to join them you are still a bad person. And also my policy is the policy of Maya Angelou: When someone shows you who they are, believe it the first time.

You don't get it once again. My first sentence was literally saying "the debate is not about if you're a bad person," but about how Gabbard thinks Muslims are radical Muslims because Muslims are radical Muslims, but have you ever thought there might be more to it than just simply radical rhetoric inducing people to join? It's the economic and political circumstances turning these people to bad people and to follow radical Islam. First, they join because they need money and next, they start believing what they're actually saying. In the spirit of "There is no choice between being a communist on 1,500 calories a day and a believer in democracy on 1000 calories.", I think there can be a parallel drawn to the Middle East and people supporting radical organizations.
There's no choice between being a radical Muslim on 100 dollars a month and a believer in the lawful & legal Iraqi government on 50 dollars.

That is just complete load of bullshit. Of course there is a choice, you could choose to live in hardship as a good man or live in luxury as an evil man. Maybe to you thats a no contest which says a lot about you, but to me that's all the difference in the world

[Bahktar]

She is to the left of many Democratic politicians, but the fact she could have easily been in Trump's cabinet and that she received praise from Republicans for her right-wing positions on other matters doesn't perplex me to support her as a presidential candidate

Ah, so you're one of those "Republican = bad by default" people. Can you point out which of her stances you object to apart from her former anti-LGBT stance?

No, I'm one of those people who think that the Democratic Party nominee shouldn't be someone who was keen on and could have easily been apart of a Republican Party-ruled government.
Overall, I don't object to her stances, otherwise than her support for Assad and authoritarian tinpots.

I just think there are better choices.

[Bahktar]

That is just complete load of bullshit. Of course there is a choice, you could choose to live in hardship as a good man or live in luxury as an evil man. Maybe to you thats a no contest which says a lot about you, but to me that's all the difference in the world

It's not about me, it's moreso about the people in the Middle East. Perhaps you wouldn't understand.
It's a fact that economic poverty and political instability are strong driving forces of radical Islam.

[Thermodolia]

I know he didn’t say that. I am.

Except Hillary Clinton isn't racist, antisemitic or homophobic, which I don't think Gabbard is, at least anymore. I think her positions are just too Republican for a Democratic Party nomination

Ah so making racist jokes in a place where there aren’t any blacks is just fine right? Because Clinton has done that.

I didn’t know that saying Obamacare did go far enough and being very pro-Green are republican issues now. Huh I guess the US haz really moved far to the left.

But yet Gabbard is bad for changing her views. Strange. And Clinton pretty much did switch to “gays are cool” after Obama said it first. She’s been a lifelong opponent to us in the gay community.

Except Gabbard has said inflammatory statements in regards to LGBT supporters in the past as I stated in my post and there's doubt cast on if she's really a supporter.

Unlike the SJWs I don’t give a shit about what someone said almost 8+ years ago.

Clinton did swap after Obama said it, but the difference is that at that point, Obama wasn't her opponent anymore, while you claim that she did it when her opponent supported gay marriage. Obama fully flopped to support gay marriage in 2012, while Clinton did in 2013, at which point they weren't real political opponents since the 2008 primaries.

Obama first said he was pro-gay back in 2007-2008 during the primaries. I remember because my parents pitched a fit.

We supported them when we should have stayed out. It wasn’t our war to be involved in.

Well, that's your position. I think watching Gaddafi slaughter his civilians for revolting and likewise for Assad also isn't a very good picture for the USA. I think if you're using chemical weapons on your own people, it's reasonable if some countries support the rebels.

We shouldn’t be the world police. Also Libya is a fucking mess right now. We shouldn’t have gotten involved.

Except I never claimed that Clinton wanted to repeal the 2nd. That’s Harris, who Natan thinks will win in the US. And you really didn’t disprove shit when it comes to Clinton and gay marriage.

I made a misunderstanding there. I'd like to think I did disprove "shit", read what I said above.

Well ya didn’t.

I doubt that. She has a stone Nationalist stance but she’s in many ways to the left of sanders.

She is to the left of many Democratic politicians, but the fact she could have easily been in Trump's cabinet and that she received praise from Republicans for her right-wing positions on other matters doesn't perplex me to support her as a presidential candidate.

And? That means she has the ability to steal Trump voters. Which isn’t a bad thing. I’m against the idea that just because you agreed with Trump on several things you’re evil Incarnate.

Because we should always judge someone based on their parents beliefs and actions and not their own. So why then does she have a 100% rating from Equality Hawaii? Strange. Maybe the DNC LGBT caucus doesn’t like her because she dared to go against Clinton.

Except you missed the part where in 2004 she called a magazine "homosexual extremist supporters".
No, not really. Here's the real reason, which is more or less "we're not so sure as we'd like".
https://mauitime.com/news/politics/here ... -campaign/

See what I said above about not giving a flying fuck about what someone said 16+ years ago
Strange how Equality Hawaii supports her. Maybe the DNC LGBT peeps shouldn’t be trusted.

That’s not a bad thing at all.

Except that, as I said, she seems to think Islamic extremism happens "just because", not because of political and economic problems in said respective countries. I guess you don't understand my point.

Oh no I understand your point. I think it’s fucking bullshit.

Again not seeing the problem.

I suppose discriminating against war refugees that aren't minorities is OK.
You could treat everyone fairly, no?

I’m against most refugees.

And? That’s supposed to make me dislike her? That just proves she’s able to reach out to the other side.

Reach out to the other side?
I don't want the Democratic Party to nominate someone who wanted to work in Trump's cabinet. Do you really not see the problem here?

Orange man bad. People who agree with orange man also bad. Yup think I got it.

You casually ignore the fact that she is close with Narenda Modi, despite all the anti-Muslim actions and rhetoric he has undertaken and supported riots that killed 800 Muslims and 1,000 in total.

And? I think we need to have stronger ties with India.

Again I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Someone who says that I thought Trump was great but now he’s not would go over quite well in places that voted Trump in 2016 but now aren’t too sure

We need a candidate that can be approached by independent voters, not the Republican core. I don't think the Democratic Party needs a candidate, who as I said, could easily be apart of Trump's cabinet right now.

Funny this independent along with several others I know of are all for Gabbard. As usual the democrats underestimate who can win because they don’t Kowtow to the party line.

I would rather nominate someone who isn't as conflicted as Gabbard.

Gabbard isn’t that conflicted.

[Thermodolia]

Ah, so you're one of those "Republican = bad by default" people. Can you point out which of her stances you object to apart from her former anti-LGBT stance?

No, I'm one of those people who think that the Democratic Party nominee shouldn't be someone who was keen on and could have easily been apart of a Republican Party-ruled government.
Overall, I don't object to her stances, otherwise than her support for Assad and authoritarian tinpots.

I just think there are better choices.

Because fuck those who might reach across the aisle

[Knockturn Alley]

Ah, so you're one of those "Republican = bad by default" people. Can you point out which of her stances you object to apart from her former anti-LGBT stance?

No, I'm one of those people who think that the Democratic Party nominee shouldn't be someone who was keen on and could have easily been apart of a Republican Party-ruled government.
Overall, I don't object to her stances, otherwise than her support for Assad and authoritarian tinpots.

I just think there are better choices.

I fail to see how "could have easily been a Republican" is a bad thing

[Knockturn Alley]

That is just complete load of bullshit. Of course there is a choice, you could choose to live in hardship as a good man or live in luxury as an evil man. Maybe to you thats a no contest which says a lot about you, but to me that's all the difference in the world

It's not about me, it's moreso about the people in the Middle East. Perhaps you wouldn't understand.
It's a fact that economic poverty and political instability are strong driving forces of radical Islam.

"Economic poverty is a strong driving force of chopping up people's heads" is objectively a terrible argument

[Ifreann]

You don't get it once again. My first sentence was literally saying "the debate is not about if you're a bad person," but about how Gabbard thinks Muslims are radical Muslims because Muslims are radical Muslims, but have you ever thought there might be more to it than just simply radical rhetoric inducing people to join? It's the economic and political circumstances turning these people to bad people and to follow radical Islam. First, they join because they need money and next, they start believing what they're actually saying. In the spirit of "There is no choice between being a communist on 1,500 calories a day and a believer in democracy on 1000 calories.", I think there can be a parallel drawn to the Middle East and people supporting radical organizations.
There's no choice between being a radical Muslim on 100 dollars a month and a believer in the lawful & legal Iraqi government on 50 dollars.

That is just complete load of bullshit. Of course there is a choice, you could choose to live in hardship as a good man or live in luxury as an evil man. Maybe to you thats a no contest which says a lot about you, but to me that's all the difference in the world

How evil you think people are for joining ISIS to get money is irrelevant. You can't beat violent extremism just by shooting them all. You have to understand why people are joining groups like ISIS in order to convince them not to. If Gabbard doesn't understand that, that's a problem.

[Bahktar]

It's not about me, it's moreso about the people in the Middle East. Perhaps you wouldn't understand.
It's a fact that economic poverty and political instability are strong driving forces of radical Islam.

"Economic poverty is a strong driving force of chopping up people's heads" is objectively a terrible argument

That's a different way to phrase it, but my argument still stands. It's not an argument, it's literally a fact that economic poverty is a driving force of extremism.

[Bahktar]

No, I'm one of those people who think that the Democratic Party nominee shouldn't be someone who was keen on and could have easily been apart of a Republican Party-ruled government.
Overall, I don't object to her stances, otherwise than her support for Assad and authoritarian tinpots.

I just think there are better choices.

I fail to see how "could have easily been a Republican" is a bad thing

Because you're not a Republican, you're supposedly a Democrat.

[Bahktar]

Except Hillary Clinton isn't racist, antisemitic or homophobic, which I don't think Gabbard is, at least anymore. I think her positions are just too Republican for a Democratic Party nomination

Ah so making racist jokes in a place where there aren’t any blacks is just fine right? Because Clinton has done that.

I didn’t know that saying Obamacare did go far enough and being very pro-Green are republican issues now. Huh I guess the US haz really moved far to the left.

Except Gabbard has said inflammatory statements in regards to LGBT supporters in the past as I stated in my post and there's doubt cast on if she's really a supporter.

Unlike the SJWs I don’t give a shit about what someone said almost 8+ years ago.

Clinton did swap after Obama said it, but the difference is that at that point, Obama wasn't her opponent anymore, while you claim that she did it when her opponent supported gay marriage. Obama fully flopped to support gay marriage in 2012, while Clinton did in 2013, at which point they weren't real political opponents since the 2008 primaries.

Obama first said he was pro-gay back in 2007-2008 during the primaries. I remember because my parents pitched a fit.

Well, that's your position. I think watching Gaddafi slaughter his civilians for revolting and likewise for Assad also isn't a very good picture for the USA. I think if you're using chemical weapons on your own people, it's reasonable if some countries support the rebels.

We shouldn’t be the world police. Also Libya is a fucking mess right now. We shouldn’t have gotten involved.

I made a misunderstanding there. I'd like to think I did disprove "shit", read what I said above.

Well ya didn’t.

She is to the left of many Democratic politicians, but the fact she could have easily been in Trump's cabinet and that she received praise from Republicans for her right-wing positions on other matters doesn't perplex me to support her as a presidential candidate.

And? That means she has the ability to steal Trump voters. Which isn’t a bad thing. I’m against the idea that just because you agreed with Trump on several things you’re evil Incarnate.

Except you missed the part where in 2004 she called a magazine "homosexual extremist supporters".
No, not really. Here's the real reason, which is more or less "we're not so sure as we'd like".
https://mauitime.com/news/politics/here ... -campaign/

See what I said above about not giving a flying fuck about what someone said 16+ years ago
Strange how Equality Hawaii supports her. Maybe the DNC LGBT peeps shouldn’t be trusted.

Except that, as I said, she seems to think Islamic extremism happens "just because", not because of political and economic problems in said respective countries. I guess you don't understand my point.

Oh no I understand your point. I think it’s fucking bullshit.

I suppose discriminating against war refugees that aren't minorities is OK.
You could treat everyone fairly, no?

I’m against most refugees.

Reach out to the other side?
I don't want the Democratic Party to nominate someone who wanted to work in Trump's cabinet. Do you really not see the problem here?

Orange man bad. People who agree with orange man also bad. Yup think I got it.

You casually ignore the fact that she is close with Narenda Modi, despite all the anti-Muslim actions and rhetoric he has undertaken and supported riots that killed 800 Muslims and 1,000 in total.

And? I think we need to have stronger ties with India.

We need a candidate that can be approached by independent voters, not the Republican core. I don't think the Democratic Party needs a candidate, who as I said, could easily be apart of Trump's cabinet right now.

Funny this independent along with several others I know of are all for Gabbard. As usual the democrats underestimate who can win because they don’t Kowtow to the party line.

I would rather nominate someone who isn't as conflicted as Gabbard.

Gabbard isn’t that conflicted.

I'll respond fully when I get the motivation to get on my computer.

[Ifreann]

No, I'm one of those people who think that the Democratic Party nominee shouldn't be someone who was keen on and could have easily been apart of a Republican Party-ruled government.
Overall, I don't object to her stances, otherwise than her support for Assad and authoritarian tinpots.

I just think there are better choices.

Because fuck those who might reach across the aisle

It certainly didn't take long for Gabbard to get fans who'll defend her mindlessly.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

#AnyoneButTrump

Please.

[Bahktar]

Ah so making racist jokes in a place where there aren’t any blacks is just fine right? Because Clinton has done that.

I didn’t know that saying Obamacare did go far enough and being very pro-Green are republican issues now. Huh I guess the US haz really moved far to the left.

I don't support Hillary, but saying that "they all look alike" and as a joke at that doesn't really make them fiery, raging racists. What she said was wrong, but that doesn't make her a massive racist.

You seem to have ignored the fact that I said that while Gabbard is to the left of many Democratic Party members, some of her policies align with the Republican Party, which led to her being a candidate for Trump's cabinet.

Unlike the SJWs I don’t give a shit about what someone said almost 8+ years ago.

I don't see any SJWs saying that. Unlike you, I'm not convinced by a candidate if they've discouraged homosexuality in the past and their support nowdays is not rock-solid.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying Gabbard doesn't support same-sex marriage in the end, I'm saying we can pick a better candidate which has a clear track record that says "yes, legalize it" and didn't talk trash about homosexuals.

You seem to think my argument is to prove that Gabbard is a fiery anti-homosexual or something. No, I'm pointing out that there's legitimate doubts and we should support someone else who has a more clear track record.

Obama first said he was pro-gay back in 2007-2008 during the primaries. I remember because my parents pitched a fit.

Wrong.
http://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbi ... bt-rights/
He promised to repeal DOMA and to support civil unions, which you could argue give as much benefits as actual marriage, but it's still not quite there.

We shouldn’t be the world police. Also Libya is a fucking mess right now. We shouldn’t have gotten involved.

That's simply a matter of viewpoint and our difference of opinion as if we should have withdrawn or not. I think there can be arguments for both sides, but to me, Gabbard supporting Assad and such is a minus. Besides, it's not like the USA invaded Libya. Libya is a mess because the people there can't sort it out themselves and Europe isn't doing anything about it, not because the USA invaded and occupied them.

Well ya didn’t.

If you keep blatantly staying ignorant to reasons as to why, then yes, I didn't prove anything. What I'm saying is her past actions cast doubt on her current positions. We need someone with a clear, transparent track record.

And? That means she has the ability to steal Trump voters. Which isn’t a bad thing. I’m against the idea that just because you agreed with Trump on several things you’re evil Incarnate.

I'm against the idea that someone who could have served in Trump's disaster of a cabinet is the best Democratic Party nominee we have. We don't need to steal Trump voters. They're not going to vote for Gabbard anyways, because if she is a nominee, I can assure you they will find a lot of trash to talk about her and no real Trump supporter will vote for her. We can only swing away independents.

See what I said above about not giving a flying fuck about what someone said 16+ years ago
Strange how Equality Hawaii supports her. Maybe the DNC LGBT peeps shouldn’t be trusted.

See what I said about how we can have a candidate with a more clearer record on homosexual rights.

Oh no I understand your point. I think it’s fucking bullshit.

No, you really don't understand it. People don't join ISIS because "ISIS", you can't ignore the underlying reasons behind extremism.

I’m against most refugees.

We're not talking about if refugees should be let in or not, we're talking about how Gabbard supports a policy which discriminates against non-minority refugees.

And? I think we need to have stronger ties with India.

I think being an admirer of someone who is an anti-Muslim and is indirectly involved with an anti-Muslim riot and was involved with an anti-Muslim radical organization which's member killed Gandhi isn't really a good thing.

EDIT:
"Nazi Germany just had mass anti-Jewish riots."
"And? I think we need to have stronger ties with Germany."

Funny this independent along with several others I know of are all for Gabbard. As usual the democrats underestimate who can win because they don’t Kowtow to the party line.

You like to assume that I support the Democratic Party establishment. I think the Democratic Party can nominate someone better, I don't think Gabbard is bad and I don't dislike her for speaking against the DNC.

Saying you know a few people is not an argument until you make a study which clearly presents to me that independent voters prefer Tulsi Gabbard.

Gabbard isn’t that conflicted.

Her history suggests otherwise. There's better candidates out there.

[Knockturn Alley]

I fail to see how "could have easily been a Republican" is a bad thing

Because you're not a Republican, you're supposedly a Democrat.

So your position is that if you're a democrat and republicans dont dislike you, you must be doing something wrong?

[Bahktar]

So your position is that if you're a democrat and republicans dont dislike you, you must be doing something wrong?

No, my position is that the Democratic Party doesn't need to nominate someone who could have served in Trump's disastrous cabinet. We have better people. We don't need to cosy up to Trump and his hardcore supporters who won't change their minds anyways.

Besides, if Gabbard does get the nomination, I'm sure that suddenly all that "cross the aisle" work with Gabbard will be thrown out of the window and she'll be vilified as has any Democratic nominee by Trump.

Either way, Gabbard softened her positions once she found out she's not getting the job. That's not really across the aisle work either, which is what you claim, it's opportunism.