as there are all candidates. Which is my point - no candidate is going to be perfect - but there is selective criticism at play here. For example - I haven't seen you say one negative thing about Kamala - but you're posting every single anti-Tulsi piece you can find. Meanwhile - I've said several positive things about Kamala even though she's not my preferred candidate by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm asking for us to focus on legitimate criticism. Painting her as anti-gay, pro-Putin, pro-Assad - and pro-dictator (because she did what Obama did: have a meeting with Modi) isn't exactly intellectually honest criticism.

I don't really see people criticizing her actual policies (but would be more than happy to have those discussions). It's also rich that people don't see that the DNC is behind a lot of this smearing after their promise in 2016 to essentially end her political career. Yet I see people saying things like, "Oh I don't really care about the DNC" and being apathetic about how inequitable the 2016 primary was adjudicated.

A policy based discussion would be:

She called for heightened vetting of refugees. I disagreed w/ that policy - but I am more concerned with the root cause: the U.S. creating refugees from unjust wars.

Another substantive discussion we could have would be her meeting with Trump and allegedly being considered for a cabinet position (which I still don't think was ever a real thing). But even if it was - we'd be in an infinitely better place with her as Sec. of State than we are now - so how would that be a bad thing?

I think Tulsi rubs people wrong within the party because her primary allegiance isn't to the party (like so many other dems) - it's to getting to the truth of these matters and thinking critically and independently on the challenging issues of our time. And the product of that is the strongest, most progressive platform that any candidate has produced as of yet.


-->