Talk:Political positions of Kirsten Gillibrand

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Political positions of Kirsten Gillibrand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081218093254/http://kirstengillibrand.com:80/free_details.asp?id=1 to http://kirstengillibrand.com/free_details.asp?id=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090605194056/http://www.timesunion.com:80/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=763929 to http://www.timesunion.com/ASPStories/story.asp?StoryID=763929
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090130094955/http://rochesterhomepage.net:80/content/fulltext/?cid=63022 to http://rochesterhomepage.net/content/fulltext/?cid=63022
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081126201405/http://www.kirstengillibrand.com/release_details.asp?id=7 to http://kirstengillibrand.com/release_details.asp?id=7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Affordable Care Act
I can't understand why anybody would be interested today in all that detail about Bloomberg and Patterson's complaints about the Affordable Care Act in 2009.

I spent a lot of time turning it into readable English, but now that I look at it, I think it should just be deleted.

Any objections? Does anybody want to beat me to it? --Nbauman (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Jacobin article
Here's a good well-documented criticism of Gillibrand from the left:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/kirsten-gillibrand-trump-clinton-cabinet The Shape-Shifter Kirsten Gillibrand's name is being floated as a progressive 2020 presidential candidate. But her record shows she's a poor tribune for anti-Trump resistance. By Branko Marcetic Jacobin magazine 05.09.2017 1. She has questionable political connections. 2. She’s “evolved” in record time. 3. She’s bad on Israel.

I posted this in Talk:Kirsten Gillibrand but it probably belongs here too. --Nbauman (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes: her environment section needs expansion
Since potential climate change can possibly be catastrophic, leading to mass extinction (15-37% of all species was the worst case scenario in 2004, but now Great Dying scenarios are becoming more likely in climate models) and puts into question human survival, it certainly satisfies WP:N to have her views and behavior/votes described in a section of her article. This should be included in all senator and potential presidential candidates articles of the nation with the second highest greenhouse emissions, the largest greenhouse polluting nation in human history and the one whose military (Energy usage of the United States military) is the single largest consumer of fossil fuels in the world.
 * League of Conservation Voters scorecard of 95% lifetime, negatives on flood insurance reform, a few forest protection bills
 * On the Issues has her voting record on energy and oil here.
 * She spoke to the senate in 2013 on the dangers of climate change (YouTube copy of primary source, CSPAN transcript should be available).

There should be plenty of other sources from her in response to Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C but politicians say a lot of things; her actual behavior and backers, such as who is funding her campaigns and where are her personal investments, her actions regarding Dakota Access Pipeline protests (can't find anything except possibly she was taking talley of bad actions by police), actions on other pipelines (Keystone 1,Keystone 2), actions aimed at her by environmental activists (350.org targeted her office).

Also, of course, critiques of her climate and fossil fuel policies/actions from trusted political analysts would be needed. 47.40.52.156 (talk) 09:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Foreign Policy section
The ordering is mess. I propose dropping the (inconsistent) division by continent and just list each country in alphabetical order, each as a simple subsection of foreign policy. Leaving this here to see if anyone objects and/or has a better idea, otherwise I'll do it tomorrow.

In addition, each and every claim in the article needs to have a clear date and qualification. No "has supported" and absolutely no "supports". e.g. "In 2010 she voted for act XYZ which cut funding for scallion farmers" as opposed to "she supports ending funding for scallion farmers". Hydromania (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Uncourced
moved from article. leaving here in case anyone finds a source

More recently, Gillibrand introduced legislation that would give voters up to $600 in an election cycle (one for each race) to fund federal candidates. This voucher proposal, if made law, would build upon a plan that has already worked for two elections in Seattle..

Hydromania (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)