Gabbard's previous position on the matter...
And she joined her father’s battle against what she called “homosexual extremists.” In 1998, Mike Gabbard had successfully pushed for an amendment to the Hawaii State Constitution, to permit the legislature to ban same-sex marriage, which it did. Six years later, Tulsi Gabbard led a protest against a bill that would have legalized civil unions for same-sex couples. That same year, in the Hawaii State House, she delivered a long, fierce speech against a proposed resolution meant to target anti-gay bullying in public schools. She objected to the idea of students being taught that homosexuality is “normal and natural,” and worried that passing the resolution would have the effect of “inviting homosexual-advocacy organizations into our schools to promote their agenda to our vulnerable youth.”
And to requote my previous link, her current view:
"She tells me that no, her personal views haven't changed, but she doesn't figure it's her job to do as the Iraqis did and force her views on others"
In summary, her stated view is that it is wrong to teach that homosexuality is normal and natural, that doing so is the actions of extremists, and that she still believes this.
This belief is bigotry on its face. Is this really in question?
Further, she made it known she still harbors that bigotry. She could have ended the interview and rattled off more pro-LGBT legislation she voted for (as she did in her presidential announcement). She could have claimed she'd gotten to know activists or constituents who'd educated and swayed her on the issue. But she opted to relent and admit to holding bigoted beliefs.
This to me is a gigantic red flag. Even good politics isn't dissuading her from indulging in this, which tells me that the moment she has the power to truly act on her bigotry she will. This is purely speculation, but this is a reliable pattern.
So the other part.
Professing the belief that one shouldn't force personal moral viewpoints on others is perfectly normal in US politics. It's typically a lie, of course, but there's a libertarian slant in the electorate that wants to believe it. Perfectly valid tactically.
But why specify her service in Iraq and teaching her this lesson? A casual search suggests the Ba'athist government was ethnonationalist, not religious. Saddam Hussein himself certainly ruled as a demagogue, not a theocrat. I'm not finding any indications of wide-spread theocratic impulse under al-Ulloum. Gabbard had left the region by the time ISIS came into the picture.
I guess she could be mixing up Iraq, where she was, with Iran, the actual theocratic power of the region?
All of these possibilities suggest the same core belief: that any majority-Muslim nation is inherently theocratic. Or, in other words, that Islam is an Other, an enemy, those who stand against American values, and that's the intended meaning of her statement.
She's using anti-Islam sentiment to deflect her long history of anti-LGBT activism and legislation. and that's pretty obvious from the short little screencap I original shared, if you're not completely blind to such things.
Yukaphile- Bernie has never struck me as particularly an ally to the LGBT community, beyond some obvious facets in which any truly nationwide socialist programs will do a lot of IMMEDIATE good for groups most likely to be cut off from community and familial support. But neither am I aware of obvious harm he's done on that front.
BUT.
Certainly I didn't hold Clinton's older statements on the matter against her. I can be bitter about her relative lack of support when she was in positions of power to do immediate material good, but her views updated and were reflected in her proposed policies and rhetoric, and in the ever-pragmatic realm of politics that will have to be sufficient, yes.
(This does ignore my own private, but unprovable, suspicions about Clinton's personal beliefs on the matter and her relation to some very minor, easily unnoticed programs that have done some good, but that's another matter beyond scope of topic.)
--------------------
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ho ... coalition/
Neat article relevant to discussion. The earlier two are also informative mind.
Of note I find Nate's one bit of editorializing pretty on-point- if Stacy Abrams were to declare as a candidate she could be MOST formidable, and she'd immediately jump to my top preference no question.
