I've donated to Hodges, YOU CAN TOO!

http://www.shayforhawaii.com/

Tulsi has always been for sensible gun control and you can easily find her position on the issue, along with the gun control legislation that she has co-sponsored, on her website: https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25028.

From that NBC link I provided elsewhere in this thread:

I sent $25

Give me a break. Maui Times is a conservative rag that endorsed Mufi Hanneman against Tulsi Gabbard back in their primary in 2012. Mufi was a corporate-owned, anti-environment, pro big business, egotistic loser and that's who Maui Times wanted to win. He lost BIG TIME to Tulsi and Maui Times has had it in for Tulsi ever since. Tulsi's opponent, Hodges does not even have a remotely credible campaign (she's raised around $3,000), has not taken any constructive stands on the issues, and continually tries to smear Tulsi (a true progressive) and lie about her record and positions on the issues.

She is most certainly NOT progressive.

Why the lies about Tulsi's record? Tulsi has a progressive Democrat 'lifetime' rating of over 90% and votes with Democrats 90% of the time. https://ballotpedia.org/Tulsi_Gabbard#Analysis

She's pro environment, pro LGBT, against TPP, pro breaking up the big banks, pro universal healthcare, against interventionist warfare, pro criminal justice reform, etc. She's also endorsed by progressive organizations like Human Rights Campaign, Emily's list, Sierra club, labor unions, Vote Vets, and Ocean Champions.

Hillary Clinton's father was an open bigot who referred to minorities with racial epithets. Shall we all hold her accountable for her father's views? Are we in the 21st century or do we still consider women to be extensions of their fathers?

Tulsi is her OWN person and has a proven track record on LGBT. As far as her religion goes, personally I'm for freedom of religion, freedom from religion and everything in between. In the world I live in, attacking a person's religion out of ignorance and/or intolerance is called religious bigotry, plain and simple.

endorse her?

contest

Calls Hillary a warmonger for saying we will defeat ISIS.

Always a "concern" about someone or a policy in the party.

That 'op-ed' is nothing more than a mud-slinging campaign piece written by Tulsi's primary opponent, Shay Hodges. Since Hodges has nothing positive to stand for, she wastes everyone's time by lying about Tulsi's record. As I mentioned earlier, Tulsi is a solid progressive with a solid progressive record. Hodges' attempt to link Tulsi with Sheldon Adelson is pathetic, since as an active Congressional rep Tulsi has photos taken with literally thousands and thousands of people. Adelson is a billionaire and yet has never given a single penny to Tulsi. Tulsi is also strongly for gun control (https://www.votetulsi.com/node/250280, again proving Hodges is lying. For refugees, Tulsi introduced a religion calling on the U.S. to take in more refugees victimized by ISIS.

She appears on FOX regularly bashing Obama and other Dems.

Neither you or her are fooling us here.

And talk about great big honking HYPOCRISY!!!!

As i mentioned earlier, the Maui Times has had a hatchet in for Tulsi ever since they endorsed her primary opponent, Mufi Hanneman, in the 2012 election. Maui Times endorsed a man who was pro big business, had an atrocious record on the environment, who worked for a multi-national corporation as a lobbyist, etc. Now they are endorsing Hodges over Tulsi so that should tell you a lot of Hodges! Interestingly, Mufi had a solid reputation as a mud-slinging candidate which destroyed his political career in Hawaii. Looks like Hodges decided to follow in his footsteps - with the help of Maui Times yet again. At this point, I'd say whoever DOESN'T get the endorsement of Maui Times is obviously the true progressive, since they are such a conservative rag.

BTW the argument about debates is ridiculous because no organization or TV station even set up a single debate or invited the candidates, since Hodges is so insignificant she's not even on the radar.

both debates and the fifteen dollar minimum wage (she was for ten dollars and ten cents a short while ago...so, what evs, as the kids say). Also, her family history of rabid conservatism, particularly on social issues, bodes ill, and I do trust the LGBT community to appreciate who is with them, and who is not--they're not feeling her....and that has nothing to do with the Maui Times. That write up was not a vendetta at all, it was simply a "We think this other candidate is a more AUTHENTIC 'liberal' " -- and I agree with them.



Anyone supporting her should know a little something about her background--it's an eye opener, IMO--lots of cited material and links here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1/20/1056467/-

I am, of course, not a HI resident, but if I were, Gabbard would NOT have my vote.

As for Chan Hodges, she's a published author, so she's not completely unknown.

And she's managed to force Gabbard to break her rather stony silence on gun control issues, too. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/longtime-fighter-shay-chan-hodges-takes-hawaii-rep-tulsi-gabbard-n599371

Anyone who was in favor of Sanders pushing Clinton to the left should also be in favor of Chan Hodges doing the same to Gabbard. Fair's fair, after all.


All that said, Chan Hodges' candidacy is certainly a long shot, but of the two, I find Chan Hodges more appealing.

I think Hodges' platform comes across as more progressive than Tulsi's, who seems to be a centrist regardless of who she endorsed. It might be that Tulsi supported Bernie because he was so popular in her district!

That thought has crossed my mind as well.

Personally, I think Tulsi saw "the Sanders Wave" and jumped on the board.

I'm not going to call her a Republican or anything like that, but I wouldn't describe her as a true "Sanders Democrat" either.

That is ridiculous. When Tulsi stepped down from the powerful (and biased) DNC to endorse Sanders, his campaign was on a downward trajectory. Her endorsement breathed new life into his campaign and greatly energized it. Everyone knew his chance of winning was slim. The fact that Tulsi did what she did shows she is a person who stands for what she believes in and acts from the heart, rather than political expediency like so many other people in office.

Here's some info:

http://heritageactionscorecard.com/members/member/G000571

https://www.votetocracy.com/congressmen/114/412532/representative-tulsi-gabbard/voting-record


btw, Progressive Punch gives more dem reps an "F" than any other grade.

http://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=house&party=D&sort=crucial-lifetime&order=down&x=20&y=15

Her record appears to be mixed. And not all votes are equal. We all have issues we weigh as more important than others. So she's not so good on gun control. She's good on the TPA (from my pov). She's good on transparency and privacy issues. She voted yea on the Iran deal.


http://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=house&party=D&sort=crucial-lifetime&order=down&x=20&y=15

I don't know if I'd support her or not- depends on her challenger.

Well the "method" of Progressive Punch is obviously biased and ridiculous. She has progressive stands on the issues and votes Dem 90% of the time. That's what matters.

HRC than liberal concern for her record.