Gabbard nominated as Director of National Intelligence

[Estro Felino]

The rebel forces opposed to both the terrorist group ISIS and the human rights raping dictator Assad

yes, sure.

 

[wellwisher]

One analyst called her nomination "amateur hour" and that she's not qualified. He said Trump is trating this administration as an episode of the Apprentise where we get to see if the contestants are up to the challenge. Of course world peace and national security stands in the balance if they fail.

Is any Trump voter regreting their vote yet?

If you recall many of Biden and Harris's cabinet picks were based on DEI; the first cross dressing monkey with stripes. It was not about qualifications, but about being unique demographics, rendering the choices historical, in their own eyes. Why complain now? Gabbard would be the first Hawaiian Female to have that position. You guys are so prejudice against Hawaii and females. Just because you guys stabbed her in the back does not mean she will stab you in front.

Or is it really because the status quo of DEI plants are afraid of a change that could render them accountable? Even Harris was picked because of the watered down DEI standards; first black female VP and maybe first black and female President. She was allowed by the RNC since they knew she would become a liability.

I would think the Democrats would be eager to have Trump to shoot himself in the foot, with poor cabinets picks. But theDNC now seems so concerned for Trump's welfare, that they are helping him pre screen and micromanage his cabinets picks, so he does not stumble. The DNC has come over to MAGA. Welcome aboard, but stand over there, for now, so we can de-louse you.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, you said that already.
I asked who these people are.

I would rather not name names at this point. I would presume these people already know who they are.

I actually care about protecting democracy and supporting democratic countries who take a stand against tyrants and dictators who try to destroy democracy.

So, if the West didn't support Ukraine, you would still insist that they do? Most people just seem to be going with the flow; they're not opposing Western aid to Ukraine but not going out of their way to support it or challenge detractors. I was just trying to discern if you were taking this stance because it aligns with your government, or if you would take the same stance either way.

And let's also not forget that we are talking about a tyrant dictator who at every turn threatens our western society with cyber attacks, sabotage, troll farms and nuclear weapons.

Well, yes, hostility does beget hostility. Our government does things to them, too. That's how cold wars usually work. That's why it is best to try to avoid the kind of tense, hostile situations that our leaders (and their cheerleaders) seem hellbent on creating while disingenuously claiming that it's all about "protecting democracy." It's a reckless and irresponsible position to take.

That's not whataboutism because it concerns the same conflict. We are talking about that conflict.

It is if you're claiming that Ukraine holds some kind of moral high ground here. If they're truly taking the high road here, we would see evidence of it. If it's more a case of mutual combat and both sides share the blame, then that's all the more reason for the West to stay out of it and let them fight it out on their own.

That's delusional. Russia attacked from several sides and went for Kiev. If Ukraine would lay down their weapons, the Russian army would absolutely march on into Kiev. Zelensky and the rest of his administration is on their death list.

That doesn't mean their existence is "literally threatened." I think that's a gross exaggeration based on speculation, nothing more.

Not the point. The point is that if a country is invaded, drafting occurs. Including people who don't want to fight.
This is not some special point to be made about Ukraine. This is/was the case in every country that went to war, ever, if and when the existing army wasn't sufficient.

I'm aware of this, but I'm still against conscription on general principle. After a certain point, countries start to run out of military age men and resort to drafting young boys and old men.

Your guess doesn't mean anything to me. Bring evidence.
Note also that there is also a difference between speaking out against war and collaborating with the enemy, obviously.

Your earlier statement was that you're "not seeing massive discontent or protests or whatever from Ukrainian citizens demanding their governments to surrender." This would suggest an implied claim that there is little or no internal opposition to the war within Ukraine, based solely on what you're "not seeing." I was suggesting that there could be other reasons why you're "not seeing" that.

You're mixing things up. I was speaking in general. And Russia most definitely is engaged in propaganda and misinformation for the purpose of undermining democracy in the west. It is well known that it does so with massive troll farms, cyber attacks, sabotages, etc.

The West is perfectly capable of undermining its own democracy on its own. It certainly doesn't need the Russians' help.

Of course, it doesn't stop the mechanisms of the world we live in, and I don't deny that there are governments and factions who are up to no good, engaging in propaganda, misinformation, along with troll farms, cyber attacks, sabotage, etc. I've heard that even Iran and North Korea have been getting in on the action, although they're not the only ones.

Under those circumstances, I think our interests would be better served if we sought to avoid escalation of hostilities and tried to improve relations. We're not dealing with devils or phantoms here. These are human beings with the ability to talk and reason, and we can talk to them and try to resolve our differences. What else can we do?

It's either that, or we start building bomb shelters. Which would you prefer?

Yes, I am of that opinion. But ultimately what Ukraine does is Ukraine's decision.
I'm glad they choose to take a stand and try and fight of the Russians and we, as the democratic west, have a moral obligation to answer their call for help.

When you frame it as a "moral obligation" for the democratic West, that opens up quite the can of worms, don't you think? It's because of this kind of rhetoric and the word choice used that I perceive that your position goes beyond merely helping Ukraine against an invader just based on that principle alone. If we want to talk about "moral obligations," well, maybe we can do that in another thread.

Some could argue that we have a moral obligation to stay out of other countries' business. Others might argue that if our government is really so concerned about fulfilling its moral obligations, then they should do a better job at being consistent at it. Do you really expect me to believe that this is all about "moral obligations" and that it's just the West taking the high road and "doing the right thing"?

But if they were to choose to surrender and accept Russian rule and turn into Belarus 2.0, that would be their choice. I wouldn't like it and I think Europe most definitely should take action to guard themselves against the potential consequences of such, but I nevertheless would respect their decision.

Okay. I don't think it would come to that, though.

I don't go back and forward on this point at all.

I have my personal opinion while at the same time respect the decision made by Ukraine.
My opinion is that they should fight and take a stand against invading tyrants to protect their sovereignty and democracy. It is also my opinion that the west has a moral obligation to answer their call for help.

My opinion is also that what Ukraine does in response to that invasion is ultimately their decision. And we should respect that decision.
If they decide to surrender and turn into Belarus 2.0, I'ld be disappointed and it would be bad for Europe and by extension the entire democratic west at large. And we should take appropriate action in response. But respecting Ukraine's sovereignty also means accepting their choice even if we don't agree with it.

I agree with respecting other countries' sovereignty, but I question the position regarding the West's "moral obligations."

This isn't really about "Russian propaganda" or people "collaborating with the enemy," either, at least not on my part. I think what's pretty obvious here is that there's been a legacy of resentment and bad blood over what happened in the Soviet period, and they just don't like each other very much. Plus, there were a number of loose ends which weren't really addressed at the time of their hasty and hurried breakup back in 1991. I remember when this all happened, so I'm recalling from memory. I'm not just relying on one source or another or falling for propaganda. Believe me, I know BS when I see it.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I mean... I am very sorry for the Obamas and the Clintons but their mistakes will be carved in history.

And now people like Gabbard need to fix them.

They will make their own catastrophic mistakes as all politicians do.
It is the common man who pays for and eventually nullify those mistakes. But the effects do not go away.

 

[Sargonski]

Reading comprehension problems?
You were replying to @F1fan who was talking about someone.

Not on my end .. seems the comprehension problem is somewhere else .. What does F1 projecting love for tyrants and dictators .. onto some poster you wish to demonize have to do with Tulsi Gabbard being a hero of the People. ? Do you not comprehend your fallacy Ad Hominum ? demonization of the messenger rather than addressing the message is not an argument for much .. now is it .. Right !

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

yes, sure.

Btw, wonna buy a bridge? Never used, excellent condition.
Normally it's 2 million, but for you, I'll let it go for 3 million.

 

[Sargonski]

The rebel forces opposed to both the terrorist group ISIS and the human rights raping dictator Assad

No .. Obama supported the Islamic State .. you have your facts wrong .. while there may have been a few moderate soldiers interspersed within the larger radical Islamist force .. any such notion was gone by 2013 when a new Islamic state was declared .. these the folks Obama - along with a coalition of 30 other Nations ... was aiding supporting .. supplying both before and after the creation of a new Islamic State . and after .. this was the only support going to the anti Assad force .. because this was the only anti assad force. and sorry .. the Isamic State were not "Moderate Rebels" .. the Islamic State was ruled by Al Qaeda and Spawn ..

It was in Syria where Genocide Joe earned his nick. Do you need Joe to tell you personally there were no Moderates in the fight ?! Old foot im mouth Joe .. gonna miss those moments.

 

[Sargonski]

Btw, wonna buy a bridge? Never used, excellent condition.
Normally it's 2 million, but for you, I'll let it go for 3 million.

Um .. think it was you who bought into Obamas "Moderate Rebel Lie" so let us take log out of own eye

yes, sure.

Thats what Tulsi's "Stop arming Terrorist Act" was all about -- to stop arming the 911 terrorist group .. Al Qaeda .. and other Spawn of El Saud - such as ISIS .. both a spawn of Al Qaeda and El Saud .. El Saud handing out TOW missiles to the terrorists like candy . Hillary was sending weapons from Benghazi .. they brought over all the left over stuff from the war in Yugoslavia ...

How America Armed Terrorists in Syria​

How America Armed Terrorists in Syria

Another Middle East debacle

www.theamericanconservative.com

 

[Estro Felino]

Um .. think it was you who bought into Obamas "Moderate Rebel Lie" so let us take log out of own eye


Thats what Tulsi's "Stop arming Terrorist Act" was all about -- to stop arming the 911 terrorist group .. Al Qaeda .. and other Spawn of El Saud - such as ISIS .. both a spawn of Al Qaeda and El Saud .. El Saud handing out TOW missiles to the terrorists like candy . Hillary was sending weapons from Benghazi .. the brought over all the left over stuff from the war in Yugoslavia ...

How America Armed Terrorists in Syria​

How America Armed Terrorists in Syria

Another Middle East debacle

www.theamericanconservative.com

Yeah...
Rai, our state television had sent a journalist to interview him.
This interview should be watched by every NATO country.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would rather not name names at this point. I would presume these people already know who they are.

Right, right. I'll just assume these mysterious people exist then.

So, if the West didn't support Ukraine, you would still insist that they do?

Strange thing to say. Me "insisting" on something isn't going to make "the west" do anything.
But I would certainly think it would be morally wrong not to.

I was just trying to discern if you were taking this stance because it aligns with your government, or if you would take the same stance either way.

My opinions wouldn't change regardless.

Well, yes, hostility does beget hostility. Our government does things to them, too.

Such as?

That's how cold wars usually work. That's why it is best to try to avoid the kind of tense, hostile situations that our leaders (and their cheerleaders) seem hellbent on creating while disingenuously claiming that it's all about "protecting democracy." It's a reckless and irresponsible position to take.

So you feel like we should not respond and just turn a blind eye to a foreign entity hacking our institutions, trying to manipulate our electorate, sabotaging our infrastructure, etc?

It is if you're claiming that Ukraine holds some kind of moral high ground here.

Off course they do.

If they're truly taking the high road here, we would see evidence of it. If it's more a case of mutual combat and both sides share the blame, then that's all the more reason for the West to stay out of it and let them fight it out on their own.

Russia invaded Ukraine after 8 years of mingling, funding, training, supporting and leading separatists and causing internal strife.
Ukraine is the victim here.

It's like trying to say a rape victim shares in the blame because she was wearing a miniskirt.
Despicable.

That doesn't mean their existence is "literally threatened." I think that's a gross exaggeration based on speculation, nothing more.

Disagree.

Your earlier statement was that you're "not seeing massive discontent or protests or whatever from Ukrainian citizens demanding their governments to surrender." This would suggest an implied claim that there is little or no internal opposition to the war within Ukraine, based solely on what you're "not seeing."

Some nuance....
I'ld imagine there is much opposition to war in Ukraine.
The real question is if there is much opposition to Ukraine trying to defend itself.
Those are two very different things.

I was suggesting that there could be other reasons why you're "not seeing" that.

Yeah, you were "suggesting" that. You have however shared zero evidence supporting that.
It's trivial to share such evidence for such on the side of Russia.
Is it equally trivial on the side of Ukraine? I'm not aware of such evidence. Maybe you are? I'ld be most interested.

The West is perfectly capable of undermining its own democracy on its own. It certainly doesn't need the Russians' help.

Of course, it doesn't stop the mechanisms of the world we live in, and I don't deny that there are governments and factions who are up to no good, engaging in propaganda, misinformation, along with troll farms, cyber attacks, sabotage, etc. I've heard that even Iran and North Korea have been getting in on the action, although they're not the only ones.

Under those circumstances, I think our interests would be better served if we sought to avoid escalation of hostilities and tried to improve relations. We're not dealing with devils or phantoms here. These are human beings with the ability to talk and reason, and we can talk to them and try to resolve our differences. What else can we do?

The problem with such is that you need trustworthy partners and goodwill on both sides. As it stands, Putin can not be trusted. It's lie after lie.
He says one thing and does another. This is a problem.

When you frame it as a "moral obligation" for the democratic West, that opens up quite the can of worms, don't you think? It's because of this kind of rhetoric and the word choice used that I perceive that your position goes beyond merely helping Ukraine against an invader just based on that principle alone. If we want to talk about "moral obligations," well, maybe we can do that in another thread.

This whole conversation probably should move to another thread.
But I disagree. Heavily. I think a much bigger can of worms would open if we would not fulfill that moral obligation and let tyrants and dictators just roll over sovereign democratic nations while ignoring their plea of help.

Fighting sucks. Being cowards to appease bullies sucks even more.

Some could argue that we have a moral obligation to stay out of other countries' business.

All of Europe would be speaking German and jews wouldn't exist today, if such reasoning were the standard.

Others might argue that if our government is really so concerned about fulfilling its moral obligations, then they should do a better job at being consistent at it. Do you really expect me to believe that this is all about "moral obligations" and that it's just the West taking the high road and "doing the right thing"?

No, there's self interest involved also. One doesn't exclude the other.

Okay. I don't think it would come to that, though.

I'll bet my life on it.

Believe me, I know BS when I see it.

Then I guess you have no problems seeing the BS spewed by russian reasons given for this supposed "special military operation".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not on my end .. seems the comprehension problem is somewhere else .. What does F1 projecting love for tyrants and dictators .. onto some poster you wish to demonize have to do with Tulsi Gabbard being a hero of the People. ? Do you not comprehend your fallacy Ad Hominum ? demonization of the messenger rather than addressing the message is not an argument for much .. now is it .. Right !

Read @F1fan 's post in context and perhaps then you'll understand.

 

[Sargonski]

Yeah...
Rai, our state television had sent a journalist to interview him.
This interview should be watched by every NATO country.

Well .. every participant in Obama's coalition of the willing should be hauled before war crimes Tribunal .. Genocide Joe already earned his "Complicity in war crimes" stripe for Yemen .. given by the ICC. Funny how they never did get around to handing out penalties for Syria .. 500,000 dead civilians .. in the name of creation of a Strict Sharia Vunderland .. dark age style . complete with daily executions in inventive ways .. pogroms .. mass rape .. forced marriage .. forced conversion .. and all the Joys of the Salafi Islamist extremist.

 

[Sargonski]

Read @F1fan 's post in context and perhaps then you'll understand.

what part of "name calling" is not an argument for much -- .. not a valid argument .. is not sinking in ?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No .. Obama supported the Islamic State .. you have your facts wrong .. while there may have been a few moderate soldiers interspersed within the larger radical Islamist force .. any such notion was gone by 2013 when a new Islamic state was declared .. these the folks Obama - along with a coalition of 30 other Nations ... was aiding supporting .. supplying both before and after the creation of a new Islamic State . and after .. this was the only support going to the anti Assad force .. because this was the only anti assad force. and sorry .. the Isamic State were not "Moderate Rebels" .. the Islamic State was ruled by Al Qaeda and Spawn ..

ISIS evolved from Al-qaida in Iraq founded by Zarqawi in Iraq. After his death in 2006 it rebranded itself into Islamic State in Iraq.
The Obama administration was withdrawing troops from Iraq and it has been argued that this created a power vacuum which was exploited by ISI to expand and flourish.

In 2011 Syrian civil war broke out and ISI made us of the chaos that followed to gain territory and established itself as ISIS in June 2014.
As soon as August 2014, so no more then 2 months later, the US along with coalition forces started bombing ISIS position in Syria and Iraq and fighting against them.

The idea that Obama created the group is insanity beyond absurd.

It was in Syria where Genocide Joe earned his nick. Do you need Joe to tell you personally there were no Moderates in the fight ?! Old foot im mouth Joe .. gonna miss those moments.

??

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

what part of "name calling" is not an argument for much -- .. not a valid argument .. is not sinking in ?

Yea, ok. Not really interested if all you have are misrepresentations in bad faith.

Take care now.

 

[F1fan]

Who are you talking about "Glorifies tyrants and dictators" .. Gabbard does no such thing .. ?

Given her sympatheic views on Russia she can't be trusted. Few of Trump's picks so far can be trusted for the jobs they are said to run. It is showing that Trump's judgment is very poor, and there are more questions about his mental health.

 

[F1fan]

In those regions Russian is spoken. They feel like Russians.
It's like denying Catalonia the right to be an independent country.

There was no political process, no voting. All that happened was Russia invaded a soverign nation, which is illelag. He couldn't even win the war. I don' know what happened to Russians since 1943 but today they are a bunch of pussies. It could be that many soldiers know they are waging an illegal war, and have a war criminal as leader.

 

[F1fan]

If you recall many of Biden and Harris's cabinet picks were based on DEI;

False. Don't you know by now that we understand you are little more than a right wing parrot that repeats disinformation? And like other MAGAs you never offer evidence or an argument.

Gabbard would be the first Hawaiian Female to have that position.

Who cares? Talk about DEI type thinking. Jesus, don't you guys think before writing?

You guys are so prejudice against Hawaii and females. Just because you guys stabbed her in the back does not mean she will stab you in front.

OMG, where did this come from? Her being from Hawaii is completely irrelevant. Her being a Russian sympathizer IS a problem. She can't be trusted. Have you noticed many Republicans don't trust her either?

Or is it really because the status quo of DEI plants are afraid of a change that could render them accountable? Even Harris was picked because of the watered down DEI standards; first black female VP and maybe first black and female President. She was allowed by the RNC since they knew she would become a liability.

It's because she can't be trusted.

I would think the Democrats would be eager to have Trump to shoot himself in the foot, with poor cabinets picks. But theDNC now seems so concerned for Trump's welfare, that they are helping him pre screen and micromanage his cabinets picks, so he does not stumble. The DNC has come over to MAGA. Welcome aboard, but stand over there, for now, so we can de-louse you.

She can't be trusted, and neither can Trump. He's been reported as being a national security risk himself. We have no idea we are in for. Our allies will certainly be careful what they tell a Trump admnistration given their coziness with Russia, our adversary.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Given her sympatheic views on Russia she can't be trusted. Few of Trump's picks so far can be trusted for the jobs they are said to run. It is showing that Trump's judgment is very poor, and there are more questions about his mental health.

Yeah, like an anti-vaxxer and fan of "alternative medicine" for the department of health. Good luck with that.
Soon in a pharmacy near you: healing crystals.

 

[F1fan]

Not on my end .. seems the comprehension problem is somewhere else .. What does F1 projecting love for tyrants and dictators ..

Where have I ever expressed any such thing? I am pro-democracy, pro-freedom, and pro-Ukraine. I see Trump, putin, Orban, and Netanyahu as threats to democracy and global stability.

onto some poster you wish to demonize have to do with Tulsi Gabbard being a hero of the People. ?

She's a hero of the far right, and many Russians who have criminal aims in Ukraine.

Do you not comprehend your fallacy Ad Hominum ? demonization of the messenger rather than addressing the message is not an argument for much .. now is it .. Right !

Like you're ugly and have bad breath, so your claims are untrue? I saw no such thing.