What Everyone Gets Wrong About Tulsi Gabbard

[Valcazar]

He was dismissing her relevance a few years ago on here, lol....That hasn't aged well.

I really wonder what I was saying about her back then.

I dismissed her relevance as a Democratic politician - I was right about that.
I dismissed her relevance as a Fox news pundit - I think I was mostly right about that in that I don't think she did very well there.

But she 100% saw that sucking up to Trump would get her power and it worked out for her.

I honestly don't remember if I thought she was going to fail at that. Feel free to find me posts where I say it wouldn't work.

I think I was quite confident that she wouldn't be his VP pick, and I was right about that.


But hey! Maybe I am misremembering entirely and have rose coloured glasses about it all.
Feel free to find me those posts that haven't aged well.

 

[The Oracle]

She is, arguably going to be the toughest nomination. But in terms of game changing by far the most important one. I don't actually see drastic changes as the State and group think is deepest there. And a ship as big as the intelligence services will be tough to turn. But a mind set change is coming.

Do you really think she will be the toughest?

 

[The Oracle]

But hey! Maybe I am misremembering entirely and have rose coloured glasses about it all.

A convenient memory is a gift from God...

 

[Valcazar]

Do you really think she will be the toughest?

The toughest was Gaetz, because other Republican senators hated him personally.
He withdrew.

I think the issue is that there hasn't been a public swell of support for her like there was with Patel and Hesgeth.
Trump doesn't seem to be threatening people about her, either.

So I'm not sure she is the toughest in terms of the most resistance to her from Republicans, there just doesn't seem to be a surge in her support to "prove the libs can't stop us" like there has been elsewhere.

 

[Butler1000]

Yes.
Exactly as I said.
You reject or embrace her based on how much power she has.
Fits your general authoritarian nature.



LOL.
I agree she is less interested in money than in other issues.



I don't take her lightly.
Her naked ambition has been obvious for quite some time.
We disagree on whether naked ambition for power is an attractive trait, but that isn't me taking her lightly.



Ah.
I see.
She was never opposed to it or supported privacy.
It's just one of those things that is fine as long as the "right people" are using against "the right enemies".

Well. That is consistent with other things you've said.

As usual, an insufferable mass of strawman arguments and smug Neo-Liberal attitude.

Seems to me the power brokers have been using and expanding the intelligence and security state for their own ends since 9/11.

I think she will use it to weaken them by exposing the truth. Both of what they are doing and how much they have eroded freedoms in the USA.

I know this is threatening to you because you can't stand the thought of the truth being told.

And yes, when the "right enemies" are in fact the real authoritarian, proven by their HAVING BUILT the damn system, then dismantling it will involve using it. That's how it works silly.

 

[Butler1000]

Do you really think she will be the toughest?

In the back rooms yes. Lindsey Graham alone will work to not have this go through. McConnell in the background, and others with a vested interest. But they don't imo, want this one to be too public.

Val was right about Gaetz. He shouldn't have been nominated. I think he may have been a test and an easy trophy to give the Dems to smooth other picks.

 

[Valcazar]

As usual, an insufferable mass of strawman arguments and smug Neo-Liberal attitude.

I really hope you learn what Neo-Liberal means one day.

Seems to me the power brokers have been using and expanding the intelligence and security state for their own ends since 9/11.

No argument, but not really relevant to this discussion.

I think she will use it to weaken them by exposing the truth. Both of what they are doing and how much they have eroded freedoms in the USA.

Infighting among power groups is to be expected.
Trump doesn't like that this can be a block on his power, and Gabbard's job is to make sure that block is broken.
Can't have checks and balances, can't have groups with other agendas.
Truth has nothing to do with this.

I know this is threatening to you because you can't stand the thought of the truth being told.

LOL!!!

Am I member of the intelligence community now?
Cool.
Didn't realize I was such a deep cover spy even I didn't know it.

And yes, when the "right enemies" are in fact the real authoritarian, proven by their HAVING BUILT the damn system, then dismantling it will involve using it. That's how it works silly.

Yes.
You've made your preference for authoritarianism clear repeatedly.

 

[Valcazar]

In the back rooms yes. Lindsey Graham alone will work to not have this go through. McConnell in the background, and others with a vested interest. But they don't imo, want this one to be too public.

If that's what you believe, then my observation that Trump and MAGA haven't been willing to make this a public litmus test should worry you.

Val was right about Gaetz. He shouldn't have been nominated. I think he may have been a test and an easy trophy to give the Dems to smooth other picks.

I think you give too much credit for eleventh-dimensional chess here.
Trump named the people he wanted.
He did not name Gaetz hoping he would be defeated and then get Bondi.
He just has lots of people he can name so unless he gets really attached to someone, he can just keep throwing bodies until he gets someone.

I don't think Gaetz was a fake out or feint, he just wasn't someone worth going to the mattresses for.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

That's why they are so scared of her. She isn't in it for the money.

Yes.
She is in it for the power.
Which is scarier.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

You reject or embrace her based on how much power she has.

Interesting, she is described as someone ambitious for power.
If what you say is true, then is KnuckleBall actually right, that Butler1000 is really Gurudev Chris Butler in the article? lmfao.

 

[Butler1000]

If that's what you believe, then my observation that Trump and MAGA haven't been willing to make this a public litmus test should worry you.



I think you give too much credit for eleventh-dimensional chess here.
Trump named the people he wanted.
He did not name Gaetz hoping he would be defeated and then get Bondi.
He just has lots of people he can name so unless he gets really attached to someone, he can just keep throwing bodies until he gets someone.

I don't think Gaetz was a fake out or feint, he just wasn't someone worth going to the mattresses for.

Worried? Why? It's just being observational in watching it unfold. If she doesn't get in someone else will. He or she may turn out to be a better choice.

And in case you haven't noticed Trump does push the boundaries sometimes to distract. I think Gaetz was one of those times. We will never know for sure. Again, it's observational based on his history.

 

[Butler1000]

Interesting, she is described as someone ambitious for power.
If what you say is true, then is KnuckleBall actually right, that Butler1000 is really Gurudev Chris Butler in the article? lmfao.

They almost all are. Don't kid yourself.

Hey maybe I am! Although why the hell am I on a Canadian pooner board with access to craploads of Hawaiian pussy is beyond me......

 

[Butler1000]

Yes.
She is in it for the power.
Which is scarier.

You think the previous heads were all boy/girl scouts?

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

You think the previous heads were all boy/girl scouts?

Being ambitious for a job is a bit different from switching sides whenever she needs to, for access.

 

[Bucktee]

She could be president one day.

 

[Butler1000]

Being ambitious for a job is a bit different from switching sides whenever she needs to, for access.

She didn't "switch sides" for powers sake. She chose a path and candidate that aligned with her world view. The Democrats no longer aligned with her anti war stance.

It's the same reason Hispanics young people, more black people switched their vote. The Democrats no longer represent their views.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

She didn't "switch sides" for powers sake. She chose a path and candidate that aligned with her world view.

That is what she claims.
But the article examines that and seems to call BS on it.

 

[Butler1000]

That is what she claims.
But the article examines that and seems to call BS on it.

Ok, so what? It's one man's opinion written on the internet. That's it.

The fact she WAS ON A PWERFUL PATH with the Dems and chose to walk away says far more. Vice Chair of the DNC, touted for powerful committees in Congress. Lauded by Hillary as a future party star.

But she walked away from all that to roll the dice in 2016 for Trump 8 years later? That makes sense?

In many ways the Democrats left her behind.

 

[Knuckle Ball]

Worried? Why? It's just being observational in watching it unfold. If she doesn't get in someone else will. He or she may turn out to be a better choice.

And in case you haven't noticed Trump does push the boundaries sometimes to distract. I think Gaetz was one of those times. We will never know for sure. Again, it's observational based on his history.

The thing that surprises me about Trump’s picking Gabbard is that Trump’s #1 consideration in choosing nominees is loyalty. When it comes to Gabbard, loyalty is not exactly her strong suit- the moment it suits her interest to throw Trump under the bus she will undoubtedly do so...and Trump surely knows this. It just seems like two swamp creatures who recognize one another, no?

 

[Knuckle Ball]

Ok, so what? It's one man's opinion written on the internet. That's it.

…

It’s also the opinion of many who have worked with Gabbard over the years.