FAQ |
Calendar |
![]() |
|
![]() |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Tulsi Gabbard and the Science of Identity cult
Tulsi Gabbard grew up in a cult called "Science of Identity:, run by a guy named Chris Butler, who calls himself "Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa". They pretend to be Hindu, but in fact, the cult revolves around Butler and the members' worship of him. Gabbard went to SoI schools her entire life, and didn't leave the cult until she joined the Army. She is still a member, and her husband, eight years her junior, is a member. One of her campaign officials, whose campaign business cards don't list his position with the campaign organization, is the right hand man of Chris Butler. The cult is anti-gay and anti-Muslim, which explains a lot of Gabbard's policies.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...-campaign.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Which of Gabbard’s policies does it explain? Be specific.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Her policy of being a total whackjob.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
There was a New Yorker article about this a while back. The detail I can't unsee is that cult members would eat Butler's toenail clippings in order to...absorb his holiness or something.
|
|
|||
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah...no. If this thread is going to be an actual discussion then I’m gonna need specifics. If it’s just gonna be a circle jerk then just come out and say so.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Already jerking it. I hope this has helped inform your decision on how to proceed.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Yep. I’m out. Enjoy...whatever this is.
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Eeeeeeew. Fingernail clipping I could get, but toenail clippings? That's just gross.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I haven't bothered to read up on Gabbard. I'm pretty much "vote Blue no matter who" in 2020. In the unlikely event Gabbard gets the nomination, is she just a little better than Trump, or is even she a lot better than Trump?
|
|
|||
#10
|
|||
|
|||
So much of this sounds like rumor & gossip about a politician with an unusual religious background.
I keep thinking, "How is this different from claiming that Ilhan Omar married her brother? Or that Barry Obama was part of Al Qaeda?" That said, I did find one piece on Medium by someone who claims to have been in Butler's cult: https://medium.com/@lalitamann/an-in...uru-e2650f0d09 Quote:
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Her anti-gay views, for one.
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Her past anti-gay views.
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Gabbard is at best an eccentric candidate of maybe some entertainment value. But if she was a serious candidate then ... meh.
Her disqualifications are what her views are, how she would govern (badly), and her lack of electability, not what religion she was raised in or even currently practices. You can find very very odd things in every religion. She would perhaps be the closest to being Trump bad (still not there) but not because of this. |
|
|||
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
First, there is her strange hesitance to criticize Assad, a Russian ally. The ostensible reason is her anti-interventionist stance. Russia is of course a beneficiary of that stance, but it's a reasonable stance in itself. However she seems strangely hesitant to call Assad a tyrant or a dictator or even an adversary. Second, she seems to have gone all-in on Republican and Russian talking points regarding Russian interference. Consider this YouTube video where she hits these notes:
She does also thread the needle by suggesting America should see the report, that elections should be made secure against interference. This would seem to be anti-Republican/anti-Russian, but we all know this is a risk-free position given that the Republicans in power (Mitch McConnell, Bill Barr) are never going to let it happen. If your concern with Trump is that he's a vulgar moronic narcissist, then Gabbard will be preferable to Trump. But looking past that superficial concern, Gabbard seems equally as dangerous as Trump. Perhaps more so, given that she's more poised and polished and would presumably have more bipartisan support. If I were the party pulling Trump's strings, for 2020 I'd tweak my strategy and run my puppet to the center. Gabbard seems to fit that pattern for now. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Is there a more effective way to absorb someone's holiness?
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Sorry for the thread-creep Last edited by asahi; 08-10-2019 at 10:41 AM. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Oh those people are there I’ve no doubt. But are they there any more or less because of the presence of these sorts of candidates? Or do more of them merely divide them up more into different camps?
I’d suspect that come the general election and a Warren, Biden, or Harris as the nominee, the same fraction will either stay home or vote against Trump whether there have been three screw the system primary candidates or one ... |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The antiwar candidate will always be slandered. It has been true for the entire history of the United States.
Last edited by WillFarnaby; 08-12-2019 at 08:14 AM. |
|
||||
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Yes, but we're talking about the pro-war candidate here.
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
No that would be Biden and Harris along with other lower polling hawks.
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
It isn't slander if it is true. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Biden is polling low? What polls do you have that put Gabbard over Biden?
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
I'm sure he meant "Biden, Harris and other hawks (who are polling lower than Biden and Harris)"
|
|
|||
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Do I have evidence she isn’t weird, odd, or scary?
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Is that the question I asked?
![]() |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Yes. That’s how she is being slandered.
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
I don't know why you keep pushing this candidate...but I do know why the Republican Party wants her to be a front runner. She carries so much baggage her nickname might as well be "Samsonite", and the bad PR about her would practically guarantee a second Trump term.
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
What in the article referenced in the OP is slander, in your opinion?
|
|
|||
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Ooh scary weird brown person wants to stop wars... Last edited by WillFarnaby; 08-12-2019 at 12:42 PM. |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Is this the extent of the slander in the article, in your opinion?
Last edited by iiandyiiii; 08-12-2019 at 12:42 PM. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Supersizing a single word and artificially inserting a racism accusation? I don't know where you are getting your craptastic bullet points, but you might want to find another source.
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
The whole thing was slander, the headline of the article was pure bigotry, but of course that is how US media deals with antiwar candidates.
|
|
||||
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Aside from "strange", what in the article was slander? It appeared to me to be mostly factual reporting.
__________________
My new novel Spindown |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Care to get specific as to what was inaccurate in the article...or are you going to stick with the vague accusations?
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
This poster is very fond of using the term “slanderous” to describe many Americans’ criticisms of Gabbard. As s/he uses it, the sense of the word seems to be “people don’t like her and I think they should.” Unfortunately, I doubt you will get much further edification asking questions about what Actual Slander has taken place.
Last edited by Ulf the Unwashed; 08-12-2019 at 01:02 PM. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Gabbard has literally described herself as a hawk, and she's the only Democratic candidate who has done so. She has stated multiple times that we should significantly step up our military efforts against Muslims, when all of the other Democrats are looking for ways to make peace.
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
From the Medium link earlier up above:
"I hope one day Tulsi does reject Chris and finds her own voice." So, she's a Chrisian then? |
|
||||
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Isn't Tulsi Gabbard the "anti-war pacifist" that took off two weeks from the campaign for National Guard duty? I know her name gets lots of play on Fox News, and she had a pleasant interview with Tucker Carlson...and if Tucker Carlson gives you a pleasant interview you might want to rethink your value system.
Last edited by Czarcasm; 08-12-2019 at 01:14 PM. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
That sort of confusion about basic concepts is one of the reasons nobody takes you seriously.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
I think Mike Pence’s religion of hatred of gay people and disdain for women is baggage. Does that ease your mind at all?
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not a Gabbard fan, but being a reformed crazy wackjob who came to their senses when presented with better information earns my respect far more than some crazy whackjob who happened to be fed correct information and therefore isn't as obviously crazy.
The fact that she discarded those insane beliefs means she is a rational person who will adopt the best answer based on available information rather than cling to ignorance/insanity/arrogance like most other candidates would. Remember, just because someone happens to be right doesn't mean they're right for the right reason. And a rational person can be completely wrong and seemingly insane if they have all bad premises/data to work from. This is a demonstration that she can and will change even deep seeded beliefs that are demonstrated to be wrong... and that's an excellent quality to have. |
#44
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
|
|||
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The simplest explanation is that she's still in the cult, she's avoiding damage to her presidential run, and she's a liar about LGBTQ issues. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Are you beholden to the beliefs you learned as a teenager? Furthermore, it's fairly easy to spot a fake. Mike Pence, when he deigns to imply he doesn't hate gays with a fiery passion, is an obvious fake when it comes to tolerance. Same as most conservative, christian adults. The evidence against them, especially in terms of policy proposals and political efforts, is insurmountable. You're accusing her of being a fake. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
She has acknowledged and publicly apologized for those statements, saying that her views on LGBTQ people have "evolved" - it's up to each person to decide if they believe her or not. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, you should assume that I hold all of my teenage beliefs, unless I tell you I changed my beliefs and I give you a convincing explanation why. Gabbard hasn't explained anything.
Quote:
Quote:
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
But look, my very first statement was "I'm not a Gabbard fan." I'm not going to waste time defending someone I don't care all that much about. My point was not to get overly attached to the past religious beliefs of an individual when said individual is willing to say they were wrong. |
|
|||
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Seeing as how she doesn’t have time to do this (which is perhaps what she is thinking), I’m not sure why any Democratic voter should waste any time when there are at least a dozen other candidates who are actually trying to explain their appeal to people. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|