You seem to have a strange notion of “truth.” The primary fact of the headline and Rob’s write up is that Tulsi Gabbard was IN ACTUAL FACT endorsed by David Duke. I will leave of the silent ‘apostrophe-dumbass’ from that last sentence, but you might want to be more explicit about what you consider untruthful as:
Gave a rhetorical sop of an apology for her active homophobic advocacy which should more or less disqualify her from holding any public office (much like the current governor of Virginia should be disqualified for his racism, only, you know her homophobia was far more harmful to the queer public). FACT!
Her “apology” is worth less that Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s apology for racist costume shitbucketry. Her active anti-homosexual advocacy disqualifies her from any public office even if she is no longer actively engaged in it.
Oh my, a VIDEO APOLOGY. Well that changes everything!
While I grant that the sarcastic headline might fool the sort of guy who fails turing tests, my very short post is plainly factual. I’d say you need to get over it—but what you really need to get over is Tulsi Gabbard.
And what the fuck has she done to repair the harm for the homophobic policies she’s advocated for in the past? Besides a politically expedient lip-service apology?
She was working against lgbt people’s enfranchisement and dignity decades more recently than a certain Virginia Governor’s sartorial offenses or close to concurrently with a former Minnesota Senators’ offense.
I don’t see anyone drafting them for the Oval Office.
Which is to say, you know that I’m right, and have no answer for the plain facts of her career.
You’re just mad that so few people believe the story that suckered you. I understand Democrat voters who settle for the politicans that hate them the least, but this one made it her life’s calling to hate them the most. What planet are you living on to think she has the faintest whisper of a chance?
You do realize your entire argument revolves around making sure a laundry list of minor details are captured by a snarky blog post that didn’t invent anything about the person in question, right? Your entire concern is that there isn’t enough detail given in a short post to provide nuance and contrast her against other Democratic candidates that didn’t get Duke’s praise that also have spotty records.
Like, the confidence at while you wield ‘pedant’ as a cudgel is impressive, but somehow I don’t think Rob’s lack of rhetorical skills are the problem here…
I can do this all day- provide context and depth to the headlines you spew. Maybe some of your discerning readers will catch on, but most of you come across as too Trump/Russia deranged for it to have any impact.
Oh, and to our friend Faffenreffer- the word was ‘exposes’ but auto-correct spit out ‘expresses’. Whatever made you come up with a link between that and breast milk, though, again says much where your mind is.
You’ve successfully established that Clinton and Obama were both fair-weather friends to gay people. In her case, she was opposed to gay marriage until changing her mind at the moment—the obergefell ruling–where failing to do so would have become an overwhelming political problem for her. In his case, he “evolved” back and forth depending on the size and breadth of his political constituency. In this respect, they were both unprincipled cowards and their lack of conviction delayed and undermined progress. Both of these people are political has-beens.
But neither, in all their lives, were committed, full-time activists singularly dedicated to the cause of oppressing gay people. Tulsi Gabbard was, and it matters to people who can’t (or choose not to) separate their politics from their lives.
If it comes to voting for Trump or her, I’d vote for her. But I’d know that I’d be voting for her for the same reason evangelicals vote for Trump: desperation. I’d know she hates gays the same way evangelicals know Trump has paid for more abortions than divorces.
On the one hand, Tulsi Gabbard is not the person I want to see become the next nominee/president. On the other hand, David Duke is probably cribbing the Cernovich playbook.
If the advocacy on behalf of Gabbard in this thread is representative of the kind of people who will be supporting her candidacy…that really solidifies my opposition to her candidacy. Those of you in this thread who think you’re trying to help her…you are not. You might want to rethink your approach.
