The RSS who Tulsi is in bed with were behind the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and were directly implicated in the 2002 Gujarat riots to massacre Muslims.
Ironically, Tulsi got her Hinduism via ISKCON, which refuses to identify as Hindu (they call their religion “Krishna Consciousness”). But the ISKCON splinter cult her family belongs to has apparently copped to being “Hindu.” Regardless, the RSS is a very ugly optic for her.
A Black protester said that the RSS is the “KKK of India.”
When she was asked about her RSS affiliation, with specific names and details, she tried to deflect by calling the question “religious bigotry.” The questioner pointed out, “I didn’t mention any religion. I asked about a paramilitary organization modeled after those of Italian and German fascists. Why is she tarnishing Hinduism by calling questions about RSS money ‘bigotry’?”
I’m pleased to see that people are not going to let Tulsi skate when it comes to her unsavory connections.
I brought it up. I compared Gabbard’s two-faces effect to the sort of hypnotic effect you get from Sarah Sanders’ and Cory Booker’s unfocused eyes. It is an effective speaking tool that, IMHO, helps hold people’s attention.
Well, obviously opinions about this vary. I’ve not noticed Gabbard’s face being unusual in any way. As I probably said before I think she’s attractive, but that’s not the same thing.
As for hypnotic effect, effective speaking tools, etc., in the interviews with her I’ve heard she comes across to me at least as a pretty dull and uncharismatic speaker, and she really doesn’t hold my attention at all. On me the “two-face” effect, whatever it may be, doesn’t seem to have any effect.
Gabbard has gone stark raving mad on Twitter. Praising Julian Assange.
If she thinks appealing to the fringe who supports Assange and is constantly paranoid about the government, well she won’t be around long. I bet there’s a strong correlation between those who are constantly paranoid about government snooping and not voting.
I’m so old that I can remember Tulsi going on Fox News to praise Putin for aggressively bombing rebels in Syria and criticizing Obama for being soft on terrorism
BTW, true-progressive Tulsi is ranked ranked the 162nd most liberal member of the Democratic House caucus. IIRC, her district is tilted something like +16D.
The rankings are done by a politician’s actual Congressional voting records, not by what they post on Twitter or say on TV. You, of course, are free to believe that a politician’s rhetoric is a more important indicator of their positions than their votes, but others might feel differently.
There’s a difference their flaw is that they like to eat corned beef on white bread with mayo compared to some other things. Other things might be forgiven.
Well, as opposed to your view, in which an Internet personality who likes to rape fans, hack into computer systems, collude with Russian intelligence operations, and get Trump elected is considered a plus… yeah.
I understand what the rankings are based on. I was asking a simple question about your opinion. Is standing up for antiwar journalists and against authoritarian law enforcement liberal or conservative?
So, you’re against law enforcement on public property? Or there should be no public property? Government computers aren’t private property? Kind of an inscrutable answer there.
