I don't get it.. Is this supposed to illustrate that Tulsi has right wing sympathies/ideals/policies or something? That's pretty rich, considering - as I've said - she is probably the MOST (actual) progressive/liberal out of all of the Dem candidates currently in the running outside of Bernie (and Gravel who is no longer running). Even Warren has voted WITH Trump on certain actions regarding foreign policy (and was once ACTUALLY a Republican btw).

That's an awful lot of conclusions to reach about me from just a simple list of statistics. You claim, for example, that I'm "demonizing" everyone who disagrees with me politically in the slightest, such as obviously yourself for instance. Are you kidding me? As I recall, we've been having a pleasant conversation over the course of the week in the private messages where I have, among other things, described you as a smart and reasonable person and much of which, in fact, has revolved precisely around our agreements about the importance of free speech and dislike of cancel culture and strictly ideological thinking that neglects objectivity. Therefore, you of all people should know that I don't think of you or other more libertarian-oriented people who support Tulsi Gabbard as monsters or The Enemy. And if you've followed this thread to this point, you will also recall that I'm actually quite amenable to Andrew Yang, the other candidate you're backing, myself. You don't have to present yourself as someone completely different in public from who you are in private. You're not a victim here.

Also, I live in a town that voted 81% for Trump in 2016. I know that not every Donald Trump supporter is a monster either. (Though the type of Trump voter I've described above is not entirely of the same demography, you will notice.)

That said, this is an election after all, and I have my opinions about who would make the best Democratic nominee, and I'm afraid it's definitely not Tulsi Gabbard, who is someone I just have no respect for at all. I would sympathize with the way she has been sometimes portrayed in the media if I didn't feel like she earned a lot of it. Yes, after enduring these years of a certain president, I am indeed troubled by things her apparent connections to hostile foreign dictators and the fact that those connections would seem to govern the whole nature and emphasis of her campaign. The very last thing I think we need at this time is another president like that! And I think it does say something about you if you're a Democratic candidate for president who has essentially no support among either Democrats or progressives or just working class people and several times more among the ranks of Trump voters, conservatives, and very wealthy people. That to me honestly makes her look like almost maybe even a plant of some kind. I'm not trying to demonize you or anyone for supporting her, but I am questioning the character and motivations of the candidate herself. I think we could do much better than Tulsi Gabbard, even just choosing between libertarian Democrats. I mean there is a libertarian type candidate in this race I feel much more positively about, and that's Andrew Yang.

Some of the specific areas where I have strong disagreements or problems with Tulsi Gabbard (besides those I've already mentioned) include:

-Her insistence that we should never have supported the Syrian Democratic Forces. As people here know, I'm a passionate supporter of their cause and strongly opposed to our recent betrayal of them to Turkey, which has, and continues to as we speak, yield a yes very violent campaign of ethnic cleansing across much of Northern Syria, including such ancestral lands of the Kurdish people as Kobani. I feel very, very strongly about this issue, as people here know, and Gabbard's position that we should've I guess just left them to ISIS in the first place frankly angers me. I've not heard any other Democratic candidate articulate that view, period, let alone with her level of passion.

-Her opposition to admitting Syrian refugees into this country and her opposition to providing basic public services (like health care, for example) to refugees and immigrants who aren't documented just because they may not have the right paperwork. We provide medical care even to imprisoned, convicted murderers, rapists, and terrorists. It's remarkable to me, therefore, that one should view say those who have fled the genocidal campaigns of ISIS, for example, as less human than that. This position is also unique among Democratic candidates. Combined with Gabbard's 'anti-interventionist' views, it forms, for me, the picture of an isolationist candidate whose goals bear a striking, and worrying, resemblance to those of the sitting president, which might explain why that very president once considered Gabbard for a cabinet position. Everyone is owed such basic rights as medical care as far as I'm concerned.

-The fact she questions whether Bashir Al Assad has used chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War. That much is extremely obvious. That's a very unique, and frankly despicable position that I'm not convinced is even sincere. And she wonders why people question her loyalties! Don't get me wrong: I'm from a family with a history of military service too and I'm grateful for her service. But Michael Flynn served too, you know? That didn't make him something other than what he wound up becoming in the end.

-Her long history of homophobic views and actions. This point of objection I'm pretty forgiving of really, considering that most Americans in general have traditionally held a lot of homophobic views and considering that I know an awful lot of people personally who aren't otherwise terrible people but who nonetheless, you know, feel or have felt (as applicable) that people like me should be legally forbidden to marry who we authentically love or to have children within the framework of a same-sex relationship. My own parents weren't exactly open-minded about same-sex relationships, in fact, but I was ultimately able to make some peace with my mom nonetheless before she passed away. But let me be clear here: Tulsi Gabbard did not historically just feel that same-sex couples shouldn't have all the same rights as heterosexual couples, she actively campaigned for an anti-gay organization that was founded by her father and actively lobbied against not just marriage rights but against even civil unions for same-sex couples. Those represent particularly extreme views and levels of dedication that weren't common of even moderate Democrats in those times. Most people before the current decade might have believed that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people shouldn't have all the same rights as heterosexual people, but most did not actively join anti-gay crusades. That represents an unusual level of hostility. That she has changed her views on this subject is really the most important thing, but...there is still this long history of particularly extreme hostility and her more recent statements disowning this past have frankly struck me as plastic and generic-sounding, not all that sincere. Certainly not emotional at all. There doesn't seem to be a lot in the way of actual, heartfelt conviction behind this theoretical change of heart she's had more recently.

-Her ongoing opposition to single-payer Medicare-for-all. Still believes that for-profit health insurance companies should have a role to play going forward. This is just simply an area where I disagree with her. When there are not one but two candidates in this field who can bring themselves around to supporting national health insurance, why should I go with someone who doesn't?

-Still believes that late-term abortions should be illegal. I believe this is another of Gabbard's unique views in this Democratic field. As much isn't an uncommon view by any means. I believe most Americans still agree with this view actually, and it certainly doesn't represent a common variety of abortion at all. The thing is that abortion rights are demonstrably under attack in this country right now. Most abortion providers have been forced to close their doors over the last decade owing to waves of new state laws intentionally designed to undermine them and there are now several times more fake abortion clinics in this country than there are real ones. So many women's heath facilities have been closed for providing abortions among their services over the last decade, in fact, that the maternal mortality rate in this country has actually begun to rise as a result! (A fact that rather belies the insistence of the anti-abortion movement that their aim is to promote human life.) In such a context, where you now have state governments seeking to ban even rape survivors from terminating a pregnancy, I feel that it is especially important that the next president be someone who is very clear about where they stand on the question of bodily sovereignty for women and not someone who's commitment thereto is on the wishy-washy side and the weakest in the Democratic field.

These things to name a few are among my issues with Gabbard.

That's an awful lot of conclusions to reach about me from just a simple list of statistics. You claim, for example, that I'm "demonizing" everyone who disagrees with me politically in the slightest, such as obviously yourself for instance. Are you kidding me? As I recall, we've been having a pleasant conversation over the course of the week in the private messages where I have, among other things, described you as a smart and reasonable person and much of which, in fact, has revolved precisely around our agreements about the importance of free speech and dislike of cancel culture and strictly ideological thinking that neglects objectivity. Therefore, you of all people should know that I don't think of you or other more libertarian-oriented people who support Tulsi Gabbard as monsters or The Enemy. And if you've followed this thread to this point, you will also recall that I'm actually quite amenable to Andrew Yang, the other candidate you're backing, myself. You don't have to present yourself as someone completely different in public from who you are in private. You're not a victim here.

Also, I live in a town that voted 81% for Trump in 2016. I know that not every Donald Trump supporter is a monster either. (Though the type of Trump voter I've described above is not entirely of the same demography, you will notice.)

That said, this is an election after all, and I have my opinions about who would make the best Democratic nominee, and I'm afraid it's definitely not Tulsi Gabbard, who is someone I just have no respect for at all. I would sympathize with the way she has been sometimes portrayed in the media if I didn't feel like she earned a lot of it. Yes, after enduring these years of a certain president, I am indeed troubled by things like her apparent connections to hostile foreign dictators and the fact that those connections would seem to govern the whole nature and emphasis of her campaign. The very last thing I think we need at this time is another president like that! And I think it does say something about you if you're a Democratic candidate for president who has essentially no support among either Democrats or progressives or just working class people and several times more among the ranks of Trump voters, conservatives, and very wealthy people. That to me honestly makes her look like almost maybe even a plant of some kind. I'm not trying to demonize you or anyone for supporting her, but I am questioning the character and motivations of the candidate herself. I think we could do much better than Tulsi Gabbard, even just choosing between libertarian Democrats. I mean there is a libertarian type candidate in this race I feel much more positively about, and that's Andrew Yang.

Some of the specific areas where I have strong disagreements or problems with Tulsi Gabbard (besides those I've already mentioned) include:

-Her insistence that we should never have supported the Syrian Democratic Forces. As people here know, I'm a passionate supporter of their cause and strongly opposed to our recent betrayal of them to Turkey, which has, and continues to as we speak, yield a yes very violent campaign of ethnic cleansing across much of Northern Syria, including such ancestral lands of the Kurdish people as Kobani. I feel very, very strongly about this issue, as people here know, and Gabbard's position that we should've I guess just left them to ISIS in the first place frankly angers me. I've not heard any other Democratic candidate articulate that view, period, let alone with her level of passion.

-Her opposition to admitting Syrian refugees into this country and her opposition to providing basic public services (like health care, for example) to refugees and immigrants who aren't documented just because they may not have the right paperwork. We provide medical care even to imprisoned, convicted murderers, rapists, and terrorists. It's remarkable to me, therefore, that one should view say those who have fled the genocidal campaigns of ISIS, for example, as less human than that. This position is also unique among Democratic candidates. Combined with Gabbard's 'anti-interventionist' views, it forms, for me, the picture of an isolationist candidate whose goals bear a striking, and worrying, resemblance to those of the sitting president, which might explain why that very president once considered Gabbard for a cabinet position. Everyone is owed such basic rights as medical care as far as I'm concerned.

-The fact she questions whether Bashir Al Assad has used chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War. That much is extremely obvious. That's a very unique, and frankly despicable position that I'm not convinced is even sincere. And she wonders why people question her loyalties! Don't get me wrong: I'm from a family with a history of military service too and I'm grateful for her service. But Michael Flynn served too, you know? That didn't make him something other than what he wound up becoming in the end.

-Her long history of homophobic views and actions. This point of objection I'm pretty forgiving of really, considering that most Americans in general have traditionally held a lot of homophobic views and considering that I know an awful lot of people personally who aren't otherwise terrible people but who nonetheless, you know, feel or have felt (as applicable) that people like me should be legally forbidden to marry who we authentically love or to have children within the framework of a same-sex relationship. My own parents weren't exactly open-minded about same-sex relationships, in fact, but I was ultimately able to make some peace with my mom nonetheless before she passed away. But let me be clear here: Tulsi Gabbard did not historically just feel that same-sex couples shouldn't have all the same rights as heterosexual couples, she actively campaigned for an anti-gay organization that was founded by her father and actively lobbied against not just marriage rights but against even civil unions for same-sex couples. Those represent particularly extreme views and levels of dedication that weren't common of even moderate Democrats in those times. Most people before the current decade might have believed that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people shouldn't have all the same rights as heterosexual people, but most did not actively join anti-gay crusades. That represents an unusual level of hostility. That she has changed her views on this subject is really the most important thing, but...there is still this long history of particularly extreme hostility and her more recent statements disowning this past have frankly struck me as plastic and generic-sounding, not all that sincere. Certainly not emotional at all. There doesn't seem to be a lot in the way of actual, heartfelt conviction behind this theoretical change of heart she's had more recently.

-Her ongoing opposition to single-payer Medicare-for-all. Still believes that for-profit health insurance companies should have a role to play going forward. This is just simply an area where I disagree with her. When there are not one but two candidates in this field who can bring themselves around to supporting national health insurance, why should I go with someone who doesn't?

-Still believes that late-term abortions should be illegal. I believe this is another of Gabbard's unique views in this Democratic field. As much isn't an uncommon view by any means. I believe most Americans still agree with this view actually, and it certainly doesn't represent a common variety of abortion at all. The thing is that abortion rights are demonstrably under attack in this country right now. Most abortion providers have been forced to close their doors over the last decade owing to waves of new state laws intentionally designed to undermine them and there are now several times more fake abortion clinics in this country than there are real ones. So many women's heath facilities have been closed for providing abortions among their services over the last decade, in fact, that the maternal mortality rate in this country has actually begun to rise as a result! (A fact that rather belies the insistence of the anti-abortion movement that their aim is to promote human life.) In such a context, where you now have state governments seeking to ban even rape survivors from terminating a pregnancy, I feel that it is especially important that the next president be someone who is very clear about where they stand on the question of bodily sovereignty for women and not someone who's commitment thereto is on the wishy-washy side and the weakest in the Democratic field.

These things to name a few are among my issues with Gabbard. All that said, there are a couple areas where I'm more inclined to agree with Tulsi Gabbard than I am with even the leading progressive candidates, Warren and Sanders. One of those areas is the importance of freedom of speech and the other is her support for universal basic income, inspired by Andrew Yang. The thing is though that Andrew Yang seems to also be a supporter of both of those things and lacks many of the aforementioned liabilities that Gabbard has. Although he does have some unique liabilities of his own, like the fact he seems to be advancing UBI as an alternative to many of our existing public welfare programs rather than as a supplement thereto. But I don't question Andrew Yang's loyalties.

Also, these things I consider to be advantages that Gabbard has over other Democrats aren't things that she stresses on the campaign trail. What she stresses is foreign policy, which is an area on which I don't even trust her, let alone broadly agree with her. That's the policy area that seems to be the most important to her by far.

Not implying that you specifically demonize, just illustrating that this is why Gabbard is seen as more favorable for some independents and even some of the right, as she doesn't vilify them nearly to the extent that some other candidates, the establishment Dems, and a segment of their supporters do. And it's like, why else lay out these statistics? I was probably a bit too dramatic but I just tend to get fed up with the constant attacks on Tulsi's character, especially when they're mostly baseless. Honestly I didn't mean to have my response to sound personal or harsh, it just tends to come off that way sometimes. 

I do very much respect that at least in this response you actually brought some actual critiques to her actual policies/ideals though. You are about the only person here that I've seen bring legitimate criticisms of her rather than misguided smears and conspiracies which I appreciate. I still tend to disagree with many of them but it is interesting and insightful nonetheless. I think just at the end of the day we have very very different thoughts as to how our foreign policy is conducted. Which if you tend to be more in favor of interventionism I could see why someone like Gabbard would not be your type of candidate. Makes sense and I respect that, different strokes. I've just always been a *hardcore* advocate of nonintervention and anti-war. Not total isolationism but essentially ceasing to be the world's policies and focusing our efforts, military might, finances, etc on our own domestic issues at home. That's why Tulsi resonates with me. 

I get the notion of sending in troops to aid against ISIS, but the cold hard truth is that us meddling in all these foreign affairs is partly what caused the unstable, chaotic conditions that led to ISIS in the first place. With all the interventionism and regime change wars, we ultimately create more enemies, death, and destruction than any good we might be doing overseas. I feel like the fiasco in Iraq should have been a shining example of that. And Vietnam long before that.

It is false however that you say she has "no support from Dems, progressive, or working class." I've seen a ton of support from the fanbases of Yang, Williamson, Bernie, and even some Warren.

I don't think it's particularly controversial for someone to be against abortion in the third trimester, and I'm pro choice btw. But you make it sound like she doesn't support abortion AT ALL which she clearly does. 

And the "plant" thing is still a ridiculous notion. You still fall back on the conspiracy thing which is unfortunate given how strong some of your actual arguments have been, these smears just muddy your more compelling counterpoints. 

Gabbard may have been raised with a homophobic upbringing which is unfortunate, but the important thing is that she recognized the error of her ways when she grew up. And I believe her voting record is in line with support of LGBT, it speaks for itself. You said it yourself, these were commonly held views by even most Dems at the time. Hillary and even Obama (and I think Warren too but don't quote me on that) were opposed to gay marriage until somewhat recently, people grow up and change. It's nice to have that Bernie type who has pretty consistently had a solid, unwavering track record but the reality is most people and thus politicians are not like this, they evolve as they grow and change. 

I do find some of her past to be unfortunate and I don't agree w/her on her apparent opposition to M4A. Should make it clear that I certainly don't see eye to eye on everything w/Gabbard but as far as the current pool she's the closest that resonates. 

But I really do appreciate the thorough, thoughtful response and I totally respect your opinion. You've given me some new insight but still at least comparatively speaking I tend to agree most with Tulsi. But hey at least we both seem to like Yang heh

Gabbard is someone who has said, among other things, that perhaps Bashir Al Assad's forces have never used chemical weapons in the course of the Syrian war for example

Actually she said all sides in the war used chemical weapons and some of the attacks attributed to the regime can be linked to rebels.

That's not only unlikely, it's an Assad regime propaganda line. I would simply point out who the survivors and the families of the victims assess responsibility to.