Video of Tulsi Gabbard in her father Mike Gabbard's anti marriage equality video surfaces

Extremely, yes. I am 25, my father is 67. He knows I'm gay (long story), but has never mentioned it. If I mentioned it, I would be shown the door, for good.

The video was done when she was a kid.

That said, I don’t know many people who just switch out of their personal beliefs. Her apology for her previous anti-gay position was solely for winning an election.

The Russians are so proud of her

CANCEL this bitch, already.

Tulsi was quite the tomboy herself

You're 25 fucking years old, R1. Why the hell are you still in a position where you can be "shown the door" if you displease Mommy and Daddy?

Get the fuck out of there, and on your way out, tell your parents don't bother contacting you until they have a modicum of respect for you, which they obviously do not now possess.

Glad Hillary finally called out Bruiser for the Russian controlled rube that she is. Tulsi is so full of hate, it tries to come out through pustules on her face.

I’m willing to accept that Tulsi has changed her views on homosexuality and LGBT rights. Buts she’s still a tankie who loves murderous autocrats, so she can GTFO.

[quote]Tulsi was quite the tomboy herself

She still is. Girl pings. Maybe there's a reason she had to "evolve" on gay rights. Her wedding pics look like a production number (they did a traditional Indian ceremony, it looks like) and she looks really stiff in other photos of her and her scraggly assed husband.

R5 I don't actually live there, so I'm not relying on them for accommodation.

She was on NPR recently and the disdain and condescending attitude with which she treated the host was so damn apparent, and at the time I never even heard of the bitch.

I hate people like R5. Presumptuous and wrong. Typical for their type.

Someone should introduce Gabbard to Martha McSally. They can sit around talking about military shit and how to avoid staring at hot women.

I'm shocked no one has underhandedly brought up that she's Hindu. Could she still be a third party candidate for centrists and the right if she's not a christian?

Another vote here, for Tulsi being a closeted lesbian.

Hindu my ass. One of her parents is a convert and she married an Indian guy. She'll go right back to Catholicism when she gets divorced. It's all show. She got to be "the first practicing Hindu" in Congress so she already got what she wanted out of that particular show.

So why am I being presumptuous, R1/R11? You are an adult. Why don't your parents treat you like an adult?

That video is weird. If someone described it to me, I would think equating incest with being gay was viciously homophobic. Instead, it come across almost like dad is really hoping that incest (or beastiality) isn’t that bad.

He seems pretty creepy. I have no opinion on Gabbard, but I think holding someone’s dad’s opinions against them is wrong. All other things being equal, isn’t the person who was brought up by weirdo dad demonstrating more openness and critical thinking than a supporter of gay rights who was brought up by social liberals?

R15 I didn't call you presumptuous, that was another poster.

Tulsi, her family and her husband were raised in and still are members of that offshoot Krishna cult. She’s not a real Hindu. The cult leader groomed her and her father to be politicians. And no she has not evolved. She is on record in 2016 saying her beliefs about gay marriage haven’t changed.

[r18] all organized religion is a cult imo

[quote]I'm shocked no one has underhandedly brought up that she's Hindu. Could she still be a third party candidate for centrists and the right if she's not a christian?

Maybe, centrists would vote for her as a third party candidate. I don't see a lot of conservative Christian right wingers voting for a Hindu.

And didn't she work for her father's anti-gay marriage organization in 2000 when she was an adult?

How many of you guys defended Joy Reids homophobia in her 40s? Show of hands. All of you? Go figure.

Hillary only publicly supported gay marriage in 2013!

Stick to the topic, R22. We're not talking about Joy Reid now, and even if we were, Joy Reid is not running for public office and thus not in any position to codify her personal beliefs into law.

Now go take a shower and get that nasty ass Russian stanksleeve and cheap vodka stench off of you.

Exactly. 2 key points.

1. There's a difference when you are running for the *Presidential Nomination* as opposed to being a t.v. commentator.

2. Obama & Hillary did wait until the 2012 cycle before endorsing gay marriage, but they never worked for an anti-gay marriage organization.

R25, Bill and Hillary passed the single most anti gay law in recent memory.

This is stupid.

As has been pointed out hundreds of times, R26, Bill passed the DOMA in 1996 as a compromise with the Republicans to prevent them from trying to pass something even worse.

R27, There is no proof of that. It was disputed when Hillary trotted that crap out in 2016.

R26 is really very, very stupid.

Hillary was FLOTUS when DOMA was passed, and as such, was in no way responsible for enacting legislation. And as is customary in the United States, the President does not "pass" legislation. That is the responsibility of Congress. Jesus fucking christ, when are they going to give you Russian trolls basic US civics lesson so you don't appear so god damned stupid.

"It was disputed when Hillary trotted that crap out in 2016."

By whom was it disputed, R28? Russian bots like you? As if that means jack shit.

R29, it was disputed by people that were actually there. There was 0 talk about an anti gay marriage amendment until 2002. Gay marriage was still a new concept in 1996.

It was introduced and signed because the Clintins played both sides at the time. Why else do you think they boasted about it on Christian media?

Everything you say is a lie, r30.

[quote] The Baehr v. Lewin decision in 1993 mobilized opponents of same-sex marriages, who feared that gay marriage would soon be legal in Hawaii. Yet some disagreed over whether Hawaii's potential legalization of gay marriage would necessarily overrule other states' anti-gay marriage laws. Nevertheless, anti-gay marriage legislation was passed on both the state and federal level.

[quote] In 1996, in response to the Baehr decision, the U.S. Congress passed DOMA and President Clinton signed it into law. The act was designed to prevent the Full Faith and Credit Clause from being applied to states' refusal to recognize same sex marriages.

R31, Then you're calling your beloved and trusted MSNBC liars then.

R32 doesn't realize he just gave himself away as a Repug troll with his "your beloved and trusted MSNBC".

R26/R30: you still haven't answered my first question. Why, in your post at R26, did you say "Bill and Hillary passed the single most anti gay law in recent memory." The President doesn't pass legislation, and the First Lady has absolutely nothing to do with enacting legislation.

Why do you keep posting such stupidity? Answer the question, asshole.

R33, Nope I'm progressive. MSNBC is pro establishment propaganda. Much like Fox News.

First of all MSNBC means nothing to me, so cram that.

Secondly, what you have linked to is Bernie Sanders' opinion about Clinton's motivation.

But even within the article it says:

[quote] The only reason the issue was even on the table was because a state Supreme Court ruling in Hawaii had raised the theoretical possibility that that state would be compelled to allow gay marriages.

So your lie about it being novel or something advocated by Clinton is a lie.

[quote] And it is certainly possible that heading off an amendment was at least part of Bill Clinton’s calculation when he signed DOMA.

Supporting the view you oppose.

R34, Hillary supported the law. Clinton claimed in the press at the time that she had a lot of input into her husbands presidency. A lot of people think of them as a unit.

Why do you keep posting pro clinton talking points is the better question.

[quote] Nope I'm progressive. MSNBC is pro establishment propaganda. Much like Fox News.

No, you're a BernieBro who worships the shit that comes out of the mouth of your Messiah and can't think for yourself or see evidence presented for you that differs from your Messiah.

R38, The same can be said of you and Clinton. You guys are brainwashed idiots who are no better than Trump supporters.

Are you the same person posting NBC NEWS articles that you insist prove that Gabbard is a russian assett in the other thread? Lmfao that's propganda.

[quote] A lot of people think of them as a unit.

Then those people are idiots. Because they clearly are not. Talking in Trumpisms ("A lot of people are saying...") is not going to help your case.

R40., Neither is posting revisionist history about Clinton's horrible laws.

Tulsi is Trump's comrade as today the Turd came out taking a swipe at Hillary and defending this homophobic cunt.

"Why do you keep posting pro clinton talking points is the better question."

Because I proudly voted for Bill in '92 and '96, and I voted for Hillary in 2016. They are highly intelligent people, they're certainly better people than the glorified trailer park trash that currently occupies the White House, and they're not the demons that you and your fellow Republican low-lives have been painting them as for the last 30 fucking years.

You're the only one posting revisionist history, R40, so you can it fit nicely into whatever bullshit narrative you're trying to espouse.

[quote] Neither is posting revisionist history about Clinton's horrible laws.

I'm not doing that. I am using actual sources to back up what I say about DOMA. In fact, I am using YOUR supposed evidence to prove the opposite of what you say.

How about you provide actual evidence for any of your assertions. I demonstrated you lied when you said gay marriage wasn't even being considered in 1996, showing significant movement in 1993.

What evidence have you provided?

Guess we know what the new Russian troll talking point for today was: DOMA!

Tusli is a piece of shit.

"There was no talk, among activists , anti gay forces or politicians, of a constitutional amendment in 1996 when Clinton signed DOMA and then touted his signing of DOMA in radio ads in the South during the presidendial race against Republican Bob Dole, positioning himself as a defender of "religious freedom."

'That's complete nonsense," Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry told Chris Geidner in Metro Weekly in 2011. "There was no conversation about something 'worse' until eight years later. There was no talk of a constitutional amendment, and no one even thought it was possible -- and, of course, it turned out it wasn't really possible to happen... That was never an argument made in the '90s

Hare Krishna and shamalamadingdong, gurl

Tulsi turd was even against civil unions. She must have evolved a lot, if she's to be believed. I'm not buying any of it. She's probably brushing up on her Cyrillic as I type about her.

R46, you fucking moron, you do realize that some of us were actually alive and paying attention then, right?

DOMA/Clinton attacks are Russian trolls. All of them. How do they not realize that mass trolling on the same subject all of a sudden is so fucking obvious?

Ha! The dumbass trolls bring up hillary being anti gay from 2 decades ago, so was obama bitches. Why not bring that up as well? Fake Latino beto looks like a dumbass now.

R49, So was the guy quoted. Gay rights was actually his job and he knows the Clinton are full of SHIT. Its revisionism. Just accept it and move on.

Hilary Rosen called the Clinton's lying asses OUT!

Hilary Rosen ✔ @hilaryr

@BernieSanders is right. Note to my friends Bill and #Hillary: Pls stop saying DOMA was to prevent something worse. It wasnt, I was there. 10:40 PM - 24 Oct 2015

Bernbros all over. What's the Tulsi/Bernie connection? Just the Hillary hatred or is it their shared support of Russia?

So, what, the NYT created this article and inserted it into their archives to help Clinton out?

Maybe WaPo did too.

R54, Doma has nothing to do with that article. It's a whole 3 years beforehand.

Why dont you show me something, anything from '96 where Clinton states that is why he signed it? You got nothing.

[quote] Doma has nothing to do with that article. It's a whole 3 years beforehand.

It is to counter the lie that gay marriage was brand new in 1996...3 years after the Hawaii decision.

[quote] Why dont you show me something, anything from '96 where Clinton states that is why he signed it? You got nothing.

No, you show me first. If you want to argue Clinton signed it because he was anti-gay marriage, show me where he said it.

Hillary and her supporters are liars. No wonder they lost so embarrassingly.

And Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with Tulsi Gabbard and her voting record, R56, other than Ms. Clinton reading Ms. Gabbard for filth.

And might I remind you the subject of this thread is Tulsi Gabbard and her rabidly homophobic family, not Hillary or Bill Clinton. We do you keep trying to divert from the real subject, R56. Hillary and Bill Clinton are not current candidates for any elective office so they are totally irrelevant to any discussion about Tulsi Gabbard and her homophobic stances..

R57, It was RELATIVELY new. Got any more straws you want to grasp at?

That timing presented an unwelcomed situation for President Clinton, as The New York Times explains:

Mr. Clinton was never enthusiastic about the measure, but he was not on record supporting same-sex marriage at the time and, just weeks before his re-election, he felt he had no choice but to sign it. Still, to make the point that he considered it politically motivated, and to call as little attention to it as possible, he signed it after midnight.

It was an awkward moment for Mr. Clinton, who had done more than any previous president to court the gay community and promote gay rights, but he believed that Republicans were trying to steer him out of what was then the mainstream and damage his chances for a second term.

There was no showy signing ceremony or comment to the press in the Rose Garden when DOMA was signed. Instead, President Clinton merely released a short five paragraph statement which moved quickly from DOMA to, “urg(ing) Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace.” President Clinton did not get his wish there. ENDA has been discussed repeatedly on Capitol Hill over the years, most recently in 2011, but has never become law.

Tulsi is a homophobic cunt just like her beloved “guru” cult leader

Your link at R58 is to right wing hack John Stossel's sight. Do you honestly think we're going to believe anything that Republican shill spews out?

Don't let the Russian DOMA talking point derail the real reason for this thread.

Tulsi Gabbard is a fucking homophobic Repug/Russian stooge.

[quote] It was RELATIVELY new. Got any more straws you want to grasp at?

Not a straw. The poster made an absolute pronouncement with no hint of wiggle room. GAY MARRIAGE WAS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED YET, he said. Which was a lie. Plain and simple.

R57, You need me to prove to ou that Clinton opposed gay marriage?

What is your excuse for Clitons radio campaign where he claimed himself to be a leader in religious freedom? Sounds similar to Tulsis dad to be honest

R65, Read again. The poster said a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage wasnt considered yet.

[quote] The poster said a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage wasnt considered yet.

And it had been since 1993. Which resulted in DOMA. Which didn't just drop out of the sky, but had been discussed for three years since the Hawaii decision.

There is nothing from the time that says preventing a constitutional amendment was the goal of DOMA. Not from Clinton and not form anyone around him. That excuse came decades later.

At the time he claimed he signed it because he did not approve of same gender marriages. And he said as much in a radio campaign.

We're not talking about the Clinton's here, R68, et al. They're ancient history. We're talking current events here and that is Tulsi Gabbard's very recent, very current anti-gay stances. Quit trying to divert attention away from this miserable cunt and her equally miserable, homophobic clan.

BUT HILLARY

BUT HILLARY

BUT HILLARY

BUT HILLARY

Whatabout, Whatabout, Whatabout, Whatabout, Whatabout, Whatabout, Whatabout, Whatabout, Whatabout, Whatabout, Whatabout, Whatabout

[quote] At the time he claimed he signed it because he did not approve of same gender marriages. And he said as much in a radio campaign.

Not quite.

[quote] a narrator says, "Don't be misled by Bob Dole's attack ads. President Clinton wants a complete ban on late term abortions except when the mother's life is in danger or faces severe health risks, such as the inability to have another child. The president signed the Defense of Marriage Act, supports curfews and school uniforms to teach our children discipline."

[quote] The ad, which was aimed at appealing to religious conservatives, was eventually pulled after blowback from LGBT groups. An official from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force at the time called it "unsettling and offensive."

[quote] "We've had a number of people expressing concerns about the ad, and we listened to those concerns," Clinton's campaign spokesman at the time, Don Foley, told the Washington Post.

Now where in that did he say he was anti-gay marriage?

R70, Tulsi Gabbard doesnt have any anti gay stances currently. Let it go.

You are going back decades. And if you can do that with her then we can do it with the Clintons.

Stop arguing with the troll. Didn't see one of its posts. I rarely block, but this is a multiple no-show here.

[quote] At the time he claimed he signed it because he did not approve of same gender marriages. And he said as much in a radio campaign.

Not quite.

[quote] a narrator says, "Don't be misled by Bob Dole's attack ads. President Clinton wants a complete ban on late term abortions except when the mother's life is in danger or faces severe health risks, such as the inability to have another child. The president signed the Defense of Marriage Act, supports curfews and school uniforms to teach our children discipline."

[quote] The ad, which was aimed at appealing to religious conservatives, was eventually pulled after blowback from LGBT groups. An official from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force at the time called it "unsettling and offensive."

[quote] "We've had a number of people expressing concerns about the ad, and we listened to those concerns," Clinton's campaign spokesman at the time, Don Foley, told the Washington Post.

Now where in that did he say he was anti-gay marriage?

R75, CNN is not a factual source. They attacked Bernie daily and supported Clinton. They are leading the charge in the Tulsi smears.

That's the best you can do, r76? Which fact are you disputing? Did the campaign pull the ad or not? Did the ad say something other than quoted?

Nope. You've got nothing. Bye, Felicia.

“It’s ridiculous. There was no threat in the immediate vicinity of 1996 of a constitutional amendment. It came four years later,” said Elizabeth Birch, who was executive director of the Human Rights Campaign from 1995 to 2004. “It may be that she needs to revisit the facts of what happened.”

Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, said, “It is not accurate to explain DOMA as motivated by an attempt to forestall a constitutional amendment. There was no such serious effort in 1996.” At the time, Wolfson was an attorney with Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund

R77, I think the quote they used was most likely selectively edited. CNN would not have run that article f they couldn't spin it to make Clinton look good.

who's the surfboard bottom stud?

[quote] I think...

You have ZERO evidence of anything that follows those words. You are just making up the story to suit your biases.

You missed a quote from your own article, r78.

[quote] Meanwhile, Richard Socarides, Bill Clinton’s former aide on gay rights issues, argued that “there is no question that President Clinton believed that one of the reasons he was willing to sign a bill that he did not like was because he thought he would prevent greater damage.”

Which indicates not only that prevented worse damage WAS on Clinton's mind AND that he personally did not like the bill.

R81, nope. CNN are the one with the bias. They cannot be trusted to report on rhe Clinton accurately because they always have pro clinton slant. The way they treated poor Bernie is proof of that.

DOMA is today's Russian talking point to take the attention away from their minion, Tulsi Gabbard. Stop falling for it.

Here's Tulsi's F grade on being a progressive. She's 146 on the list.

R82, that's the revisionsim history that were talking about. There is nothing from the time that even implies that or that he didnt liked the bill.

[quote] CNN are the one with the bias. They cannot be trusted to report on rhe Clinton accurately because they always have pro clinton slant.

So you just get to make up your own story?

[quote] The way they treated poor Bernie is proof of that.

Yeah, OK.

If you are discussing DOMA on this thread, you are either a troll or a willing idiot at this point. This is the troll order for the day to take attention away from Gabbard being a fucking pawn, you idiots!

[quote] that's the revisionsim history that were talking about. There is nothing from the time that even implies that or that he didnt liked the bill.

Except for all the contemporary evidence already provided. It's amazing how people you agree with could not possibly be revising history. And amazing how you can't find any actual evidence Clinton wanted to sign the bill or spoke against gay marriage.

If you are discussing DOMA on this thread, you are either a troll or a willing idiot at this point.

The troll, like all Republicans, thinks that anything that spews forth from their mouth must be accepted as the truth. So when R85 spews shit about revisionism, we're just supposed to take his word for it.

Go over to Farcebook, where the morons over there believe anything that's put in front of them.

Why are you all devoting time and energy to discussing a very minor candidate whose 15 minutes will be over again come Monday or the failed presidential candidate/former First Lady who gave her those 15 minutes?

Neither of them matter.

"Tulsi Gabbard doesnt have any anti gay stances currently. Let it go.

You are going back decades. And if you can do that with her then we can do it with the Clintons.'

2016 is going back decades? According to my calculations, it was 3 years ago, which is considerably less than a decade. We can do it with her, because she is currently running for elective office, the Clintons are not.

Your math and your logic are for shit.

Even the Progressives think she's a little strange.

The troll can barely speak English. Don't waste your time.

Tulsa has a strange mysterious campaign manager from her cult who lives in the middle of no where. Turns out she's funneling all of her campaign cash to him. Hmmm?

R92, Tulsi is on the record supporting gay marriage in 2011. Back when Clinton was still strongly opposed to it.

Someone to tell her no amount of make up is going to hide those acne cheeks

I'm very anti-Tulsi. That said, I don't view her as much of a threat. She has had months and months to gain traction, and she hasn't. She's at just under 1%. I don't think there's any chance at all of her becoming president.

Tulsi at least apologized. Wheres the Clinton's apology for years of standing against gay rights?

R88, nice try. You have yet to provide one piece of direct evidence that the goal of DOMA was to "prevent something worse". So there was controversy over gay marriage in 1993 in Hawaii tdd hat had nothing to do with DOMA.. If gay rights activists were not concerned by the threat of a constitutional amendment in 1996, were supposed to believe that Clinton was. Despite that he strongly opposed gay marriage at the time?

Sure jan. Clinton's are liars and the history books will not be kind to them sorry old gay people who supported them, you got had lol.

A review of congressional record and news coverage from 1996 found little public evidence that Democratic lawmakers decided to vote for DOMA because of a threat of a constitutional amendment.

Elizabeth Birch, former head of the Human Rights Campaign who fought against DOMA, said the actual threat of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage came after President George W. Bush took office and vowed to reserve marriage for heterosexual unions. There was not, at the time, a kind of concentrated threat of a constitutional amendment. That came four years later.”

Birch and many others have always said that President Clinton’s support for DOMA was a defensive move in that he wanted to “take it out of play for the 1996 election”

In fact Bill Clinton campaigned using DOMA as a re-election tool and ran a controversial radio ad that touted his signing of the Defense of Marriage Act which aired on Christian radio stations in several states

Fast forward to present day.

“President Clinton has evolved on this issue just like every American has evolved,” said Human Rights Campaign, President Chad Griffin.

Which bears the comment that if he was really against it at the time why would he have to “evolve”.

A little trivia for those who don’t know. Chad Griffin worked as White House Press Office manager for Mr. Clinton’s White House administration during the time that Clinton signed of DOMA.

It took the gay community almost 20 years and countless millions of dollars to undo the harm that Bill Clinton did by signing DOMA into law.

Clinton has never formally apologized for signing the Defense of Marriage Act into law

^^ Ana Kasparian is blond now? It looks terrible on her.

Tulsi response to Hilary's accusations were ugly. Hilary should keep her nose out of politics this year, her comments don't help the Dems but Tulsi could have responded in a more dignified way. It makes her look cray cray.

Rip 'er to shreds. There's no way this simp got to the last debate on her own merit$.

Please welcome to the stage: TULSKY CLABBERED

Mama's tulsi is moister than a coconut!

[quote] It makes her look cray cray.

That’s because she IS cray-cray. And toxic. She’s given lip service to her homophobic tweets, but she has never said Ward one about her father & the crazy anti-gay cult and organization he founded.

daiting site for gays -> www.lovegay.club

To the above posters, Please read my thread and links provided. You will be shocked.