Is Tulsi Gabbard a closet Republican?

Some on the left are making this claim. But, let's see what her positions are on the issues:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Tulsi_Gabbard

Abortion
Gabbard generally supports reproductive rights,[172] including federal funding for abortion.[173]

Okay you righties, she's PRO CHOICE.

Cannabis legalization
Gabbard supports the legalization of cannabis for recreational purposes.[185]

Bill Maher's gonna lover her !

Financial reform
Gabbard has advocated for financial reform since first running for Congress, including such measures as restoring the Glass-Steagall Act, breaking up too-big-to-fail banks, strengthening protections against predatory lending practices, increasing capital requirements for the nation's largest banks, and banning naked credit default swaps.[194][195][33]

Definitely agree with her on the above.

Education
Gabbard supports making community college tuition free for all Americans while making all four-year colleges tuition free for students with an annual family income of $125,000 or less. The tuition would be funded by a new tax on trading stocks and bonds.[125]

Looks good to me.

Gun control
Gabbard has an F-rating from the NRA, a 0% rating by the Hawaii Rifle Association and a 100% rating by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.[215]

An "F" rating, NRA? five stars in my book and she's a reservist? That ought to ruffle some right wing feathers.

Immigration
Gabbard differs from other Democrats on some aspects of immigration. She sees the "root cause of mass immigration on our southern border" as being the "history of US military intervention in Latin America that left countries destroyed." She continues: "Before we talk about a wall, we need to end our ongoing threats of intervention – this time in Venezuela."[238] Gabbard voted with Congressional Republicans in favor of "extreme vetting" of Iraqi and Syrian refugees.[239][240] Gabbard has also stated "I don’t support open borders. Without secure borders, we don’t really have a country” and that it is a "fair" criticism that other Democratic politicians had misguidedly embraced the idea of open borders.[241] In 2015,

Okay, I don't recall any democrat advocating open borders, but feel free to prove me wrong.

Gabbard called on the US government to give priority to persecuted minority refugees in the Middle East, such as Christians and Yazidis.[242] In response to Trump's proposals to build a border wall with Mexico, Gabbard stated that she prefers "using high-tech surveillance at the border rather than physical wall" but that "in some places, it may make sense to have a wall or some sort of physical barrier" but would rely on experts to clarify whether extensions of physical barriers are needed.[243][244]

I can't fault her logic on the border, so far.

Gabbard has also called for a temporary suspension of the Visa Waiver Program for European passport holders, citing concerns about security and terrorism following the influx of Syrian refugees into Germany, until the threat of a potential terrorist attack is removed.[245][246] However, Gabbard has also spoken in favor of easing restrictions on granting temporary work visas to immigrants, increasing skilled immigration, creating a simplified path to citizenship for illegal and undocumented immigrants who have not committed serious crimes, granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants and reinstating DACA.

I approve of the above, so far so good.

Gabbard also believes that immigrants should be assessed as individuals and for what they can contribute rather than by their nationality and background.[247][243] During the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, Gabbard stated "we can and should have both secure borders as well as humane immigration policies."[248] She has also called for immigration reform, describing the system as "broken."[242][249]

Ditto, above.

Labeling GMOs
In 2013, Gabbard sponsored legislation to require GMO labeling.[250][251] In 2015, she criticized the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, saying it "makes a mockery of transparency and leaves U.S. consumers in the dark;"[252] and that it merely creates "an illusion of transparency, making things more difficult for consumers, not easier."[253] In 2016, she voted against a GMO-labeling bill, saying it was too weak.[254] In early February 2019, she "courageously criticized Monsanto for falsifying pesticide safety studies"[255] when she tweeted that Monsanto manufactured "'scientific studies' to influence the EPA while destroying small farmers," and unleashed "the scourge of Roundup."[256]

I agree with her on GMOs and labeling, wholeheartedly. Let consumers decide.

On LGBT issues she very supportive, but is against transfemales in women's sports, and I think that's fair.

Sorry Repubs, she likes to hang with you guys, but she's no righty, she's a lefty, just like me.

On Foreign policy, she's against nation building, and I support that. But, her accusing dems of 'warmongering' doesn't square with Biden's policies. So, I don't get why she is saying that.

I think she's misunderstood on why she visited Assad. But, her leaving the democrat party, in my view, will spoil her chances to win higher offices, because to win, you need the benefit of the party machinery, and as independent, no one is going to help you. It's why 'independent' Bernie, suddenly became a democrat when he ran for president.

No, it's obvious she's a liberal, but her poo pooing the Dem party is going to work against her, if she is seeking a higher office. She is making the same mistake Bernie made years ago, becoming an independent. Many dems resented his becoming and independent then suddenly he's a democrat when it's convenient, that, in my view, is bullshit.

What I think she is doing is she is thinking she can build a third party. Well, Ross Perot and his millions was unable to do it, I don't see how she can. Maybe she can defy the odds. We shall see. She has a lot of good things going for her, looks, youth, military service, wide support on her issues. So, if she is going to be independent, then she should go all the way with it, don't pull a Bernie and become a democrat when it's convenient.

we shall see what the future brings, it will be interesting.

 

Biden damn near has us in a nuclear conflict and you just don't get why she is saying that? $120 billion sent to the shithole of "the ukraine" in the last 8 months for weapons and war?

I understand that politicians on both sides are stealing a lot of it but Biden and Co are still waging yet another proxy war in a place they damn sure don't belong. Democrats are warmongers, it is undeniable.

And I'm not even going to mention Biden's dumbass comments about militarily protecting Taiwan.

 

Don't recall any Repubs saying she was a righty. They're well aware of her history and stances.

As for being a lefty like you? No. Shes a liberal. But she's no lefty.

 

Oh bullshit. You can't let a bully get away with his nuclear sabre rattling. If he percieves we are weak, HE WILL USE THE WEAPONS, and then WE WILL BE in a nuclear conflict. Biden MUST act in away that a bully can understand. Talking 'Armageddon' is the exact language a tyrant can understand, but you don't get it. You'd rather Biden just sit their and say nothing. Yeah, that always works with bullies. Give me a break.
.

You are so wrong.

We have to support Ukraine, for the same reason we didn't appease Hitler, that's not warmongering.

IF you love war, then kiss the bully's ass, let him run roughshod over the free countries. If he takes Ukraine, then he'll go for the baltics, bulgaria, czech republic, and Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, all the stans and who know, maybe Finland and Poland, and when the tyrant has half the world, he's go for us in cahoots with china. I don't what to hear that ****, Biden is doing the right thing, we need to back Ukraine.

NO, Biden is doing the right thing and quite a number of foreign service and state department officials agree.

 

Lefty and liberal are the same thing. she's not a woke/hard lefty, if that's what you mean. But the term 'lefty' doesn't mean 'woke' necessarily.

 

Spoken like a true warmonger. 9 of 10 Americans either thought "the ukraine" was still part of the USSR or they couldn't find it on a map before February. You can go back 2 years and the foreign aid sent to shithole ukraine had a stipulation.....none of the money was to be allowed to fund the neo-nazi groups there. Look it up my friend. Now, $120 billion....give it to the nazis who gets a . Your party is supporting actual nazis that have been committing genocide against ethnic Russian Ukrainians in the Donbass since 2014. Deal with it.

State departments officials? **** those corrupt bastards.

You've been duped. And on this topic, Tulsi is right.

 

Maybe you think they're the same. But they're not. Liberals are the sane more middle of the road people. Left of right certainly, but not extremely so. Lefties are the extremists.

 

She holds some unorthodox positions which I think lend themselves more comfortably to her being nonaligned with a political party. But I don't have strong view either way.

I liked the following bill

"In 2018, Gabbard introduced the "Securing America's Election Act", a bill that would require all districts to use paper ballots, which would yield an auditable paper trail in the event of a recount. Common Cause, a nonpartisan watchdog group, has endorsed the bill.[124]"

And I admire the fact that she is making the change from Dem to independent while not holding public office, rather than switching after she got elected.


I am most unhappy with two of her official acts in Congress.

"On April 4, 2022, Gabbard endorsed Florida's Parental Rights Bill which forbids discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in public school classrooms for kindergarten through third grade. Gabbard stated the bill "bans government and government schools from indoctrinating woke sexual values in our schools to a captive audience." She also suggested the bill should apply to all grades.[303][304]"

"Gabbard voted "present" when the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump in December 2019. In two video messages[278][279] and a press release, she cited The Federalist Papers essay No. 65,[280] and described her vote as a protest against "a political zero-sum game".[281][282] Gabbard introduced H. Res. 766,[283][284] which would censure Trump for several of his foreign policy decisions and "send a strong message to this president and future presidents that their abuses of power will not go unchecked, while leaving the question of removing Trump from office to the voters to decide".[285] A week later, Gabbard said she had serious concerns that the impeachment would increase the likelihood that her party would lose the presidential election and its majority in the House of Representatives"

 

It appears you're trying to appeal to a cult that only exists in your head... One would think that righties embracing someone who is clearly hardcore left on all the issues that actually matter but just isn't batshit crazy on the football issues would be a uniter...

 

Gabbard is mainly differentiated from the Democrats on foreign policy. She doesn't want foreign entanglements abroad and generally sees a role for the military only in defending the homeland.

Interestingly, this has been the position of the GOP and Democrats at different points in history. Now it is the position of neither, so she is an outlier.

As a libertarian she's not my cup of tea but I have respect for anyone who says what they really think despite dire consequences to their career/self.

Attractive, intelligent, true to herself - if she hadn't criticised the military-industrial complex she would have made a good candidate for the Democrats - she's certainly more palatable than Biden, Harris or anyone else they have in their back pocket.

Who knows, maybe her divorce from the Democrats will cause her to reconsider some of her other positions.

 

I dunno man. Classical liberal might as well be anarchy these days

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia
Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with especial emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech

No economic regulations? Govt doesn't have ultimate authority? Its Mad Max I tells ya!

 

So basically, she's a DEMOCRAT
Today's democrats are not democrats, they are MARXISTS
So what was the purpose of this thread? to prove she's a real democrat?
Hey maybe I am as well, I agree with her on all but 2 of the items you mentioned.

 

I saw the thread and wondered why anyone would waste the time posting it. A closet Republican? Is that like publicly calling her a racist? Seems like it. I didn't bother to read the OP, why bother. Democrats hate folks who turn their backs on them. Just ask Kanye... Or Trump....

 

This proves my point that today's mainstream Democrats are NOT liberals.

 

Is Tulsi Gabbard a closet Republican? Who cares, she's an American patriot, which is why she kicked the Democratic Party to the curb.

 

Feel free to substantiate your allegations, until then, your comment is dismissed given that your reply is predicated on one or more of the non arguments on this list

 

I'm not sure anyone gives a damn what you dismiss.

 

In the modern era, 'liberal' does not mean 'classic liberalism'.

Classic liberalism applies to the universe of the late 18th century. That kind of liberalism, today, is referred as 'neoliberalism'.

So, in the modern era, if you do care to get your terms right, as they are actually used, you must say as follows:

Liberals of today are not neoliberals.

that would be the accurate statement, when being made today, in the modern era.

since then, some two and one half centuries later, America has attained the suffrage, women can vote, blacks can vote, both minorities, blacks, women, can be electors ( they couldn't when the Constitution was ratified ) and thus the liberalism as it applied to when it was conjured, cannot apply to the liberalism, only to the extent that certain elements are modified, of modernity and in order to accommodate modernity.

For it to apply, we must update it, so modern liberalism doesn't negate many of the original values, it adds to it so as to accommodate the more complex world we live in.

 

Whatever, but it is dismissed in any thread to which I am party.

 

I don't doubt her patriotism, and I agree with many of her policy positions.

She has, however, made a strategic error if she desires to seek high office, given that winning the presidency, or anything close to it, will require a massive party apparatus to assist her. This is precisely why, when Bernie Sanders ran for president, he ran, not as an independent, but as a democrat. She'll come back, with her tail between her legs, should she ever run for a high office, I'm certain of it.

 

I don't, but this time I will rub someone's face in it.

From March, 2018:

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/...ersial-ukrainian-militia-linked-to-neo-nazis/

"A little-noticed provision in the 2,232-page government spending bill passed last week bans U.S. arms from going to a controversial ultranationalist militia in Ukraine that has openly accepted neo-Nazis into its ranks.

House-passed spending bills for the past three years have included a ban on U.S. aid to Ukraine from going to the Azov Battalion, but the provision was stripped out before final passage each year.

This year, though, the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill signed into law last week stipulates that “none of the funds made available by this act may be used to provide arms, training or other assistance to the Azov Battalion.”

“White supremacy and neo-Nazism are unacceptable and have no place in our world,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), an outspoken critic of providing lethal aid to Ukraine, said in a statement to The Hill on Tuesday. “I am very pleased that the recently passed omnibus prevents the U.S. from providing arms and training assistance to the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion fighting in Ukraine.”

The United States has been aiding and training Ukrainian forces (and NAZIS) in their fight against Russian-backed separatists since 2014, and recently expanded that aid to include arms. The omnibus includes about $620.7 million in aid for Ukraine, including $420.7 million in State Department and foreign operations funds and $200 million in Pentagon funds."

Snipped -

Mine in blue.

As I said, the Democrats have been funding Nazis to the tune of $120 Billion this year and they know it.

 

By the way, she is no 'classic liberal' either, she is a liberal as I am a liberal. We agree just about on everything.

The only difference is her animosity to the DNC because they didn't kiss her ass.

If and when she decides to run for a high office, she'll run as a democrat, just like Bernie did.

 

Oh FFS. How well have you done your homework? That website is 4 years old.

Yes, it well known that prior to Zelensky's election to the be Ukraine's President in 2019, Ukraine was cesspool of corruption, note that your article is dated 2018, Poroshenko was president.

It was the reason that Biden forced then president Poroshenko to fire then prosecutor Viktor Shokin, because he wasn't doing his job, and Obama
wasn't going to send any lethal military equipment to or guarantee loans for Ukraine until they cleaned up their corruption or made a good move in that direction. THen came Zelensky, and things are on the better path including the Azov Regiment issue..

Now then, about your 'neonazis". this is the well known 'Azov Regiment' argument.

Well, it has been Debunked, point by point, how the bogus narrative started, who propagated it and how it's blown way out of proportion and why, etc etc etc here:

https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/04...-honest-answers-to-the-most-common-questions/

https://www.yahoo.com/video/zelensky-refutes-russian-propaganda-claim-131100438.html


Got a better argument?

 

FFS, I have been in that shithole country as well as Russia, Belarus and others in that region. The article is 4 years old and I linked that 4 year old article because it shows even the clueless that everybody and their ****ing brother in Congress has known about Ukraine's nazi problem for a long time. You have no ****ing idea. They have been erecting statues of Hitler's Collaborators; naming streets after Nazis; making a postal stamp commemorating a Nazi; have a national holiday for a Nazi and even have parades celebrating nazism.

What's it gonna take? If Germany started erecting statues of Hitler (again) would you just dismiss it and call it debunked?

I can do this all day long:



this is outside the main metro station in the tourist district, a McDonald's just outside the picture to the left (I've been here)

Ukrainian troops you are funding - the one on the right, the crest is of the Waffen SS 14th Division - that's WW2 nazis

more, see the Waffen SS 14th crest in the background (on placards)

same crest, same nazis

the crossed out sign on the left is "no peace with Russia" and the Nazi Wolfangel on the right says "nazi"


Like I said. All. Day. Long.

Notice the crest and the Nazi German officers?


Look familiar?

 

I hope Tulsi doesn't run for higher office than what she's already held. The political system is a toxic corrupting force.