minnesotacubsfan wrote:This is stupid, this argument about one female candidate vs another. Its quality vs quantity stupid. Quantity IS a quality. Lets get a horsefeathers ton to choose from.
Bluescale wrote:I'm not waiting for a political unicorn who's been perfect from day 1. I want a bunch of candidates to choose from, and the more of them that are women and minorities, the better.
We're seeing these kinds of takes/accusations a LOT, and they're not helpful.
Gabbard has, IMO, some GIGANTIC red flags that have absolutely nothing to do with here being or woman, or even remotely come close to passing some kind of ridiculously unfair purity test. Her LGBTQ track record basically now amounts to, at best, that she tolerates "those people." She is very, VERY different from when it was, rightly, pointed out how people like Obama and Clinton had a very clear track record of how they changed their public rhetoric and support of something like gay marriage; Gabbard essentially claimed to reverse her position on a dime a mere 5 years ago, and even that came with some pretty explicit caveats, and then little more than mostly just simply not addressing the LBTQ side of the Left as much as possible (which is REALLY hard to do as a horsefeathering Democrat in horsefeathering Hawaii). Given how vocally opposed she was to LGBTQ rights until then, and compounded how bizarre that it is given that she's a liberal from, again, horsefeathering Hawaii, and further compounded how she continued to or even still has people on her staff who almost definitely share the same anti-LGBTQ sentiments (a la Ron Paul's always classic, "I'M not a racist; I just happen to employee people who are because of coincidences!"), this is a HUGE something that will be an unavoidable issue for someone running for president as a Democrat, and it has zilch to do with her being a woman or some unrealistic sense of ideological "purity;" it's basic human decency that we should expect from everyone, and especially as the BARE MINIMUM from self-proclaimed Democrats/liberals/progressives.
And Kyle is, IMO, 100% right to call her out as being tied to a cult, because she completely is. The attempts to deflect this by her and her staff to try and shame everyone criticizing her over this as being anti-Hindu is total BS; the Krishnas are a cult, and the sect she is intrinsically linked to, the Science of Identity, is REALLY a horsefeathering cult (plus nevermind that the only real Hindu aspect to her is how much she approaches scary things like nationalism and Islamophobia with a distinctly Hindutva zeal). They are deeply ingrained in her entire life and her political machine; her Chief of Staff is still this bizarre babyfaced nobody with zero political staff experience who came right from them. This longform deep dive into her relationship with them that I read last year should rightly scare anyone who reads it into thinking she'd have a shred of a chance once it reaches the national stage:https://www.meanwhileinhawaii.org/home/ ... si-gabbard
And all of that is without getting to her MASSIVELY problematic approaches towards and attitudes/rhetoric on Islam and the Middle East (ESPECIALLY about Iran). Or stuff like her very vocal pro-Putin, pro-Assad rhetoric. She's like if the bogeyman hawk version of Hillary Clinton people kept crying about and John Bolton had a baby.
Personally, I think her shot is dead in the water. She's got way too many poison pills that are going to pop up and torpedo her. I'm very wary of why she's even trying this in the current political climate on the Left in the first place. This can't help but kinda seem like Jill Stein on a larger scale.