HylianSwordsman said:
I'm sorry, I have to disagree with this logic. One video showed her attending a service of a cult, and another showed it's leader using homophobic slurs. If we can't judge people by the company they keep, then we owe a lot of apologies to Trump. If you think the people hanging out with Epstein aren't the least bit questionable for doing so, then I seriously question your judgement. If you want to defend Gabbard here, there are several options. You can say that the clip of him using the slurs is undated, though that's a bit weak. You can say that regardless of what her guru said, she has said differently (she has, sort of, she thinks we shouldn't legislate morality). You can try to argue that her religion doesn't define her, try to bring up her voting record on LGBT issues, or something else of substance to suggest that she doesn't agree with the guru. But you can NOT simply say that the source is biased, that's what Trump supporters do to defend their asshole from the "fake news". And you can NOT simply dismiss what her religious teacher says as being equivalent to a family pet. That's nonsense. People are influenced by their religious teachers. That's like when Trump supporters say of a nasty thing said by a supporter he had a close relationship with "well Trump didn't say that" even though you know that the supporter that said the nasty thing supports Trump because they believe he agrees with them on the nasty thing. If we can't complain about the actions of the company a candidate keeps, whose counsel they seek, the people they lend an ear to, then we can't complain about politicians taking money from lobbyists being influenced by them. That would be "smear-land" as you call it. Sure, the lobbyists aren't running for president, but they have Biden's ear. Sure, Chris Butler isn't running for president, but Gabbard believes he hasn't said anything hateful and has stated so publicly. Apparently she doesn't consider f****t to be hateful. I agree the source is questionable and is just trying to stir up trouble for someone they have a grudge against, that much is obvious, but they did in fact stir up something worth taking a look at, and questioning. Just as the right-wingers that found black face photos of the Virginia governor and rape allegations against the lieutenant governor were motivated by their hatred for Democrats, but did in fact find some serious, very real shit. |
I disagree. Trump is not criticized because of the people he is hanging out with, he is criticized because he actually defends or even endorses their despicable views. People aren't criticized for hanging out with Epstein, they are criticized for using his 'services'. Everyone has contacts to people who at some point said something. But we all aren't responsible for the doings of others. This changes if we actually are helping, defending, endorsing or participate in the despicable actions or words.
But yeah, you say it yourself, the tweets try to link Gabbard to stuff Butler said, but which she actually already distanced herself of. She has openly distanced herself of her own past views on LGBT, that were like the ones Butler holds. And she voted in a way that reinforces her new stands. So she already distanced herself from that view and that makes this attempt at smear even more moronic.
And I didn't say the source is biased. That is as you say a pretty weak argument. I say the connection is weak.
