Democrat Tulsi Gabbard wins coveted David Duke endorsement


Originally published at:


David Duke notorious racist is also a troll?


Seriously Rob, this is the kind of smear job I wouldn’t expect from BoingBoing. What is it about Tulsi that evokes such fear that the long knives and half truths come out about her?

Rob, you come across as ignorant as Bari Weiss does here (and it’s not a good look).



More smear. What scares you about her?


What have I said that’s wrong?


Dont’ be so coy.


What’s coy is insinuating something (“smear job”) and then dancing off when asked to be specific.

To recap, Gabbard:

  • Has some reactionary credentials, specifically her notoriety as a homophobe
  • Otherwise generally moderate
  • Isn’t notably critical of Israel
  • Duke endorsed her

Where’s the smear?


You seem disappointed?


We really shouldn’t talk about Davide Duke unless it’s absolutely necessary or at least in the proper context.


The whole David Duke endorsement as a headline is a smear. Calling her a notorious homophobe without including further details about her refuting that position and apologizing is a smear. Again, I will repeat my question, what is it about Tulsi that brings out the half truths?


Interesting perspective there.

It begs the question:

Is it a fact that David Duke endorsed Gabbard?

The answer from just a quick goggle query is that he apparently did.

So that spawns a follow up question, (which I will likely regret asking:)

How is reposting a current piece of news “a smear job,” exactly?

That’s what I’m wondering.


Maybe Duke is just trolling. Gabbard can pretty easily say, “I don’t want David Duke’s support. If you are racist or if you follow David Duke, I don’t want your vote.”


If she’s wise and wants to keep her candidacy viable, that’s what she should do.

God, I hate this election cycle so much, already.

Rob should add him or her to the list; it hasn’t been updated in ages.


Choosing a headline is probably the strongest way to state an opinion on a matter when writing news in the social media age, followed closely by just choosing whether or not to write about the matter at all.

A headline with a question such as , “Why did David Duke endorse Gabbard?” would have been more neutral, and less smear-looking, since the only real newsworthiness I see to his endorsement of her is that it’s strange that he’s endorsing a Democrat, when the most famous thing he did in the last presidential election campaign was endorsing Trump.


You come across as ignorant as Bari Weiss. Turning something incendiary into a headline is a smear and you know that as well as I do. Especially when your googling could take you to her refutation. Again, repeating my original question now that you’ve repeatedly dodged, what is it about Tulsi that brings out the half-truths?


She did, but you wouldn’t get that from the headline or from Rob’s smear.


You’ve said that twice now; go for a 3rd time, and you’re officially spamming.

Velcome back after such a long hibernation, comrade. I take that 6 years of lying dormant has treated you well?


Russia endorsement too? She also defended Assad on the chemical attacks saying there wasn’t enough evidence he did it:


It is a fact that he has endorsed her. Moreover, unlike some outlets, I’ve made clear in my post (and headline, through the device of sarcasm) that the endorsement is very likely insincere.

It’s a plain fact that her homphobia is not only what she was known for, but that it was literally her job – as an anti-gay activist – until it became politically inconvenient to her career.

Note that I didn’t make any claim as to what she is – only the fact that she is notorious for having been a homophobe.

It’s true that I didn’t delve into her apologies or her more progressive policies. But at two sentences and change, I also didn’t have time to talk about her support for Bashar Assad and gun rights, her vacillation over torture, her peculiar political relationship with Trump, and the various other things that a more intimate portrait would demand. But perhaps those are “smears”, too.

I will, however, add her repudiation of Duke to the post, as that’s to the point and salient to what’s already in it.