What Everyone Gets Wrong About Tulsi Gabbard

[Knuckle Ball]

I think he trusts her to do the one think he wants in that position. To tell him the truth and not hold information from him. That is the problem with spooks. They are willing to lie to the president.

I don’t recall Trump’s being a big fan of the truth…he’s the guy who lied on a weather map about Alabama’s being hit by a hurricane

 

[Butler1000]

Wow, it's been a while since you've gone "Let's root for the French Revolution" on us.

Well, it will get you a Napoleon, so I guess your love of authoritarianism remains consistent.

After all, none of it will affect you or anyone you care about, so a round of "it is good that they suffer so they know I am right" makes sense for you, I suppose.

As for your original statement, yes, my nation of origin is in disagreement with me about all kinds of things.
That's normal.
Unlike you, I don't wish to punish people and hope they suffer until they come around to my way of thinking.

As for the power brokers not giving up power without a big fight, I agree.
Of course, you just want different power brokers. This has always been the core of our disagreement.
Your love of the idea of a benevolent dictator. (Well, probably more a benevolent oligarchy in your case.)

Without the Depression, no Social Security. Without the Assassination of Kennedy it could be argued no Civil Rights or Medicare Acts.
It's the nature of the USA to only do the right thing after they have explored all other options.

I think you going to be in disagreement with the USA direction for a long time. This isn't a Trump shift, it's a cultural one that found Trump.

 

[Valcazar]

I don’t recall Trump’s being a big fan of the truth…he’s the guy who lied on a weather map about Alabama’s being hit by a hurricane

Oh no, Knuckle ball!
Your world view must be unravelling !

 

[Valcazar]

Without the Depression, no Social Security. Without the Assassination of Kennedy it could be argued no Civil Rights or Medicare Acts.
It's the nature of the USA to only do the right thing after they have explored all other options.

I think you going to be in disagreement with the USA direction for a long time. This isn't a Trump shift, it's a cultural one that found Trump.

I love this justification of "we should never improve anything, because it will be better after enough people suffer".
It's a wonderfully sociopathic view of the world.

 

[Butler1000]

Really?
Those news reports about her powerful statement about how Clinton did that must have been fire at the time.




She is on the record that Biden didn't support Israel enough in Gaza, if I recall.
She's with you on the side rooting for extermination/ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

She's always been VERY pro drone strikes and bombing, as you know. She just objects to "regime change" wars.
Outside of that she describes herself as a warhawk.

She was against supporting Ukraine, though.
I believe that was a position you used to disagree with her about.
Have you come around to the "Russia was right to invade and Biden is escalating war by helping Ukraine resist"?
I thought you held the opposite position back in the day.



And which policy choices do you feel she is aiming for here?
Care to name some you think she actually supports and looks like she is trying to accomplish?

It's amazing how myopic you actually are. I don't have to 100% agree with every position someone has. This is just more strawman arguments on your part.

In answer I think she will direct operations to not create war conditions but take out actual individual threats. To not psy op false flags. To not create crisis for profit. And to stop spying on the American people so much.

And most importantly to start cleaning out the spooks that need to be cleaned out to make this much needed direction the new norm.

How scary is that!

 

[Butler1000]

I love this justification of "we should never improve anything, because it will be better after enough people suffer".
It's a wonderfully sociopathic view of the world.

I wish that was the case. But neither party leadership has any real interest or intentions of that. They support the oligarchy. So I have come to the realization instead of hand wringing, and fretting, because I'm literally a nobody in Canada, I will sit back, and watch, and wait. And see if it happens in my lifetime.
Oh, and make sure, as I have, that my household can weather the coming storms.

 

[Butler1000]

I don’t recall Trump’s being a big fan of the truth…he’s the guy who lied on a weather map about Alabama’s being hit by a hurricane

I agree he doesn't like to tell it, but that is different wanting to hear it.

 

[Butler1000]

Then she should be in the running for Secretary of State or Defence. Not DNI.

I thought that was where she was headed. But I think her as an outsider is also a good fit. It's an admin job, overseeing budgets and implementation of policy. It's not like she is out in the field or planning ops. Her job is to oversee budgets, hire and fire dept heads, and see that the President's policy objectives are implemented.

 

[Knuckle Ball]

Oh no, Knuckle ball!
Your world view must be unravelling !

My world view unravelled a long time ago.

 

[Knuckle Ball]

…
Oh, and make sure, as I have, that my household can weather the coming storms.

Are you a prepper?

Are you off the grid?

 

[Butler1000]

Are you a prepper?

Are you off the grid?

Lol. More like, early mortgage pay off(18 months left) investment adjustment, debt clearance, cash available for emergency. We have done all major work needed on the house including Hvac, roof, renovation, and other needed repairs.

Jobs are likely secure. So I feel confident and economic downturn(we came out of the pandemic just fine as well) will not hurt us in the way it can hurt many over extended households.

 

[bver_hunter]

Snowden support threatens Tulsi Gabbard's Senate confirmation


Some Senate Republicans are zeroing in on Tulsi Gabbard's 2020 call for the U.S. to drop charges against Edward Snowden, a man many of them still consider a traitor.
Why it matters: Gabbard is quickly becoming the most endangered Trump nominee.

• "There's definitely a risk that she won't even survive the committee process," one Republican senator told Axios, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
• Gabbard is Trump's nominee to be director of national intelligence.

Zoom in: Most of the concerns about Gabbard have so far been sparked by a trip she took to Syria, her references to U.S. bio labs in Ukraine and a history of questioning the findings of the U.S. intelligence community.

Now it's her stance on Snowden, a former NSA contractor who was charged in 2013 with leaking classified documents revealing global surveillance programs. He became a naturalized Russian citizen in 2022.

• As a member of Congress, Gabbard sponsored a House resolution with former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) "expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Federal Government should drop all charges against Edward Snowden."
• Only recently has this come to the attention of Republicans sitting on the Senate Intelligence Committee — and elsewhere in the conference, multiple sources familiar told Axios.
• Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told Axios she is concerned about the legislation, adding that "it's something that came up in my own review of [Gabbard's] record."

Between the lines: "There is not one GOP senator on record opposing Lt. Col. Gabbard's nomination," Gabbard spokesperson Alexa Henning told us in a statement.

• Henning pointed to bipartisan senators on Intel "who have shown positive support for her nomination and qualifications."

The bottom line: Even if Gabbard were to fail to get the votes necessary to be recommended by the Intel committee, there would be ways for her nomination to still be considered on the floor.

• Those processes would be more complicated — and in some cases, highly unlikely to succeed.
• Gabbard's team has already written off Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), as we told you last week.

https://www.axios.com/2025/01/23/tulsi-gabbard-edward-snowden-trump-senate

 

[Valcazar]

It's amazing how myopic you actually are.

So no press reports at the time, then?
Weird, right?

I don't have to 100% agree with every position someone has. This is just more strawman arguments on your part.

So what are your positions on these things?
What do you agree with that she is in favor of?
I mean, you're very strident about how other people are terrible and corrupt and any compromise is evil.
So, since clearly you apply different rules to yourself, what do you expect her to accomplish that is a good thing you support?

Let's take a look.

In answer I think she will direct operations to not create war conditions but take out actual individual threats.

So... you expect a return to the "special forces, drones, and assassinations" approach to foreign relations?
She is DNI, right, so not in charge of any military decisions.

So got it.
The US will be "taking out individual threats".

To not psy op false flags. To not create crisis for profit. And to stop spying on the American people so much.

First of those, how will you know?
Give us a "psy op false flag" that happened that she wouldn't do and how you know.
How will you know and recognize the ones she isn't doing in the future?

As for the second.
How will you know?
When a crisis happens, how will you know it wasn't for profit? After all, people will be profiting from it. So how will you know she wasn't helping with that?

And for the third, how will you know?
Are you going to trust the announcement by the head of DNI that they are totally not doing that anymore, even though she works for Trump who has promised to weaponize the government against his domestic enemies?
I mean, she already flat out abandoned her opposition to 702.

And most importantly to start cleaning out the spooks that need to be cleaned out to make this much needed direction the new norm.

What is the "much needed new direction"?
The things above?

OK.
So are you going to assume all spooks removed going forward are "cleaning out the spooks that need to be cleaned out to make this much needed direction the new norm"?

Is that just going to be accepted on faith by you?
Just your old standard of "This person is good, therefore what they did is good, don't question them"?
Or do you have an expectation of evidence presented?

How scary is that!

Well, your naivete is pretty scary, yes.
But "clean up the intelligence services" is a lovely thing to want.
My question is, knowing who she has decided to work for, his beliefs about government power and personal loyalty, and his announced intention for vengeance, why you think this is something she will attempt?
How do you intend to hold her to account?

 

[Valcazar]

Between the lines: "There is not one GOP senator on record opposing Lt. Col. Gabbard's nomination," Gabbard spokesperson Alexa Henning told us in a statement.

• Henning pointed to bipartisan senators on Intel "who have shown positive support for her nomination and qualifications."

This is why I am not so convinced of this "most endangered nominee".
Not a lot of public push back.

She can lose three votes from the GOP side (assuming the Dems and independents all vote no).
I'm not seeing a lot of pressure being put.

That said, as I mentioned earlier, we also aren't seeing Trump or the general right wing Wurlitzer pushing for her very hard, either.

 

[Butler1000]

So no press reports at the time, then?
Weird, right?



So what are your positions on these things?
What do you agree with that she is in favor of?
I mean, you're very strident about how other people are terrible and corrupt and any compromise is evil.
So, since clearly you apply different rules to yourself, what do you expect her to accomplish that is a good thing you support?

Let's take a look.



So... you expect a return to the "special forces, drones, and assassinations" approach to foreign relations?
She is DNI, right, so not in charge of any military decisions.

So got it.
The US will be "taking out individual threats".



First of those, how will you know?
Give us a "psy op false flag" that happened that she wouldn't do and how you know.
How will you know and recognize the ones she isn't doing in the future?

As for the second.
How will you know?
When a crisis happens, how will you know it wasn't for profit? After all, people will be profiting from it. So how will you know she wasn't helping with that?

And for the third, how will you know?
Are you going to trust the announcement by the head of DNI that they are totally not doing that anymore, even though she works for Trump who has promised to weaponize the government against his domestic enemies?
I mean, she already flat out abandoned her opposition to 702.



What is the "much needed new direction"?
The things above?

OK.
So are you going to assume all spooks removed going forward are "cleaning out the spooks that need to be cleaned out to make this much needed direction the new norm"?

Is that just going to be accepted on faith by you?
Just your old standard of "This person is good, therefore what they did is good, don't question them"?
Or do you have an expectation of evidence presented?



Well, your naivete is pretty scary, yes.
But "clean up the intelligence services" is a lovely thing to want.
My question is, knowing who she has decided to work for, his beliefs about government power and personal loyalty, and his announced intention for vengeance, why you think this is something she will attempt?
How do you intend to hold her to account?

Watch and see.

 

[Butler1000]

This is why I am not so convinced of this "most endangered nominee".
Not a lot of public push back.

She can lose three votes from the GOP side (assuming the Dems and independents all vote no).
I'm not seeing a lot of pressure being put.

That said, as I mentioned earlier, we also aren't seeing Trump or the general right wing Wurlitzer pushing for her very hard, either.

She might actually get Sanders.

 

[Knuckle Ball]

She might actually get Sanders.

I think Bernie has more integrity than you give him credit for…but we’ll see.

 

[JohnLarue]

I think Bernie has more integrity than you give him credit for…but we’ll see.

socialist seek to steal other peoples money to pay for what they want
socialist have no integrity

 

[Skoob]

Snowden support threatens Tulsi Gabbard's Senate confirmation


Some Senate Republicans are zeroing in on Tulsi Gabbard's 2020 call for the U.S. to drop charges against Edward Snowden, a man many of them still consider a traitor.
Why it matters: Gabbard is quickly becoming the most endangered Trump nominee.

• "There's definitely a risk that she won't even survive the committee process," one Republican senator told Axios, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
• Gabbard is Trump's nominee to be director of national intelligence.

Zoom in: Most of the concerns about Gabbard have so far been sparked by a trip she took to Syria, her references to U.S. bio labs in Ukraine and a history of questioning the findings of the U.S. intelligence community.

Now it's her stance on Snowden, a former NSA contractor who was charged in 2013 with leaking classified documents revealing global surveillance programs. He became a naturalized Russian citizen in 2022.

• As a member of Congress, Gabbard sponsored a House resolution with former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) "expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Federal Government should drop all charges against Edward Snowden."
• Only recently has this come to the attention of Republicans sitting on the Senate Intelligence Committee — and elsewhere in the conference, multiple sources familiar told Axios.
• Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told Axios she is concerned about the legislation, adding that "it's something that came up in my own review of [Gabbard's] record."

Between the lines: "There is not one GOP senator on record opposing Lt. Col. Gabbard's nomination," Gabbard spokesperson Alexa Henning told us in a statement.

• Henning pointed to bipartisan senators on Intel "who have shown positive support for her nomination and qualifications."

The bottom line: Even if Gabbard were to fail to get the votes necessary to be recommended by the Intel committee, there would be ways for her nomination to still be considered on the floor.

• Those processes would be more complicated — and in some cases, highly unlikely to succeed.
• Gabbard's team has already written off Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), as we told you last week.

https://www.axios.com/2025/01/23/tulsi-gabbard-edward-snowden-trump-senate

More Democrat sabotage attempts (from your same source/article)...yawn...it's all they really have at this point.


Senate Democrats are forcing a delay in Tulsi Gabbard's confirmation hearing next week, claiming she hasn't provided required vetting materials — while Republicans accuse them of playing games, Axios has learned.
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/07/tulsi-gabbard-senate-democrats-delay-hearing

 

[Knuckle Ball]

More Democrat sabotage attempts (from your same source/article)...yawn...it's all they really have at this point.


Senate Democrats are forcing a delay in Tulsi Gabbard's confirmation hearing next week, claiming she hasn't provided required vetting materials — while Republicans accuse them of playing games, Axios has learned.
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/07/tulsi-gabbard-senate-democrats-delay-hearing

What’s wrong with requesting the required vetting materials?