It's good she broke away from the cult she grew up in! *whew*

The vicious fascist and Hindu Nationalist Prime Minister of India.

I welcome Indian PM @NarendraModi to the United States and reaffirm the unbreakable bonds between our two nations.

Link to tweet

...to elected officials everywhere" - Gabbard, 2014

"Mr. Prime Minister, your election -- and your strong personal commitment to the India-U.S. relationship -- gives us an opportunity to further energize these efforts. I was proud to welcome you to the White House last fall. Your reputation preceded you. As many of you know, in New York, the Prime Minister appeared in Madison Square Garden and was greeted like a Bollywood star. (Laughter.) And it was, I think, a signal of the deep friendship between our peoples as well as our close ties that we are working to expand even further."

- Obama, 2015

phrase "radical Islamic terrorism".

Here's what she said about the terminology you mention:

associates Islam with extremist terrorism. As for her ultimate vote in favor of the Iran Deal, I recommend this piece by Branko Marcetic at Jacobin

I've seen that Jacobin article. The author is definitely not a fan of Gabbard's (and most other Democrats).

However, I agree with his suspicions of Gabbard. This is not to say that I wouldn't vote for her if she is the nominee. Hell, I'd vote for the ficus that Michael Moore ran for congress years ago.

Personally, I feel like Kamala Harris is going to be the one.

That said, I think all the Democrats who have announced so far would be good - Gabbard included.

Is "Michael Harriot someone whose garbage should be posted here"? Or not?

Granted, like asking about someone's position on Syria, it's wholly irrelevant to the OP, but that seems to be a go-to for many of your own responses, so I thought I'd try it as well (though I won't pretend to rationalize it).

And now having done so, I see why you like it so much.

He seems awful to me and appears not to be a supporter of the Democratic Party and most Democrats.

Syria seems relevant to a discussion of Tulsi Gabbard since her views on that conflict are what many Democrats find to be most disagreeable about her. Or at least, one of the issues that most often comes up in discussing Gabbard is her views on Assad.

With that in mind, I am always curious to know what the general feeling is about how we should approach Assad, in particular, and the conflict in Syria overall.

Personally, I am not entirely sure what makes the most sense in terms of US involvement in Syria. Is Gabbard's position credible at all? Or is she completely off base? If she is completely off base, what would be a more credible position?

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on that subject - or on Michael Harriot, if you'd like to share your opinions about him.

He started out on a pretty good footing visa 2014, even up to the last 3 years. But he has increasingly stirred up ethnic hatred in his country.

Poor Gabbard so victimized. .

She's mostly white with some Samoan on her father's side.

If she wants to practice Hinduism - that's fine with me. The cult she was exposed to as a kid? Eh. No. Good for for finding a practice/philosophy that fits her beliefs.

of Identity Foundation, have you? From what I read, she's still involved with Chris Butler's group.

I don’t care at all about her religious background. I do care that she met with Assad and trashed our allies in Syria.

What I think about foreign policy is not relevant to her candidacy.

If so, I'd be curious to know what that opinion is.

and I’ll give you my opinion on Syria. I don’t want to hijack your thread about Gabbard’s candidacy with something irrelevant like one citizen’s prescription for the region.

...

I don't know why the op seems to have a hang up about her being a Hindu.

To me - that's like the candidates race, gender, sexuality -

I'm not picking candidates on these things I don't care about.

If anything - I'm being an ageist this year. :chuckle;

Here's the article in The Hill that this piece is referencing:

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/religious-rights/424362-elected-leaders-who-weaponize-religion-are-playing-a

She does not mention Hirono.

I love the Washington Post

you know who.

the questioning at the Senate hearing, and that was done by Hirono and Harris.

We have so many interesting ones who have already announced.

Her comments would get deleted in this forum.

One would say that she is a con, like Joe Lieberman.

Since this is the DU forum, I will refrain from saying that of course.

All actual Democrats shouldn't be bashed by members - that would be against forum rules.

I'll just continue to note her bashing of actual Democrats.

It really sounds like you have some research to do.

...

Sigh.

Which is certainly not promoting Democrats.

Convenience is as convenience does...

I replied: "I think 5 or 6 really strong candidates would be ideal"

My reasoning being:

"It would allow for debates that give each candidate more time to speak and expand on their ideas. Possibly even lead to some more genuine sorts of interactions in the debates. When you get much larger than that, it feels like it's harder to keep the debates productive."

That said, I am intrigued by every candidate who has announced so far. They all bring something interesting to the table and I believe that we have many formidable choices already (I do think 5 or 6 would be ideal in terms of the debates, but I understand why so many people want to run).

Kamala Harris is my favorite so far.

How about you?

It's hard to land on an exact number, but I thought that a group of 6 or 7 in a debate would allow for the most effective experience.

Which is really no premise at all... merely an unsupported editorial subject to the ever-changing vagaries and whims of convenience; much like saying "I think the sky ought not be blue."

Ultimately meaningless of course, but fun I suppose... for those who enjoy that sort of thing.

question about Syria...a good one. You don't meet with a butcher like Assad who uses poison gas on his own people.

Isn't Tulsi Gabbard totally fetch?

I don't understand what you are saying here.

I'm afraid you are not fetch.

Can you elaborate on what you are trying to say?

"If you have to ask, you're streets behind..."

Harris ain't bitchin', either. Gabbard is bitchin'.

Not a fan of bitchin', also FTR.

Although, to its credit, it has happened.

Except those who are actually bitchin'.

Perhaps she will "evolve" again.

I don't want to mischaracterize your position.

Personally, I'm convinced that people have found other reasons not to like her...

.

And I try not to be ignorant.

.

There are a large number of reasons why not to support this candidate

Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Bootigieg and so on and so forth including Howard effing Schultz are. Nor do I know what religion that Delaney character from Maryland was, nor Ron Merkely nor Jay Inslee.

I do now know that Tusli Gabbard is Hindu. I guess I do know what Bernie Sanders is.

See, someone's religion doesn't make a bit of difference to me unless they plan on being the bishop of America instead of president - like every fucking Republican.

I don't understand what you mean. Can you elaborate?

Is there such a thing? I thought it was a religion.

Thanks

Was 'cool'

much like white nationalists believe America is for whites only

Now that I know her "religion" my opinion hasn't changed.

Sorry some might be calling her and her supporters "Hindu nationalists". First I have heard of it.

Link to tweet

And that's exactly who I want to represent me.

I would imagine some folks there are pretty excited about the prospect of a Hindu-American being elected POTUS.

Many are probably also rightfully upset and angered by bigotry that they see being directed towards Hinduism.

That kind of thing equals bigotry towards Hinduism.

There is an insinuation in some posts that any examination here on DU of Tulsi's positions that doesn't praise her is somehow due to her being a Hindu.

She points to that experience as an example. I would think that a source like this one would be especially interested in that part of her story. Maybe I misunderstood what the "Look at Me" post meant.

My God. You can do better than this.

2000 Muslims killed in Gujarat, Modi said nothing. Gabbard said nothing. Gabbard refused to back a measure calling on India to respect religious minorities. She backed the exact same language for Bangladesh.

Why are you doing the Hindu right wing's work for them?

Bye Felicia

exceptionally conservative, mostly very old, officials. Her beliefs and behavior in regards to LGBT citizens was off the charts bigotry. Not only did she oppose marriage equality, which nearly all Democrats did in that era, she also opposed civil unions which very few did, wanted to amend both the US and Hawaiian constitutions to ban both marriage equality and civil unions (only Nelson of NE and Byrd of WV voted for the US amendment), and she called LGBT citizens who had the temerity to ask for even civil unions homosexual extremists, oh and she literally blamed bad press coverage on a LGBT cabal. This isn't evolution.

From her website:

Tulsi has received the Human Rights Campaign endorsement and is continuing to work with partners at the federal, state, and local level to ensure all individuals are treated equally under the law regardless of race, sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Tulsi is also a member of the Congressional LGBT Caucus.

that said, her record in Congress is of casting the correct votes (assuming that what she wrote here is true). Presidents lead and set the agenda, and frankly I don't trust her at all to lead on this issue.

This is far more recent than actions/beliefs of other Democratic POTUS candidates that were considered "non-starters" for "progressive" candidates.

In others, such evolution was referred to as "pandering," or "pivoting."

There is also her record of statements on Islam.

Six bills over six years. Not sponsored by her. Not spear-headed by her. Merely signed onto by her.

I don't see that as a being a champion, but merely a cockerel pointing towards the most popular flavor of the week.

But I get your narrative. It's bemusing.

Chum also means pal!

because of her policies which are not in line with most Hindu beliefs.

She is a HINO (if I may coin a new acronym)

She's about as much a Democrat as I am Theresa May.

Something just seems off about her though. I would first support Sanders, Warren and maybe Harris.

Poor oppressed people. We could start a support group I suppose.. Not that I really want to. It's a lot of effort.

I am sure she has dealt with a lot.

I'll rate her chances right up there with Marianne Williamson

whine and cry when people have the temerity to point out just how bigoted they are.

We can do without handing the White House to Narendra Modi.