That sort of confusion about basic concepts is one of the reasons nobody takes you seriously.
I think Mike Pence’s religion of hatred of gay people and disdain for women is baggage. Does that ease your mind at all?
I’m not a Gabbard fan, but being a reformed crazy wackjob who came to their senses when presented with better information earns my respect far more than some crazy whackjob who happened to be fed correct information and therefore isn’t as obviously crazy.
The fact that she discarded those insane beliefs means she is a rational person who will adopt the best answer based on available information rather than cling to ignorance/insanity/arrogance like most other candidates would. Remember, just because someone happens to be right doesn’t mean they’re right for the right reason. And a rational person can be completely wrong and seemingly insane if they have all bad premises/data to work from. This is a demonstration that she can and will change even deep seeded beliefs that are demonstrated to be wrong… and that’s an excellent quality to have.
One of the members of her campaign staff is the second in command of the cult. Her husband is a member of the cult. Where has it been established that she has come to her senses and has discarded those beliefs?
Except… she never said any of this. She announced she was running for president and that she was no longer anti-LGBTQ. She has given no insight into why she made this decision or how her personal beliefs have changed. She’s never repudiated Science of Identity or said she was no longer affiliated with them.
The simplest explanation is that she’s still in the cult, she’s avoiding damage to her presidential run, and she’s a liar about LGBTQ issues.
That’s a silly stance to take. She did something stupid nearly 30 years ago when she was under the thumb of her parents, and that’s how we’re supposed to interpret every action she takes forever more?
Are you beholden to the beliefs you learned as a teenager?
Furthermore, it’s fairly easy to spot a fake. Mike Pence, when he deigns to imply he doesn’t hate gays with a fiery passion, is an obvious fake when it comes to tolerance. Same as most conservative, christian adults. The evidence against them, especially in terms of policy proposals and political efforts, is insurmountable. You’re accusing her of being a fake. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
She was making documented homophobic statements as recently as 2004, when she was 22 years old and an adult, so we can dispense with the 30 years nonsense, thank you.
She has acknowledged and publicly apologized for those statements, saying that her views on LGBTQ people have “evolved” - it’s up to each person to decide if they believe her or not.
Yes, you should assume that I hold all of my teenage beliefs, unless I tell you I changed my beliefs and I give you a convincing explanation why. Gabbard hasn’t explained anything.
I’m gonna read your own words back to you here:
Did Gabbard give a reason for why she’s on the right side now? No. Did she repudiate the cult that taught her the wrong beliefs? No. I don’t believe she’s changed because she’s given me no reason to believe her.
That’s a rather ridiculous standard. People are full of silly beliefs instilled by their parents until they get out in the world and learn for themselves. That’s ostensibly what college is for.
You expect far too much from an individual you have no personal relationship with, and who isn’t in the limelight to pursue the issue you want her to talk about. If she were an LGBT+ activist, I suspect she’d take the time to focus on that. She’s not. She’s running for president. She doesn’t have time or the media bandwidth to spend on the issue. She publicly repudiated her stance and has done nothing since then to support the claim that it was a false repudiation.
But look, my very first statement was “I’m not a Gabbard fan.” I’m not going to waste time defending someone I don’t care all that much about. My point was not to get overly attached to the past religious beliefs of an individual when said individual is willing to say they were wrong.
Well, explaining her views on issues like this is literally her job right now. Everyone running for President should be offering clear statements on their views, including if their current views are different from their past ones. If a candidate isn’t doing that, they aren’t good at their current job.
Seeing as how she doesn’t have time to do this (which is perhaps what she is thinking), I’m not sure why any Democratic voter should waste any time when there are at least a dozen other candidates who are actually trying to explain their appeal to people.
Again, Gabbard was spewing forth some pretty venomous beliefs about gays, not only as an adult, but as a political figure–as a state representative as a matter of fact. No, it’s not Henry Hyde and “youthful indiscretions” at the tender age of 48 or whatever the hell he was, but if someone is old enough and politically savvy enough to get elected as a state lawmaker, it’s going to take quite a bit to convince me that her words at that time somehow shouldn’t count against her, even if she now says she has repented.
As I said in a different thread, I’m glad she’s changed her mind (let’s assume for the moment that she’s sincere in her new belief). But I’d rather support someone whose views didn;t need such a major shakeup. While it’s true that most long-time Democratic politicians at one point opposed marriage equality, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any current candidates whose anti-gay rhetoric came anywhere near Gabbard’s. I’ll pass, thanks.
To throw a bone to the pro-Gabbard folks that was 15 years and ~40% of her lifetime ago. So sure, I can believe hers views have evolved.
To take it back again in 2016 she said her personal views haven’t changed, she just now believes legislating morality is wrong. So in my opinion they haven’t evolved enough for my comfort.
I’d accept if she said that, or anything like it, but she’s said nothing remotely like that.
SHE IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. This is the very definition of the limelight.
It isn’t, though. It’s the same standard pretty much everyone uses. If you don’t believe something you said in the past, then you are expected to repudiate it when asked about it. Or, better yet, to have already repudiated it. Age is irrelevant.
It is actually quite common for people to continue with the same beliefs they had as teens. Most do with most of their beliefs.
And of course she has time to do it, as it’s part of running for president to make your beliefs clear, and to deal with the skeletons in the closet. If she doesn’t have time to do that, then she doesn’t have time to run for president.
(emphasis reduced) Since no one else has flat out said this:
That is not slander. Something being strange is an opinion. Among other things, slander must be a statement of fact.
Now, if you want to argue there’s some racial component in calling her childhood strange, you can. However, I would argue that the statement is not racial at all, and is in reference to her unusual religious background.
Despite claims by some on the right, we on the left do not actually always assume that everything is racist.
If she wants votes from LGBTQ voters, she’d better fucking make the time.
You would be correct in this. Gabbard herself mostly European, something like 1/8th Samoan at most. She is Hindu in the same way that George Harrison or Russell Brand are Hindu (by conversion).
There’s nothing “brown” to go after here. Claiming otherwise is a display of ignorance.
Tulsi Gabbard quote in the Huffington Post dated 1/12/19:
Warning about the link in the previous post. UMatrix (script blocker) no longer allows it although it did when I originally searched it, so there might be some type of crosslinking. Searching for Huffington Post and Tulsi Gabbard finds it for me though.
Okay, is it just me, or does that come across as deeply insincere and patronizing? I think it’s the “shared their aloha with me” line which… well, maybe it’s a cultural thing in Hawaii and I’m missing out on deep emotional connotations in that phrase, but if you’re trying to course-correct for being an advocate for unconscionable bigotry, maybe don’t don’t take your speech cues off an over-priced coffee mug from the Honolulu Hilton gift shop?