What do you know? Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence.
‘FEARLESS’: Trump Picks Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence by The Daily Signal (Nov 13, 2024)
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/11/13/ … 1I0g76Fy9w
"President-elect Donald Trump has tapped former Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to serve as his Director of National Intelligence.
“For over two decades, Tulsi has fought for our Country and the Freedoms of all Americans. As a former Candidate for the Democrat Presidential Nomination, she has broad support in both Parties—She is now a proud Republican!” Trump said in a statement. “I know Tulsi will bring the fearless spirit that has defined her illustrious career to our Intelligence Community, championing our Constitutional Rights, and securing Peace through Strength. Tulsi will make us all proud!”
Thoughts, criticisms, accolades, and/or commentary?
As a bonus . . .
Commentary | Tulsi Gabbard Didn’t Leave Democratic Party. The Party Left Her.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/10/11/ … fFMUl_ZuWgWow.... .... didn't see that one coming at all...
Again, kinda funny.
A convicted felon taps an under-investigation-possible-pedophile for Attorney General, a Putin apologist as Director of National Intelligence and a misoginist and inexperienced unhygienic FoxNews personality as his Defense Secretary.
Those are perfect picks!
Don't forget about Tulsi's. Buddying up to Syria:s al-Assad ... She's a friend of dictators everywhere.
I cannot see her, Hegseth or Gaetz getting confirmed. Now we know why Trump wants recess confirmation powers...Go figure... Yet he won. That's got to really make one think. Seems many did, and voted for Trump.
And yet so many did not. Certainly you cannot expect us to go quietly. Half of this country opposes Trump
I don’t waste time worrying about the other side. I simply have no respect for them and find their mindset completely foreign. I have no interest in what they think or believe. I freely speak my mind, and I have no problem when others do.
So, if he does well, will you still feel as you do?
Yes, I agree. That says a lot of those many, huh?
Actually, it does say quite a bit. It seems like you're comfortable judging the majority. I have to admit, I can be judgmental at times too—no denying that. LOL
But even I wouldn’t go as far as to judge the majority of voting Americans. That said, I can respect that you’re sticking to your viewpoint. I won’t even get snarky; I know you’re recovering from surgery. Wishing you a smooth and quick recovery. Feel better soon!
Others do not agree with me.
Bolton calls for FBI investigations before Gaetz, Gabbard confirmations
Former national security adviser John Bolton said Wednesday that former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)—President-elect Trump’s nominees for director of national intelligence (DNI) and attorney general, respectively— should not appear for their Senate confirmation hearings until they are investigated by the FBI.
“I don’t think either she or Matt Gaetz ought to have a confirmation hearing until they have both had full field FBI investigations,” Bolton told anchor Blake Burman. “And then I think the Chinese would say, ‘Maybe they are serious.’”
When Burman clarified, asking whether Bolton was calling for Gabbard to be investigated, Bolton said, “I think so,” adding, “Given the Russian propaganda that she has espoused over the past period of time, I think she’s a serious threat to our national security.”
“With his announcement of Tulsi Gabbard to be the Director of National Intelligence, he’s sending a signal that we have lost our mind when it comes to collecting intelligence,” Bolton said when asked about the message he thinks Trump is trying to send to China.
“Up until a few hours ago, I would have said that was the worst cabinet appointment in recent American history. Of course, since Matt Gaetz’s nomination, he clearly has taken the lead on that score.”Tulsa Gabbard's nomination is a national security risk...
"Gabbard is stunningly unqualified for almost any Cabinet post (as are some of Trump’s other picks), but especially for ODNI. She has no qualifications as an intelligence professional—literally none. (She is a reserve lieutenant colonel who previously served in the Hawaii Army National Guard, with assignments in medical, police, and civil-affairs-support positions. She has won some local elections and also represented Hawaii in Congress.) She has no significant experience directing or managing much of anything.
To make Tulsi Gabbard the DNI, however, is not merely handing a bouquet to a political gadfly. Her appointment would be a threat to the security of the United States.
Gabbard ran for president as a Democrat in 2020, attempting to position herself as something like a peace candidate. But she’s no peacemaker: She’s been an apologist for both the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Her politics, which are otherwise incoherent, tend to be sympathetic to these two strongmen, painting America as the problem and the dictators as misunderstood. Hawaii voters have long been perplexed by the way she’s positioned herself politically. But Gabbard is a classic case of “horseshoe” politics: Her views can seem both extremely left and extremely right, which is probably why people such as Tucker Carlson—a conservative who has turned into … whatever pro-Russia right-wingers are called now—have taken a liking to the former Democrat (who was previously a Republican and is now again a member of the GOP).
In early 2017, while still a member of Congress, Gabbard met with Assad, saying that peace in Syria was only possible if the international community would have a conversation with him. “Let the Syrian people themselves determine their future, not the United States, not some foreign country,” Gabbard said, after chatting with a man who had stopped the Syrian people from determining their own future by using chemical weapons on them. Two years later, she added that Assad was “not the enemy of the United States, because Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States,” and that her critics were merely “warmongers.”
Gabbard’s shilling for Assad is a mystery, but she’s even more dedicated to carrying Putin’s water. Tom Rogan, a conservative writer and hardly a liberal handwringer, summed up her record succinctly in the Washington Examiner today:
She has blamed NATO and the U.S. for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (again, to the celebration of both Russian and Chinese state media), has repeated Russian propaganda claims that the U.S. has set up secret bioweapons labs in that country, and has argued that the U.S. not Russia is wholly responsible for Putin’s nuclear brinkmanship.
When she appeared on Sean Hannity’s show in 2022, even Hannity blanched at Gabbard floating off in a haze of Kremlin talking points and cheerleading for Russia. When Hannity is trying to shepherd you back toward the air lock before your oxygen runs out, you’ve gone pretty far out there.
A person with Gabbard’s views should not be allowed anywhere near the crown jewels of American intelligence. I have no idea why Trump nominated Gabbard..."
"Gabbard has every right to her personal views, however inscrutable they may be. As a private citizen, she can apologize for Assad and Putin to her heart’s content. But as a security risk, Gabbard is a walking Christmas tree of warning lights. If she is nominated to be America’s top intelligence officer, that’s everyone’s business.."
This is ridiculous. Does Trump think he's still on the apprentice? Let's see if the National guards' person from Hawaii can make it to the top of the DNI? This isn't amateur hour
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/daily/Oh my... I would think she will be one that will receive the courtesy of the senate advocating for the use of "recess. She has been vetted to serve.
Yes, Tulsi Gabbard served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2013 to 2021, 8 years...
It's unfortunate that you find her unacceptable.She still wears a Uniform and serves her country... unlike most of those that criticize her and would never put themselves in harm's way for their country.
Pay attention to those who speak out against people like Gabbard... evil raises its voice the loudest when its most threatened.
Expect to see a lot of insane accusations and needless drama.maybe just address her troublesome past actions and statements.
Nahh... we've had enough BS... Impeachments... bogus trials like the one Kavanaugh had to face...
I like this attitude... of STFU... you lost... GTFOTW... the Halls of DC are about to be cleaned out.
I am so sure we will hear lots of BS from the left media. I would hope Comcast will sell them or make them accountable for propaganda. Lights are almost out-- and boy do they deserve it.
The ratings continue to get worse
Viewers Flee MSNBC, and Flock to Fox News, in Wake of Election
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/13/busi … ction.html
Trump fallout? CNN set to fire hundreds of employees after dismal ratings during election coverage
https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/tr … ngNewsVerpKen, they’re really losing it! Hey, Gabbard’s going to be confirmed. How much egg can these leftists have on their faces? It's almost fun to watch, kind of like hearing Harris say every day, 'I was raised middle class, we bought our first home when I was 13.'
Yeah, the Washington slime is leaking from every crack. They just don’t learn, but as long as they keep it up, it’s all working out pretty well.
Hey, we have the ultimate fighter, who stays cool and pushes on. Drives them crazy.
Well it's not just me who finds her unacceptable. And I certainly do not want the Senate abdicating their role of "advice and consent". As an american, I want them doing their constitutional duty, not handing it to the executive... This isn't a dictatorship.
I think she will be confirmed without a problem.
Most presidents have historically used recess appointments to bypass lengthy Senate approval, and I don't see why Trump shouldn’t be afforded the same. I never claimed to have a problem with Senate confirmations. In fact, I’ve only pointed out that I don’t think anyone but Matt Gaetz would face significant hurdles in being confirmed.
This process was particularly used by Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama for positions that were critical to the functioning of the federal government, such as members of the Cabinet or agency heads.
Obama, for instance, made 32 recess appointments to fill vacancies, which is a common practice. So, what's the issue here? Clinton made 139 recess appointments through his presidency
As for the idea of dictatorship, I don't see the connection. Trump isn’t asking for anything different from what other presidents have requested. It seems unnecessary to frame his request for using recess appointments as if he's trying to establish some form of dictatorship. It’s just a legal method of filling vacancies, as used by the previous administration.
The Democrats are going to do it again and they are going to get the same result.
Bouncing around the news panels shows that the 'talking points memo' is out. Are all the Gabbard opponents really worried about the exact same thing? They're all using the same words. By tomorrow someone will probably have one of those montages of news readers repeating each other's words.
Next, will come the synchronization of name-calling. 'Assad supporter' and 'Putin apologist' are already being used. How bad will it get?
The point? Will the effect on Joe Blow backfire like it did with Trump? A Joe Blow like me? I know very little about Gabbard, but I have a favorable impression. The detractors better have more than they're currently presenting because "Putin apologist" and "Assad supporter" sound too much like baseless partisan attacks.
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I don't know enough about her to defend her, but I know enough about 'talking point' attacks to have an idea of how non-Democrats will perceive them. The Democrats lose, again.
GAThey are going to attack ALL his nominations and ALL his efforts...
This is the corrupt and unelected Establishment, which includes the dying Legacy Media outlets, and the diehard Left-Wing...
You will see sell-out RINOs joining in the fight, just like the last time Trump was elected.
This time the majority of Americans are aware of what is going on... they have gone through the Russian Conspiracy Impeachment and the Convicted Felon malarky (and what an injustice that was) and the Assassination attempts.
The majority realize who is responsible for the rampant inflation we dealt with, and the millions of migrants allowed to pour in...
You can fool some of the people all of the time... that minority still tunes in to CNN and MSNBC and the NYTimes... they lap up and regurgitate the propaganda...
The coming fight... the Americans that love their country and are willing to fight for freedom and liberty... are going to fill out the Trump administration and go to battle against "the enemy within"... a corrupt, unelected, out of control bureaucracy that needs to be brought back under control."You will see sell-out RINOs joining in the fight, just like the last time Trump was elected."
I say they keep their tails between their legs. I mean they have watched Trump point out RINOs, and the RINOs are sent out to pasture. These jokes want to keep their jobs. I feel many Dems won't buck Trump this time around. I can hope.I don't know much about many of his picks—beyond media-influenced impressions—but I am familiar with a few.
I didn't buy a ticket, but I'll ride the train. I like the direction so far.
GASome, at least one, of his picks might just be for the purposes of drawing everyone's attention to it... getting them to focus on that pick...
So that all the rest fly by without much hoopla...
This is his second time around the block, I'm sure he's learned a few things, you don't make yourself a billionaire being an idiot and repeating the same mistakes over and over again (without there being a method to the madness).I just made the same point to Willowarbor.
I'll enter the guessing game. From a cynical purely political perspective, RFK Jr. may be the sacrificial goat (he ain't no lamb).
He might be the least important to Pres. Trump's plans, the least costly sacrifice. He has what he wanted from him—his voters. The department also seems the least likely to be able to interfere with the president's plans. *shrug*
GAI think RFK will be a costlier rejection for the Dems/Establishment to make...
He represents the 'Middle America' and non MAGA vote more than anyone.
Rejecting him will ensure a few million votes for Trump's heir in 2028.
Much like rejecting Sanders in 2016 made sure a few million voters sat out or voted for Trump then.
I was thinking Gaetz would be the one targeted and rejected.
Almost as important as who he appoints is how fast he can get people fired... there should be hundreds, if not thousands of people thrown out on DAY 1... they should have a list handy... I would be surprised if they don't.
Are the reports similar because the "talking points" are reality? Accurate? When I go back years to look at the footage of her at the time, today's reports appear to be on point.
Her meeting with Assad outside of her official capacity is troubling. I'm not sure how our allies would feel about sharing intelligence with us if she were to be confirmed.
And the synchronization? LOL Fox, Oann, Newsmax, Breitbart... All sing the same song. Daily .
More importantly, it's not just left leaning media who are scrutinizing the nominations, it's the Senate Republicans as well.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … -democratsDid your point need the additional weight of the Right-wing sites 'whataboutism'? (just a little poke, too snarky?)
To answer your questions, the point wasn't whether they were all concerned about the same things; it's that, suspiciously, they all use the same words to describe how they feel about the same things. Whether the 'Rightie' news sites do the same is irrelevant.
The criticism is of the appearance of agenda-scripted news and panel presentations and how, once again, the effect will be reinforcement instead of doubt.
That the practice has become standard politics for both sides also isn't the point. The point is that it's dumb. It's what happened in the election and what could happen in the coming nominations reporting.
Most of us Joe Blows (as previously described) will probably listen to and think about the controversies up the 4th bad name. I'm on the second bad name (Putin apologist, Assad supporter). I'm looking, but so far, I don't see the Putin charge and haven't gotten to the Assad one yet. I'm not convinced but I'm still listening.
But, if there's a 3rd name that is flimsily supported I will probably be a 'doubting Thomas' as I looked about. A fourth name? Nope, I ain't listening, you lost me.
GAToo clever... ... I had to think for a moment...
Almost flew over...Now you're making me think. I don't get the "clever" part. I don't want to be 'clever,' I'm still working on 'nice.' Clever is too dangerous, it usually cuts both ways. ;-)
GA
Yes, the Democrats will do it again and again. One would think the Democrats as well as the talking heads would have gleaned something after Trump won the election.
" They're all using the same words. By tomorrow someone will probably have one of those montages of news readers repeating each other's words."
It's called brainwashing—it's worked on some, and it still works on others today. But I think, many would agree that it hasn't done the Dems well.
I know enough to defend Tulsi, and enough to understand why the Democrats wouldn't want her in that role. But I just don't want to get into a back-and-forth with those who are still caught up in the narrative.
Tulsi has been a prominent figure, always open about her views. She's a strong, well-informed woman who challenges nearly every leftist ideology. Whether you like her or not, she tells it like she sees it --- Remind you of anyone? I can see why Trump hopes to have her as a team member.
She's someone I could have supported for president. However, she is a huge threat to the Washington swamp people.
Folks remember when she spread this Russian propaganda??
https://x.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1502960938147729413
Let's be clear...Ukraine’s government, the U.S. government, news organizations and independent researchers have all said there is no evidence for the claim, which originated from Moscow.Source First
https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/11/2 … KRAINE.PDF
"There are 25+ US-funded biolabs in Ukraine which if breached would release & spread deadly pathogens to US/world. We must take action now to prevent disaster. US/Russia/Ukraine/NATO/UN/EU must implement a ceasefire now around these labs until they’re secured & pathogens destroyed" Tulsi Gabbard
https://x.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1502960938147729413
Left media took the word biolab and twisted the narrative adding weapons to the narrative --- she never used the words weapons biolab. Her statement is clear, and is her context ---
Definition of Biolab---
A "biolab" typically refers to a laboratory that is specialized in the study of biological organisms and pathogens, often with an emphasis on biosecurity and containment. These labs can range from research facilities studying diseases and pathogens to ones that conduct research on biological weapons or bioterrorism prevention.
FACTUAL
"There are indeed U.S.-funded biological research labs in Ukraine, but their purpose is not to develop bioweapons. These labs are part of cooperative efforts between the U.S. and Ukraine to reduce biological threats, strengthen public health infrastructure, and manage emerging diseases, such as the research conducted on pathogens that could potentially cause pandemics. These efforts are aligned with international conventions that prohibit the development and use of biological weapons, including the Biological Weapons Convention, which both the U.S. and Ukraine have signed"
What would have been not correct in her statement? She felt fighting around these Bio labs could be denatured and release deadly pathogens. Not sure why anyone would not see her concern as valid. She asked strongly for a cease-fire to prevent what she felt could ultimately turn into a worldwide tragedy.
Seems like you have bought into left media blurbs. Ultimately she was truthful and concerned, and her concerns should have been very much considered. These labs are working with deadly pathogens! And we fund them... In a war, they could be denatured and pathogens released. I very much doubt if Congress would bring this up -- my God they would look like fools.
How to folks feel about the stance she took a while back, opposing Japanese rearmament?
MAGA is all about avoiding wars or foreign conflicts. She is a perfect fit for our agenda.
I haven't come across anything specific where Tulsi Gabbard comments directly on Japan's rearmament, but based on her broader foreign policy views, I think she’d be cautious about it. Gabbard has long been a critic of military overreach and advocates for diplomacy over conflict. Her stance is pretty clear—she opposes unnecessary U.S. military involvement and emphasizes negotiation and peaceful solutions, especially with major powers like China and Russia. If Japan were to increase its military capabilities, I think she’d likely view it through that lens, pushing for dialogue over escalation.
She’s made it clear that she doesn't support interventions or military buildups unless absolutely necessary, so I could see her encouraging peaceful, diplomatic solutions for Japan’s defense posture, much like her overall approach to foreign policy.
I find this a very positive outlook, I share it.
I want world peace and hope to see America not become involved in offshore wars unless necessary to protect our homeland.Tulsi hasn't met a Russian talking point she doesn't love and echo. There's a reason that her little videos and posts on x get a lot of play in Russia. But they will all be thrown at her during her confirmation. Her biggest hurdle? Her off the clock trip to Syria and trying to tell us that Assad might not be such a bad guy after all..
Also, she has no Intel experience whatsoever. No experience running a large complex organization.
John Bolton is calling for Gabbard to be investigated, Bolton said, “Given the Russian propaganda that she has espoused over the past period of time, I think she’s a serious threat to our national security.”
In the interview, Bolton heavily criticized Trump’s choices for the positions, calling Gabbard and Gaetz the two worst Cabinet appointments in recent history.
With his announcement of Tulsi Gabbard to be the director of national intelligence, he’s sending a signal that we have lost our mind when it comes to collecting intelligence,” Bolton said when asked about the message he thinks Trump is trying to send to China.
https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec … irmations/Well, it will be up to Congress to weed through to get to the truth on any matter that the media is now feverishly digging up. Myself, I feel she will be approved. I have never seen any real problems with her.
Bolton says a lot, if there is a problem I feel Congress will spot it. The only message Trump will be sending to China is to get read for tariffs if he needs to use them."The only message Trump will be sending to China is to get read for tariffs if he needs to use them."
Well I think it's more like we need to get ready to pay more for absolutely everything because tariffs don't apply to the country they are imposed upon, the importer in our country pays the tariff... Of course they pass it on to the retailers and then you know they sock it right to us with price hikes. China isn't punished at all.Trump and his followers don't seem to understand how tariffs work.
Folks don't remember what happened to our farmers in the last Trump administration due to his tariffs on China?
Does anyone remember his tariffs on washing machines?
2019...
"A little more than a year after President Donald Trump slapped a 20 percent tariff on imported washing machines, new research finds that American shoppers have been the ones to pay the price."
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consum … 00-n999461You've relied on NBC News for a biased perspective, but I can assure you, I know both sides of the coin. I believe it's wise to understand both sides of any issue in order to get a clearer picture. As for Trump, I trust that he'll do his best to avoid using tariffs unless necessary, to obtain fair trade, and to keep jobs here in the US—he’s said this repeatedly in interviews as well as at rallies, thats a fact. So you must have missed that. It’s clear he’s a strong leader who prefers to use the carrot first, and only resorts to the stick if needed. His first term showed him using this method on occasion.
I have well noted you always lean negatively in your views. Your views are very one-sided. And when someone gives another explanation you divert to another issue that disturbs you.
My view of the other side of the tariff coin --- I believe tariffs work in several ways that can be beneficial. First, they help protect domestic industries by making imported goods more expensive, which gives local companies a better chance to compete. This, in turn, can lead to job creation in those sectors. Tariffs also generate revenue for the government, which can be used to fund essential public services like infrastructure and education, and can reduce the need to rely on other taxes. Additionally, tariffs can help safeguard key industries that are vital for national security, such as defense or technology, ensuring that the country isn't overly dependent on foreign sources. By promoting domestic alternatives, tariffs also reduce vulnerability to disruptions in global supply chains or market fluctuations. Furthermore, tariffs can encourage fair trade practices by combating unfair competition, like when foreign producers dump goods at below-market prices to undercut local businesses. They can also act as leverage to ensure that foreign countries adhere to trade agreements and labor standards. Ultimately, while tariffs can sometimes result in higher prices for consumers, they offer strategic benefits by supporting local industries, creating jobs, generating revenue, and fostering economic stability.Lol, there's nothing wrong with the facts that NBC News presented.... I can present the same array of fact on tariffs from 20 different sources if you'd like.
As far as the claim that you feel he will avoid using tariffs.. he has promised tariffs! Surely you've heard him make this promise over and over in interviews and rallies.
He promised imposing tariffs between 10 percent and 20 percent on imported goods, occasionally hinting at even higher rates in his speeches. I take him at his word. Not interpretation from followers.
No love for nbc? Here's some info from the Heritage foundation during Trump's last experiment with tariffs....
"The Data Are Clear: Remove Tariffs on China"
https://www.heritage.org/trade/report/t … iffs-china
Trump’s Tariffs Are Pushing American Companies to Leave
https://www.heritage.org/trade/commenta … nies-leave
Do No Harm: Tariffs and Quotas Hurt the Homeland
https://www.heritage.org/trade/report/d … e-homeland
Tariffs may spur some business in this country but that would take many years to develop. Consider what is coming into this country, that we buy on a daily basis. Replacements would not pop up immediately. But imposing across the board tariffs on All imports coming in would provide price hikes for all of us pretty darn quickly.
From the right leaning Peterson institute...
Tariffs on all imports would create chaos for business...
"If anything is clear in this turbulent election season, it is presidential candidate Donald Trump’s intention to levy high tariffs on all US imports. Experience shows and economists agree that tariffs lead to persistently higher prices for customers. But the near-term damage will be even greater if massive disruptions in supply chains create chaos for businesses that rely on imports."
"Trump has promised to increase tariffs on imports from China by 60 percentage points and on all other imports by 10 to 20 percentage points. His insistence that this would not make American consumers and businesses pay higher prices reflects a basic misunderstanding of how tariffs work in practice."
https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-eco … s-business
This guy from a right-wing organization was featured by Fox...
Dan Savickas, director of policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, said Trump's proposed 60% tariff on Chinese goods would mean "basically higher prices."
"Businesses who import goods or raw materials from China and who are paying a 60% upcharge to do so, they have to offset those costs somewhere. So, they're either going to purchase more expensive products from countries that are not China, or they're going to have to offset that by increasing prices," he told FOX Business in an interview. " He went on to say...The inflationary impact of tariffs, Savickas said, is ultimately spread out across the American public."
From this point forward, I will be sure to only use sources from right leaning or far right sources... LolDonald Trump has often emphasized using tariffs only when necessary, reflecting his approach to trade negotiations. One notable quote from him on this subject is which he repeated frequently. I have shared with you I have no respect for those that predict, and ignore Trump's actual words... I have heard the below quote over, and over. I have never heard his claim he would use tariffs any other way but if needed.
“I’m not looking to do tariffs, but we’ll do whatever we have to do. We’ve been very patient. We’ve been very fair. But we’re going to have fair trade.” DJT
I have put in enough time and offered my full view on the subject, as you have. Agree to disagree. You have offered nothing but a far-left prediction. Predictions are not factual. Again you are listening to far-left propaganda. This is my view, and it's well past the time to share it. We have nothing in common, I find your mindset very much different than my own. Sorry, I have been polite, but not up for your rhetoric.Donald Trump has often emphasized using tariffs only when necessary,
We're going to be a" tariff nation"
https://x.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/18 … 7481977105
Do Trump followers even listen to the man??
Listen to this sleepy promise.. as if Auto factories will pop up very quickly
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/18 … 4012934395"You have offered nothing but a far-left prediction....."
I cited the Heritage foundation three times, Peterson institute and Fox Business.... And the Heritage foundation looked at the actual impact of the tariffs he imposed during his last administration! Not "predictive" at all.
Here's another... From the George w Bush Institute...
"Tariffs Are Great – If You Like Raising Prices, Undermining Jobs, and Inhibiting Innovation"
"Americans — and especially the middle class — are at risk of economic consequences of a protectionist trade policy. The U.S. should look to history for a lesson in the importance of more open global trade."
Trump's promised tariffs are a very bad idea..
https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/opp … ng-prices/
This is a great clip on Tulsi:
https://youtu.be/tj9-cAxykmw?t=360
Also a great example of why putting such incompetent people like Buttigieg into a position of authority in the Administration causes so much harm.
When you put idiots in charge based on sexual preference or identity... you get a bunch of idiots running the show, who happen to be gay or trans... it doesn't change the fact that they are completely incompetent for the job.I agree, your clip was a good example. What I saw was a poorly prepared man debating a well-educated strong woman who quickly put him in his place with her well-thought-out poignant answer. She shared her experience, as well as her values regarding keeping peace versus war.
It sickens me to see anyone muddy such a patriot.Is this "fact finding" trip the source and support for the 'Assad supporter' charge? If it is, and if the 'reporter's' narration was true, the Dems lose round 1.
The stuff I found on the 'Putin apologist' charge struck me the same way—a fact or message spun for a purpose. Two names down. There is not much chance a third one will work.
GA"by 2015, Gabbard had become a fringe voice on the growing hostilities in Syria. In a series of tweets, including one directed at Gabbard’s fellow Trump Cabinet nominee Marco Rubio,
https://x.com/TulsiGabbard/status/649457240991100928
Gabbard not only expressed support for Russian intervention in Syria, but questioned why the U.S. doesn’t join hands with Moscow. "
https://x.com/TulsiGabbard/status/649458891168714752
"Gabbard contended that Russia was attacking al-Qaeda affiliates — a decade-long excuse for indiscriminate bombing promoted by both the Russian and Syrian regimes. In reality, Russia was engaged in a joint reign of terror with the Syrian dictatorship against civilians, including a hospital-bombing campaign that saw over 300 medical facilities attacked by the end of 2015. "
Gabbard became one of the most vocal anti-interventionist voices on Syria in Congress, repeatedly calling for an end of efforts to overthrow the Assad regime and introducing legislation to halt support for the Syrian opposition in 2016.
This earned Gabbard the attention of officials from the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, a virulently antisemitic, pro-Assad Syrian nationalist party whose emblem, the Zawbaa, resembles a Nazi swastika. Those officials infamously helped sponsor a free trip for Gabbard to Damascus, where she met with Bashar Assad just weeks before the Khan Shaykhun gas attack.
After the Syrian military attacked civilians with sarin and chlorine in the town of Ltamenah in northern Syria, Gabbard echoed Russian denials that Assad was behind a chemical weapons attack. A United Nations investigation later concluded that the Syrian Air Force dropped the chemicals.
Since then, Gabbard has only escalated her pro-Assad rhetoric, promoting conspiracy theories about Assad regime chemical attacks against civilians, including assertions that the Khan Shaykhun attack was “staged” by the Syrian opposition.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house … omination/So there is more than the 'fact-finding trip. I'll look more. Per your links, it looks like she was against our intervention in Syria. By itself that's no biggie for me. I'm against it too.
GA"Gabbard’s record on Syria, though it may appear as ‘pro-peace’ on the surface, actually aligns with regime propaganda"
I am finding the situation with Gabbard and Syria to be quite complex.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019 … te-we-wantAs I recall, there were no cut-and-dry answers during the time frame of Gabbard's comments and positions. I recall the controversy over who did the chemical bombing. And the ones about which terrorist groups were the 'good' freedom fighters that the U.S. was supporting and which were the brutal terrorist ones. Etc..
The trail you have me following points to Gabbard holding—and promoting—a view contrary to our government's—an anti-interventionist view.
I don't think our hands are clean or our motives pure regarding our Syrian involvements either. That doesn't mean I support Assad or Russia, it means I don't support our involvement.
Your links have worked to show there was a lot more to Gabbard's history of comments than just a fact-finding trip or RT TV clip, but they haven't painted the same picture for me.
GA
I have a better way of verifying if she is a "Russian Asset"...
She was a Congressman, she IS serving in our Military...
She is under myopic investigation by the FBI, NSA, etc...
I am more apt to believe that our "Russian Asset" concerns stem from those who call Gabbard a "Russian Asset"...
After all it is Hillary Clinton that helped Russia purchase Nuclear Weapons grade Uranium, US owned... and she was the first to call Gabbard a "Russian Asset"...
Those who advocate so hard for Communist like censorship and control... the likes of Clinton and John Kerry and others who have taken money from Russia and China... or if not them, their kids... like Hunter Biden did for his dad.
And then there are the Non-Profits... like the Clinton Foundation that has received hundreds of millions in donations from elites in Ukraine, China, Saudi Arabia, etc.
But hey... if such trustworthy people like Clinton and Biden label Trump and Tulsi Russian puppets, assets, conspirators then of course we should assume those accusations to be true.Why did she refuse to call Assad a war criminal?
"I have a better way of verifying if she is a "Russian Asset"...
She was a Congressman, she IS serving in our Military...
She is under myopic investigation by the FBI, NSA, etc...
"
Yep, there is that . . .
GAThanks, Ken. It’s part of the liberal mindset to overlook the genuine wrongdoings of their party while attacking someone like Gabbard, who is a true activist for peace and a patriot. It also speaks volumes about anyone who gives attention to this kind of rhetoric. Continuing to harp on it might be even more counterproductive.
It seems to have become overly easy to slander anyone these days. This kind of skewed mentality sickens me personally. The liberal can never even discuss those in their political party... It says so much about their lack of intelligence.
That didn't take long: Putin apologist → Assad supporter → Russian asset . . .
11/15/24: "Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said that former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, President-elect Trump’s pick for national intelligence director, is “likely a Russian asset.”
GAThen it must be true . . . ?
What were Tucker and Tulsi saying?
As a side note, the author looks worth a 'follow,' for balance.
GAFor me, it comes down to this: are these nominees the best of what America has to offer? I think not. Trump actually has a pool of not only supremely qualified candidates for each position but candidates who aren't mired in questionable actions, speech and ethics.
There are honest questions about who is qualified by whose standards and whose questionable acts.
I can see the fuel for your accusations, but I don't think they hold water. It is just as honestly viewed when her comments are seen as simply opposing our government's actions in Syria.
GAThank you. I hope you remember the hell these individuals put Gabbard through as they tried, unsuccessfully, to cancel her. This woman is a true activist for peace, standing her ground despite the pressure. Her unwavering stance didn’t sit well with the Democrats. And when something challenges their agenda, their response is predictable: Russia, Russia, Russia.
She will be confirmed. Yes, they’ll put her through significant challenges, but she’s resilient and built to withstand whatever they throw at her.
OMG—and you’re the best judge of that? Ken provided the perfect example of being entrenched in questionable actions: the Clintons. I won’t bother making a list—you don’t seem to engage with anything that involves corrupt Democratic figures mired in scandal. But I will say, the Clintons are the king and queen of political slime.
The Clinton era is long gone and this has absolutely nothing to do with Democratic figures past or present. Trump's nominees will soon be facing confirmation hearings, well assuming that some of them aren't pulled before that time. Their lack of qualifications as well as their questionable acts and commentary will be laid bare.
This Country, the people, can no longer afford the status quo. The people have spoken on this & until we get rid of the old, tired and screwed up, we cannot have new, fresh and fired up.
I am so excited about his picks, hope they are ALL confirmed for our sake!"The people have spoken"
Well, kinda' within the parameters of counted votes, but what did the people really say?
76,464,848 voted for Trump
163,072,953 did not vote for TrumpAlrighty then, since you insist, I will leave you out of the equation; for everyone's sake, but yours.
Oops just realized this was you responding, Tim, my comment was directed at Willow....
But since you have responded in such a manner, what do you mean? What are you thinking the numbers you've shared, mean?What does this number indicate "163,072,953? "
As of 2024, there are over 231 -250 million eligible voters in the United States, with approximately about 210 million registered to vote. However, 149,789,706 people did cast their ballots.
This indicates that only a portion of voters (40 million) chose not to participate in the election, leaving their voices unheard. The turnout was lower than in 2020, but it aligns with trends seen in previous presidential elections.
While democracy offers the opportunity to vote, statistics show that some individuals, for various reasons, decide not to engage in the process. Ultimately, democracy ensures that the majority's will is reflected, but those who abstain from voting do not have their voices heard, regardless of their reasons for opting out.
I could argue bluntly that 40 million registered voters who didn’t participate had no voice in this election. For their own reasons, they chose not to engage, and as a result, their voices are silent this time around. It’s a bit late now to say "should've, could've, would've." The majority of voters who did participate now have the right to expect their agenda to be supported, as it represents a mandate. For those who chose to sit it out and are now dissatisfied, they can find comfort in knowing they will have another chance in four years, thanks to the democratic process.
"Well, kinda' within the parameters of counted votes, but what did the people really say?"
What it said -- Those who participated chose a president, period. Factually those who did not vote said nothing.."What it said -- Those who participated chose a president, period."
Who contested that? Not I nor did I infer any such thing!!
I challenge your numbers. From my source 88,863,279 eligible voters did not cast a vote. That is higher than any candidate received. Voter turnout was 63.68% or 155,803,701 cast votes of 244,666,890 eligible voters.
2024 General Election Turnout by The Election Lab of the University of Florida
https://election.lab.ufl.edu/2024-gener … n-turnout/
AB said, I quote, "The people have spoken". I see no qualifier. Do you?
Does 'the people' include the 'did not vote' crowd? Yes or no will suffice.
I am also very excited, and I feel the great majority of Trump's picks will be confirmed. Gabbard will be one of them... The people have spoken, and we are about to see big changes. And it is about time.
We can party, others may sulk, and that's alright by me.
I can’t help but smile at your assumption that you’re in a position to judge who is fit to serve. Gabbard, like Gaetz, has faced scrutiny from some of the most thorough investigators. Yet, based on your posts, it appears you believe your judgment surpasses theirs.
Oh forgot there is a time limit on politicians who clearly were and most likely still are corrupt. LOL I have given you enough air ---And who was in a position to judge all things Biden and Harris?
I can honestly say, I didn't comment on Biden's cabinet picks or his administration choices. I was always quick to call out his actual mistakes after the fact--- especially those that created problems, but I didn't waste time predicting his next move. He kept me occupied with his actual actions. As for Harris, I didn't have much to say about her as VP—she rarely seemed to do anything significant or even be visible. I would've never known she was in Washington if I hadn't heard her name mentioned.
As I've mentioned before, I have no respect for those who supported Biden. I believe he was incapable of fulfilling the responsibilities of the presidency due to his diminishing cognitive abilities. His struggles in public appearances and frequent missteps made it clear to me that he lacked the mental clarity necessary to lead the country effectively.The difference? The Trump nomination circus is bringing us the most nauseatingly unqualified and corrupt cabinet in history.
His nominees are shaking confidence in the corporate world. Stocks are tanking.
Let's remember, RFK Jr said they're putting in 5G to control our behavior...
https://x.com/realsandibachom/status/17 … 6377863446
This man shouldn't be nominated to run anything. Somebody should get him and bring him home.
Oh dear, sorry!
That would be a big negatory!
Those who chose NOT to participate, were not considered, therefore, are NOT included in the phrase, "the people have spoken".Appreciate the clarification of 'meaning'. However, I responded to what was written and thusly qualified my response with, I quote, "Well, kinda' within the parameters of counted votes, but what did the people really say?"
Forgive me, if I wasn't clear as to meaning.Yes, we have reached this moment. For those who oppose it, they must understand that we share little with voices that have been now ignored.
So, shouldn't the head of DNI have intelligence experience? Tulsi has none.
She never even served on the House Intelligence Committee during her time in Congress.
Similarly, she has never managed any agency of that size. In fact she's never managed anything.
Why is she qualified for such a position?Take a look at others who have held similar positions over the years, and you'll see this is far from unusual. In many of Biden's appointments, the individuals were not specifically trained for the roles they were placed in. This is a common occurrence in Washington. It seems you may not be fully aware of what history shows to be the norm.
A good starting point is to ask what qualifications Kamala Harris had to become president."A good starting point is to ask what qualifications Kamala Harris had to become president.".
Compared to who?. Again, the bar set so high for a woman and on the floor for the guys. She was a district attorney, attorney general, Senator and then a Vice President lmfao.... It has a candidate ever been so qualified?Compared to someone that has already served 4 years in the office.
Good point, though, about being VP. Or it might have been had she performed in that capacity instead of sitting back and doing nothing.Have you truly taken the time to dig into Kamala Harris' past, her ideologies, work record, and her time in Congress? Have you looked closely at how she performed in her various roles, from District Attorney to U.S. Senator and now as Vice President? From my perspective, while she may have looked good on paper, she has consistently proven to be ineffective in each position she’s held, including as Vice President. Her leadership record has been marred by flip-flopping on key issues like healthcare and police funding, as well as controversies over her tough-on-crime stance in California. Many of these actions seem to have been more about political strategy than genuine leadership or a commitment to her constituents. In the end, her record has raised more questions than answers about her ability to rise to the occasion in a leadership role.
Our current Director of DNI...
Director Haines has deep national security experience. During the Obama administration, she served as Assistant to the President and Principal Deputy National Security Advisor from 2015-2017, during which time she led the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee. From 2013-2015, Haines was the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. She was the first woman to hold both of these positions. She initially joined the federal government as a civil servant and over the last two decades has worked in all three branches of government, in and outside of the intelligence community, and in academia as a research scholar at Columbia University and a senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.
Haines most recently led the Transition’s National Security and Foreign Policy Team and served as a member of the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service.
TULSI COMPARES FAVORABLY?! Oh heck no.Does Haines fit into what Trump considers reasonable and proper for that office? Or are you happy because she leans left and opposes Trump in most things?
I'm happy because she has experience. Something that Tulsi lacks.
As I shared, she failed and actually was much like Harris--- invisible. I can almost guarantee Gabbard will not be invisible. She will be demanding accountability, that's why Trump appointed her. he is looking for accountability above all. You see he is coming to DC to clean house. I for one can't wait.
Bad choice --- Many have raised concerns about Avril Haines'
Many have raised doubts about Avril Haines’ effectiveness as DNI, questioning the transparency and performance of the U.S. Intelligence Community under her leadership. Despite her strong credentials in national security and intelligence, critics argue that she has struggled to address significant global threats like those posed by China, Russia, and Iran, as well as the increasing cyber risks. Her office has been criticized for a lack of clarity and responsiveness in intelligence assessments, particularly regarding classified information and global threat reporting.
Under Haines, the Intelligence Community has faced scrutiny over its slow response to emerging cybersecurity threats, with some questioning whether the various agencies are effectively coordinated in their efforts to prevent cyberattacks. While her tenure hasn’t been marked by any scandals, many feel she’s failed to meet the high expectations of the DNI role. In fact, some believe she’s been ineffective, more about holding the position than driving meaningful change in an increasingly complex national security landscape.
Given her extensive background, it might seem that she was a solid choice for the job—her experience spanning key roles in national security and law should have positioned her well for the challenges. However, such a career path can often reflect a tendency to settle into the comfort of federal paychecks, as Trump himself pointed out when he sought fresh, outside-the-box candidates. He was looking for individuals who could break away from the stale bureaucracy, not just maintain the status quo. It's a stark contrast to what many would expect from someone like Haines, whose selection embodies more of the traditional approach than the bold, reform-driven leadership Trump advocated for.
Much of Biden’s team has been criticized for underperforming and failing to meet expectations in their respective roles. The administration’s leadership struggles and inability to address key issues effectively have raised concerns. Had Biden taken more time to carefully select individuals who were truly capable and ready to tackle the nation's challenges, his presidency might have had more success. The emphasis on experienced insiders over fresh, reform-driven leadership has contributed to a lack of innovation and accountability in several key areas.
Related Discussions
- 35
Live coverage: FBI director testifies to Congress
by ptosis 7 years ago
http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu … o-congress18 minutes from now. For those who are interested.FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency head Adm. Michael Rogers on Monday will break their public silence in the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into...
- 45
Will Donald Trump's Run for President Help or Hurt America?
by Scott Belford 9 years ago
Obviously, I have my views, but I leave this as an open-ended question. There is no question he has become a lightening rod and has stirred great controversy in America, and now around the world. Is that good or bad? Does what he is saying from his platform as a serious contender...
- 19
President Trump Addresses the Nation - then democrats get to whine...
by Ralph Schwartz 6 years ago
The President will make a national address tonight on the security crisis at the southern border. Initially the networks refused to air the speech, but soon realized it would be a terrible decision with Trump's high popularity among voters. The media will however allow Democrats who...
- 17
John Bolton willing to testify before the Senate.
by Randy Godwin 5 years ago
John Bolton just announced he'd testify before the Senate if he's subpoenaed. This puts McConnell in a bind as far as not calling witnesses is concerned. Your thoughts?
- 14
The Worst President the United States Has Ever Seen
by Allen Donald 4 years ago
This is from Steve Schmidt, who ran John McCain's campaign in 2008, so it's not like he has a specific axe to grind with Trump. They've never been in direct conflict."Donald Trump has been the worst president this country has ever had. And I don't say that hyperbolically. He is. But he is a...
- 57
The future faces of Trump Administration: wiki
by ptosis 8 years ago
AG Jeff Sessions, ranked the fifth-most conservative U.S. Senator & a supporter of the "nuclear option, voted against the prohibition of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners.CIA director Mike Pompeo, opposes closing Guantánamo Bay, said Muslim leaders...