Gabbard and Steyer play that same game, with a bit less effect. But it's there where they get their qualifying polls for the debates.

Okay then, I'm sorry. I was wrong to compare the two situations as the same. My point remains though.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8ayk/tulsi-gabbard-abortion-supreme-court-case-june-medical-services-v-gee-amicus-brief

A true progressive and a woman of the people. How dare we slander someone with such integrity and class?

@uran10

That is one damn good ad. I'm not voting for Biden, but he did a damn good job making Trump look like a moron.

...Does anyone seriously question whether I am the most serious women's advocate here? Seriously? How often does anyone else here even talk about women's issues without specifically my prompting? Does anyone here seriously believe that I hold the fact that Tulsi Gabbard is female against her? That that's my unspoken true reason for disliking her campaign?

I do feel that, all in all, the fact that people so much more often have complaints on offer about the women in this campaign than about the men is something notable, especially considering that only a small minority of the Democratic candidates who have declared to run over the course of the campaign season (6 out of a total of I believe 29) have been women and also considering that virtually this whole forum is male aside from me. I'm certainly not faulting you for supporting a female candidate! I hope you don't take it that way because that would be just silly.

For most of this campaign, I have supported the feminist women running (e.g. Warren, Gillibrand, and what's more even Harris and Williamson were on my radar of real consideration for a while, as some may recall) in part because I really want to see a woman be elected president, though I've more recently reached the conclusion that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate for me overall. But not every woman is a feminist. Not every woman does or would use a position of power to help other women. Moreover, a feminist isn't always right just for being one. It is also not just automatically misogyny to criticize an individual woman running for public office, even harshly. Unlike many others on this forum, I think you'll find that I'm pretty even-handed when it comes to both compliments toward and criticisms of the men and women in this race respectively.

I have laid out my opinion of Tulsi Gabbard at length before and don't feel the need to do so again right now.

Also, elsewhere in your post you called for people like me to be banned from this forum, and apparently three other people agreed with you on that. If people really feel that way, then hey, I can leave. I feel like I've offered this thread a lot more than just the occasional snide remark about what yes I really feel are the questionable loyalties of one candidate and that certain other of our contributors (cough, Uran, cough!) contribute little other than similarly aggressive attacks on specific candidates to this thread while by contrast no one (let alone you, our resident libertarian anti-censorship guy) calls for them to be banned, but okay. I will leave.

3 things here since you decided to tag me.

1) My first choice is Bernie

2) Before I even get to the article I'm going to point out the most obvious fallacy in what you posted. Let me Paraphrase what you just said. "I don't like a position that this candidate has, so its fine for me and others to lie and slander her since I don't think she has integrity and class". I'll spell this out for you, It is never fine to lie and slander candidates, it is never right to smear candidates. I have no problems with legit criticism, but again you throw around smears about Tulsi, don't back them up with any hard proof because the hard proof doesn't exist. I said it once, I'll say it again Hillary did the same thing now she's getting sued.

3) I didn't read the article, but you know who did? My Girlfriend and my god did she go off on a rant in our chat about this and I'll start by saying, she agrees with Tulsi on this. I'll point out Tulsi stance is against late term abortions unless its for the woman's health, and my GF agrees with that. She also agrees that getting an abortion is a sad thing and shouldn't be the go to but the option should be there since things happen. She pointed out all of the other preventative methods that exists to prevent pregnancy in the first place and that abortion shouldn't be the first thing on the mind after the act has occurred. There's multiple options such as plan B etc, that should be done. Keep in mind she's not arguing that abortion shouldn't be legal and shouldn't be done, she's pointing out that it shouldn't be done in high numbers simply because there are other preventative methods out there and that its a last resort if its caught late etc. Especially considering some health risk she went on to say how she'd understand if its like once or twice but more than that is questionably unless its health related. 

As for me I didn't read the article, but I've seen Tulsi explain her stance on abortion multiple times and nothing she's said has made me go "omg what a bad position". From what she's said before, its only Late term she's somewhat against and that's cause its somewhat dangerous at that point and should really only be done if it relates to the mother's health. Abortions before that are fine and I don't see how that is a wrong stance. I personally think abortion is a last resort somewhat dependent on health, or if the mother feels that she'd be able to or not. If she wants an abortion she should be able to get it, but I think Late term abortions outside of health emergencies are a bit much and they can be somewhat dangerous. If it can be done safely then sure but otherwise... well it's still up to the woman but she'll be the one dealing with those heavier consequences. 

In a quick response to other things I see here, I'm going to say this thing one more time. It is a Primary. I'm not gonna sit here and place nice when lives are at stake. I'm happy that a certain individual has seen the light and is now on team Bernie, quite frankly I was gonna cut them some slack and not point out their hypocrisy anymore however its extremely hard to do that when they sit down and smear Tulsi and act like its a good faith argument when its not. Yes your contributions have been good for the most part while I mainly focus on the negative aspects of what's going on in campaigns. I'm more cynical than you, I have little to no faith in the system and along with that, If you follow politics you already know where Bernie stands, you already know how positive and well liked his ideas are. I highlight the Policy that are good and bad, but that's the thing. The Majority of everyone else has a hell of a lot more bad, and if its not straight up bad its just outclassed by bernie to the tune of our first debate on why you chose Warren over bernie at first where I literally could counter every single point you made with 1 phrase. "Bernie's better on -insert topic here-".

So no, there is no questionable Loyalty, cause fun fact, I'm not even loyal to Bernie and I think this is something people need to understand. We should not worship politicians, we shouldn't move our ideals and our principles with them drifting. We should hold them accountable with where we stand on the issues. If Bernie were to drop M4A, I probably would be utterly crushed cause he was the last one standing pushing that policy who would fight for it and I probably wouldn't vote. Its that simple for me. I'm not a single issue voter and that's just an example above. I'm not a democrat, I'm on the populist left registered as a Democrat because that is the only chance my voice is going to be heard especially considering I live in a closed primary state. Honestly speaking I want to clock out of politics so badly its not even funny but before I do so I want us all to have a single payer system, a free college system, end the wars, money out of politics etc. If that happened I would gladly turn back into the sheep I was during the Obama era where I could clock out and go about living my life in ignorance. but I can't do that, there's too much at stake. I think the easiest and simplest way to put it is that I'm an activist and I'm here to call out everybody on bad positions and highlight them so you know where they stand. Cause let's be real here, when have I been wrong on a position where a candidate stands in this thread? I called almost every single Warren pivot because I saw through her. I don't take Pete seriously because he's at 0% with poc voters. Biden... well I should take him more seriously cause he is now the biggest threat but at the same time he's collapsing and can barely get out a full sentence and says a hell of a lot of questionable things. Yang isn't perfect, I'd never vote for him but he's running on something! Tulsi is similar to yang and I disagree with her on a fair amount but she's been right on the syria situation and more FP stuff than the rest and on top of that, she was the one leading the fight for whistle blowers and election integrity. I see why she's running.

Actually on that note of I see why she's running I'll go into that real quick. Bernie = M4A, free college etc, Yang = Trojan horse UBI (yes its a bad version of ubi), Tulsi= Regime Change War. Biden = Let's go back to Obama years (LOL NO), Everyone else? Why are you guys running? what do you bring to the table? The answer is nothing. Warren is a heavily watered down Bernie and is in the way, Pete is running on what we can't have along with the rest of the centrist candidates. My Contributions to this thread is vetting the hell out of every candidate and highlighting what the media tries to hide like Pete's scandals for example. K thx.

tl:dr  Policies > Politicians, It's a primary if your candidate can't take the heat of their own record and policies or properly defend their stances then they need to get out and stop wasting our time.

@bolded

Wow. I guess I just don't exist or something...