Tulsi as director of national intelligence

[SassyLady]

President-elect Trump announced on Wednesday that he is appointing Tulsi Gabbard to serve as director of national intelligence in his new Cabinet.

In a statement, Trump said that the former congresswoman "has fought for our Country and the Freedoms of all Americans." Gabbard served as a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii from 2013 to 2021 before becoming an Independent and then recently joined the GOP.

"As a former Candidate for the Democrat Presidential Nomination, she has broad support in both Parties - She is now a proud Republican!" Trump's statement added. "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!"

[Gunny]

Tulsi Gabbard Has Lauded Religious Leader Accused of Running 'Abusive' Cult (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/tulsi-gabbard-has-lauded-religious-leader-accused-of-running-abusive-cult/ar-AA1u6hRm?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=f0a9649ad2ad4e9885578a2f4683061e&ei=5)

[fj1200]

Count me as having questions about this pick too.

[SassyLady]

Count me as having questions about this pick too.

Then post a name of who you think would be your choice if you were president.

That might be scary for you though because the last time you started a thread was in January when you said trump would pick Scott as his VP.

[fj1200]

Then post a name of who you think would be your choice if you were president.

That might be scary for you though because the last time you started a thread was in January when you said trump would pick Scott as his VP.

The list that include scary for me doesn't have DP anywhere on the list. Thanks for the reminder; Scott was a superior pick.

[SassyLady]

The list that include scary for me doesn't have DP anywhere on the list. Thanks for the reminder; Scott was a superior pick.
What? You can't think of anyone you would pick as director of intelligence. Yep, typical fj, it is so much easier to sit back and pick apart everyone else's pick than come up with your own and defend it.

[Gunny]

What? You can't think of anyone you would pick as director of intelligence. Yep, typical fj, it is so much easier to sit back and pick apart everyone else's pick than come up with your own and defend it.

Don't need a name to state she isn't qualified for the position. It's about her, not comparison to someone else.

[SassyLady]

Don't need a name to state she isn't qualified for the position. It's about her, not comparison to someone else.

Then tell me what you think would qualify someone to be DNI who isn't already a part of the bureaucracy?

[NightTrain]

Tulsi Gabbard Has Lauded Religious Leader Accused of Running 'Abusive' Cult (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/tulsi-gabbard-has-lauded-religious-leader-accused-of-running-abusive-cult/ar-AA1u6hRm?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=f0a9649ad2ad4e9885578a2f4683061e&ei=5)

May I suggest getting your news spin from someone less biased than MSNBC? Jesus.

Maybe we can get The View's take on the state of things next.


Count me as having questions about this pick too.

What exactly is the problem with her? Lt. Col not enough rank and military savvy? Congresswoman not enough political experience? Probably way too Populist, amirite?

The fuck is wrong with both of you? You both need to recalibrate. Fetterman is literally offering more honest assessments of Trump's picks than both of you. You guys remember who he is, right?

[fj1200]

What? You can't think of anyone you would pick as director of intelligence. Yep, typical fj, it is so much easier to sit back and pick apart everyone else's pick than come up with your own and defend it.

Oh brother. I'm here to be the counter to your sycophantic cheerleader role.


Then tell me what you think would qualify someone to be DNI who isn't already a part of the bureaucracy?

That's your problem. For some reason you demand someone not part of the bureaucracy. I'm sure that there are hundreds of possibilities who are available to get the job done and are not beholden to the bureaucracy. Choosing an outsider is not the automatic win you think it is because it leads to someone who makes the TV rounds. Do I have a rolodex of options? No. Would a dart board lead to a better choice than some of the ones we've seen? Yes.

[fj1200]

What exactly is the problem with her? Lt. Col not enough rank and military savvy? Congresswoman not enough political experience? Probably way too Populist, amirite?

The fuck is wrong with both of you? You both need to recalibrate. Fetterman is literally offering more honest assessments of Trump's picks than both of you. You guys remember who he is, right?

Geez! I just said I wasn't a fan. It's not like it's treason.

[NightTrain]

Geez! I just said I wasn't a fan. It's not like it's treason.


Don't play coy. Own your constant backbiting. You both have been acting like a couple of The View harpies for quite a while now.

[fj1200]

Don't play coy. Own your constant backbiting. You both have been acting like a couple of The View harpies for quite a while now.

:rolleyes: It's demanded that I post a name. What is a name? There's a million names and posting names leads to discussion of the name and not the premise. Sassy says post a name of someone not in the bureaucracy. Why is that an automatic requirement? He's going to nominate a million names over the next two+ months and all we're doing here is taking a look at some of them. Are you going to agree with each and every one of them? He's going to nail each one? His track record 8 years ago in nominating wasn't exactly stellar IIRC, looking at Sessions and Barr for example who were great until they weren't great, so it's reasonable to say that hey, maybe that he or she isn't the best option for Secretary of whatever.

[Kathianne]

I don't have any issue with Tulsi, I've admired her for years. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?67981-Tulsi-Gabbard-Spoiler&highlight=tulsi+party) I think she has the qualifications and hope she does a great job.

At the same time, I don't have a problem with people posting different different points of view, nor bringing up info I didn't know. Thankfully that happens with some regularity, often rev, it's what makes it worth coming back day after day.

So let's agree to disagree from time-to-time, civilly.

[NightTrain]

:rolleyes: It's demanded that I post a name. What is a name? There's a million names and posting names leads to discussion of the name and not the premise. Sassy says post a name of someone not in the bureaucracy. Why is that an automatic requirement? He's going to nominate a million names over the next two+ months and all we're doing here is taking a look at some of them. Are you going to agree with each and every one of them? He's going to nail each one? His track record 8 years ago in nominating wasn't exactly stellar IIRC, looking at Sessions and Barr for example who were great until they weren't great, so it's reasonable to say that hey, maybe that he or she isn't the best option for Secretary of whatever.


I don't know if you've noticed, but our current makeup of government has gone wildly off the rails lately. The goal is to cut the cancer out of the offending agencies, military and the bureacracy, and you don't go about that by using the swamp beasts currently residing there.

Of course outsiders are the best choice. Casting around for another McCain or Romney is not going to fly. Renegades are being selected who are motivated to make a real meaningful change are how this is all playing out and has the best chance to work with this goal.

[fj1200]

I don't know if you've noticed, but our current makeup of government has gone wildly off the rails lately. The goal is to cut the cancer out of the offending agencies, military and the bureacracy, and you don't go about that by using the swamp beasts currently residing there.

Of course outsiders are the best choice. Casting around for another McCain or Romney is not going to fly. Renegades are being selected who are motivated to make a real meaningful change are how this is all playing out and has the best chance to work with this goal.

You may be absolutely correct and I might be absolutely wrong but I still have questions but if all the internal options are merely "beasts" to be leery of then seems we're screwed either way.

[Kathianne]

I don't know if you've noticed, but our current makeup of government has gone wildly off the rails lately. The goal is to cut the cancer out of the offending agencies, military and the bureacracy, and you don't go about that by using the swamp beasts currently residing there.

Of course outsiders are the best choice. Casting around for another McCain or Romney is not going to fly. Renegades are being selected who are motivated to make a real meaningful change are how this is all playing out and has the best chance to work with this goal.


Here I disagree, there are good people serving, that have for years. Just because Trump doesn't like them, doesn't mean they haven't done good or mean well too. Indeed, when looking at someone like Gaetz, you'd have to look far and wide to find some worse choice; even keeping Garland might well be better.

[SassyLady]

Jordan Peterson on Tulsi

https://youtu.be/6ucstzOIMN8?si=JYfQlMDvQ7Wr86yZ

There is transcript available if you don't want to listen to video.

[NightTrain]

You may be absolutely correct and I might be absolutely wrong but I still have questions but if all the internal options are merely "beasts" to be leery of then seems we're screwed either way.


Here I disagree, there are good people serving, that have for years. Just because Trump doesn't like them, doesn't mean they haven't done good or mean well too. Indeed, when looking at someone like Gaetz, you'd have to look far and wide to find some worse choice; even keeping Garland might well be better.


I should clarify that I'm speaking primarily about management. Of course there's good footsoldiers; it's the brass that's been corrupted.

Frinstance! The entire 7th floor of the FBI. Sack every one of them - rumor has it that they're shitting bricks right now and planning their exodus. Ditto with CIA. Tulsi will figure that out and probably already has a pretty good idea of the bad actors.

Most of them exposed themselves after Trump's 2020 loss and were absolutely convinced that he was finished, and a bit of gloating was had. Those news stories and video clips are being looked at heavily.

[Kathianne]

I should clarify that I'm speaking primarily about management. Of course there's good footsoldiers; it's the brass that's been corrupted.

Frinstance! The entire 7th floor of the FBI. Sack every one of them - rumor has it that they're shitting bricks right now and planning their exodus. Ditto with CIA. Tulsi will figure that out and probably already has a pretty good idea of the bad actors.

Most of them exposed themselves after Trump's 2020 loss and were absolutely convinced that he was finished, and a bit of gloating was had. Those news stories and video clips are being looked at heavily.


OK, that I CAN agree with. I think the weaponization of the executive (police) branch began under Obama and has exploded under Biden. I admit I was surprised I didn't see any with Trump the first time, whether by choice or not understanding how? I sure hope he gets rid of the worst of them and doesn't add his own version.

[Gunny]

OK, that I CAN agree with. I think the weaponization of the executive (police) branch began under Obama and has exploded under Biden. I admit I was surprised I didn't see any with Trump the first time, whether by choice or not understanding how? I sure hope he gets rid of the worst of them and doesn't add his own version.

Clinton.

[revelarts]

Here I disagree, there are good people serving, that have for years. Just because Trump doesn't like them, doesn't mean they haven't done good or mean well too. Indeed, when looking at someone like Gaetz, you'd have to look far and wide to find some worse choice; even keeping Garland might well be better.

There's no doubt there are great people working in every agency & dept..
The problem is knowing who they are. Especially when the upper management is controlled by many who clearly are NOT.
Unless you're hiring former whistle blowers found to be honest in court. Which a lot of people would question as well.

....

OK, that I CAN agree with. I think the weaponization of the executive (police) branch began under Obama and has exploded under Biden. I admit I was surprised I didn't see any with Trump the first time, whether by choice or not understanding how? I sure hope he gets rid of the worst of them and doesn't add his own version.

Clinton.

J Edgar Hoover