Talk:Tulsi Gabbard

"Conservative Democrat"
Umm...No. Just no. &mdash; Unsigned, by: RoninMacbeth / talk / contribs

This reminds me of some complaints about our page on Bernie Sanders, saying that we are biased in favor of him. Oh, dear! Oh, dear! Gabbard is a "conservative" as much as Sanders is "radical". Nerd (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

An appeal to god for someone to fix this.
I don't even know where to begin."Conservative Democrat", "DINO", "Assad supporter", "racist", "authoritarian moon-batty", "Islamophobe", and "Homophobe". Really? You really believe Tulsi Gabbard deserves these titles? Listen she started out as homophobic, yes. Her opinion completely reversed when she served in the Middle East saying:

"The contrast between our society and those in the Middle East made me realize that the difference -- the reason those societies are so oppressive - is that they are essentially theocracies where the government and government leaders wield the power to both define then enforce "morality". I began to realize that the positions I had held previously regarding the issues of choice and gay marriage were rooted in the same premise held by those in power in the oppressive Middle East regimes I saw."

Maybe its just me but I think that is a pretty beautiful soul searching story and that someone who came to that conclusion while serving as a combat medic in a war she did not even agree with should be welcomed with open arms. She should not be vilified as a closet homophobe and be represented by views that she was instilled with as a kid. Her story about personal growth and the shedding of stupid traditional bigotry should be applauded. Also saying she supported Bernie Sanders to defang a challenger from the left is idiocracy considering Sanders is far more left wing than HRC. "It would be nice if she focused on Hawaii, her job". I guess politicians aren't allowed to have opinions on y'know...politics. She also does not support Assad as she has stated many times but as a veteran of Iraq she has seen first hand what type of damage interventionist wars bring. Guess we don't care what crimes we would commit as long as its us committing them and not Assad! A legitimate criticism here is her relationship with Modhi, please criticize that all day long I agree. However his views do not represent her views and Tulsi Gabbard has become by far one of the most progressive people in Congress and deserves recognition, not this smear page. Please someone fix this, I'd do it myself but I know nothing about editing a page. If no one responds to this I guess I'll have to try my best.


 * Seems like multiple people think the article is crap. 17:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * who in the fucking hell wrote this shit? It reads like a conservapedia hit piece131.239.15.98 (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Reformat
I propose we revise this article into a "The Good, The Bad, and The Crazy" type. We bring up her progressive stance on economics as well as her...less than savory racial stances. That way we appease the people who want it to be a bit more positive (including, I admit, myself) as well as those who wish to call her out on her failings. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I second that motion. Please proceed. Nerd (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, I have a break coming up this weekend. I'll see if I can organize it then. In the meantime, I'll try and pull some sources. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * May I ask how far you have gotten? Nerd (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Progress is slow, but steady. Suffice to say, the claim about her not supporting single-payer is demonstrably untrue.

RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Everything about this article is wrong, and it reads like an establishment hit piece, ain't no true rationality in this article.
 * Anything in particular? Because if not... —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 06:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"whose recent reputation as a left winger is wholly undeserved"
What a stupid sentence. No wonder, because this is site is run by neo-liberal centrists who want to drone children worldwide and murder Julian Assange for exposing corruption.

Repeat much?
Why do the final two paragraphs appear twice? And who is this "he" with which she is running a charity? For that matter, with the present text, not clear at all why Indians would be obvious supporters. It looks like someone deleted content and didn't tidy up. And somehow duplicated two paragraphs. This article is a mess. I mean more than most rational wiki articles. 69.250.3.219 (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed the problems you've raised. By the way, you should add new topics to the bottom of talk pages. Thanks. CowHouse (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"Russian Asset"
She's just being attacked in this manner for sharing some of the same positions that progressives did in 2015. They, pawns of the former Soviet Union and frequent hosts to their infiltrators, have no right to make such a claim.186.120.152.225 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)(Krashlia)
 * I have no words for this level of stupidity. You are wrong on so many levels I've lost count. 02:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Truman, Kennedy, and LBJ were famously great friends of global communism and the Soviet Union. /s 03:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

On another angle entirely, Gabbard has spoken out against the extradition of Julian Assange, claiming it would suppress freedom of the press. It is unknown what connection, if any, Gabbard has with Russian interests. However that she opposes extradition of Assange to America on 1st amendment grounds is suspicious, as he is ostensibly a Russian asset. If he has 1st amendment rights, they would be held up in court.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)