I’ve been re listening to the Joe Rogan podcast from several months ago. She starts talking about the authorization to go to war with Iran at about 22 minutes in.
I recommend listening to the whole show unless you want your opinions formed by “social media experts” in soundbytes and out of context quotes from propagandists.
I’m sure she’ll do very well among Jill Stein voters.
Tulsi has two big obstacles in her way:
One, there are a lot of Clinton loyalists in the Democratic Party who won’t vote for her because she backed Bernie. They may despise everyone who isn’t named Clinton, but Tulsi attacked their queen, and they will not turn out for her.
Two, the GOP, which generally has the backing of corporate media, can’t even get a Mormon with a perfect Midwestern accent in the White House. While Gabbard’s sect of Hinduism isn’t exactly ISKCON, it was loosely identified with it for a long time, and being seen as a “Hare Krishna” or even just a “cultist” might give her an even worse image then just being a “Hindu.” Even the GOP couldn’t sell that; how do the Democrats? Eh, maybe I’m wrong.
I like that this cycle is shaping up very different than 2016. I kind of like Tulsi. But i figure she doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in the mouth of Kilauea.
From CNN
The military industrial complex does not want someone like her as commander in chief. These are the real reasons you are seeing so much anti-Gabbard shilling on social media and the mainstream media.
Yeah, I don’t know about all that. Your argument inspired a thread, DJ.
Trump works for the media, tell me I’m wrong.
Tulsi Gabbard’s Homophobic Remarks:
And three, she’s a total nutcase.
I mean, really, why are we even talking about her? 
I knew Tulsi Gabbard only by name before reading this thread. What I learned about her here is deeply disturbing.
India is constitutionally a secular democratic republic. India is an ethnically and religiously diverse country, arguably more diverse than the entirety of Europe. Hindutva is a betrayal of those values. It’s no different than a right-wing American politician wanting to celebrate the “Christian identity” of the United States. Hindutva is virulently anti-Muslim, which is a problem in a country with the world’s third largest Muslim population.
By the way, I am an Indian-American and a Hindu.
Modi and the BJP are a vile, racist, bigoted, nationalistic and authoritarian movement. Modi has been in power longer than Trump, but he’s picked up a lot of Trumpist propaganda tactics.
Just on that basis, I would disqualify Tulsi Gabbard from any position of responsibility, and definitely not as a standard-bearer for the American left.
Iskcon—better known as the “Hare Krishnas”—is an authoritarian cult. I’d never trust someone from that community or an offshoot for public responsibility. They don’t consider themselves Hindu, and many Hindus reject them as well.
But even without her connections to the BJP and Iskcon, Gabbard’s own statements about religion and sexuality in America are vile and ought to be firmly rejected by the Democratic Party.
Barring a very thoughtful and genuine apology for Gabbard’s past bigoted assertions about gay people, I could not even consider supporting her for the Democratic nomination.
I like the wide open Democratic field. My initial response is that I’d be happy to vote for any of the names I’ve heard floated, and I get to pick the best of a diverse and qualified crowd. Tulsi Gabbard is the exception to this. I hope she makes a quick exit so that she isn’t a distraction.
I like her for her support for the reinstitution of Glass-Steagall alone.
But if she gets it, would you then vote for her if she runs against Trump?
Almost certainly (“almost” just because I don’t know much about Gabbard), since Trump’s bigotry is far, far worse in both quantity and character (along with a host of other issues).
Perhaps a better question is who is so awful that you’d vote for Trump against them? I’m trying but failing to imagine such a person.
Thanks for the great explanation. In addition to the above I’m specifically concerned about Modi’s responsibility for the 2002 Gujarat riots where about 1,000 people were killed. Modi aided and abetted mobs to pogrom Muslims. The Congressional resolution on human rights in India was partly in response to that and similar RSS/BJP attacks on religious minorities. That Gabbard opposed it in support of Modi chokes my throat with the bitterness of bile. The RSS was the hate group that assassinated Mahatma Gandhi and that’s where Modi comes from, and Gabbard idolizes this guy.
She sounds rather completely fucked up. I’d stay with the devil you know, Trump, over some bizarre cultist. Thinking Trump is almost certainly worse shows a very poor imagination.
Uh, not me. I want this fucking circus to finally be over and there’s no way in hell that Gabbard, however weird her religion might be, or whatever she thinks about India, is sufficiently problematic that a second Trump term would be preferable. NO way.
I can’t figure out whether this statement is being blatantly heartless about mass murder or is simply ignorant. Sikhs are certainly worried about mass murder of Sikhs, because it has actually happened in India. Muslims are certainly worried about mass murder of Muslims, because mass murder of Muslims happens periodically in India.
Muslims are systematically discriminated against in Indian society. It’s rare to find Muslims in high-level jobs outside the entertainment industry (a huge percentage of Indian movie stars are Muslims).
Are you saying that it is ridiculous for Americans to care about this or are you just uninformed about it?
I object to blanket American support for the Israeli government. But I don’t and can’t vote on that sole basis because pro-Israeli politicians are firmly embedded in the American system and impossible to avoid if you care about other things. We always have to make choices when voting.
That doesn’t mean I have to like a pro-Hindutva American politician.
Nothing she’s said comes close to even 1% of Trump’s fucked-up-ed-ness. Which still leaves room for plenty of bigotry, much worse than any other likely Democratic candidate, AFAICT. But still almost nothing compared to Trump, at least based on what I’ve seen.
The “devil we know” is doing enormous medium term and maybe long term damage to the country (and maybe the world).
Gabbard’s religious views are vile, but I have voted for a lot of Christian politicians who have what I consider vile religious views, particularly at the local level. I don’t think overall she would be worse for the country than Trump. However, I would rather she get nowhere near the nomination, which I don’t think is likely anyway.