Per article in tweet below, this spat (over whether it's proper to Q a nominee over their personal views vis-a-vis policy) may have happened bec. both the nominee and Tulsi's father are Knights of Columbus.
Tulsi ALWAYS defends her father. Which is good, right? Except: ...
1/
Tulsi ALWAYS defends her father. Which is good, right? Except: ...
1/
... except Tulsi's father's "most beloved issue is a virulent rejection of homosexuality and gay rights." And Tulsi supported him there, too, attacking her father's opponent's "homosexual extremist supporters."
pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/…
2/
pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/…
2/
And the anti-LGBT views Tulsi adopted from her father weren't merely "personal" (a word I guarantee you'll see in her sockpuppets' replies to this thread); she ACTED on them as a Hawai'i state legislator: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gab…
3/
3/
In 2012, right before her first election to her House seat in a strongly Democratic, pro-LGBT district, Gabbard conveniently changed her formal position on LGBT political rights. But her PERSONAL views (opposing LGBT AND abortion rights) remain unchanged:
4/
4/
So when Gabbard attacks @maziehirono @mazieforhawaii as intolerant for asking a co-member of Gabbard's father's conservative religious club whether his personal views will impact his public actions, what she's REALLY worried about is that someone may ask the same Q of HER. 5/
@maziehirono @mazieforhawaii (Now bring on the gentle-demeanored, soft-trolling, Spirit-of-Aloha Tulsi sockpuppets. I like them. They're always so passive-aggressively pleasant compared to Putin's.)
6/6
6/6
