Tulsi Gabbard’s Nomination Is a National-Security Risk | The Senate can stop her.
Tulsi Gabbard’s Nomination Is a National-Security Risk | The Senate can stop her.
I'll note that the Trump team has planned on skipping the usual security clearance process
Well, unless they cave because they are getting death threats from magaferbrainz and threats to their career from the likes of Tommy GROOMERville.
Russian finally won the cold war
Yep.
I just can't get over how easy and cheap it was.
Probably could have bought one less nuke at the onset, put the money in a bank for 70 years and been able to pay for everything with that money and still have some ruble left over to destabilize Europe with.
Not the intelligence community 😢
Tulsi Gabbard is a shitty person and an opportunist but if she actually undermined the effectiveness of the intelligence community (which remains to be seen), it'd be a good thing. Like, oh no, what if they get mismanaged to the point where they can't infiltrate leftist groups or coup governments? What if they don't assassinate Assad and create a power vacuum for a group like ISIS to take over? The horror!
People have such bizarre, incomprehensible politics. "Trump is a fascist, but it's super important that we make sure he has a highly effective spy network." What? It boggles my mind that even in "normal" times, people care about the effectiveness of organizations that are illegally spying on all of us and which have brought chaos and war to every corner of the globe.
Anarcho-CIAism, not even once.
Yeah, I'd hate to burst your bubble, but they're only going to be less effective against right-wing organizations. If anything left-wing groups have more to fear, nor less.
I know, anything western is bad in your opinion, but they are trying to strengthen right-wing authoritarianism. Whatever you claim to believe in is going to suffer from it, though I don't want to accuse you of being honest with your claims.
You're trying to pick a fight with me for some reason, but nothing you said contradicts anything I said, but does contradict the article's position. You're saying that the agencies will be just as competent, but wrongly directed under Trump, which I completely agree with. The article is whining that they won't be competently run, which is only a problem because of the assumption that their objectives would be good things. If that assumption isn't true (it isn't) and the things they're trying to do are bad, then it would obviously be better if they persued those objectives ineffectively, and the article would make no sense.
Gabbard is stunningly unqualified for almost any Cabinet post, but especially for ODNI. She has no qualifications as an intelligence professional—literally none. She has no significant experience directing or managing much of anything.
Any reasonable person on the left should recognize that an incompetent and unqualified person being in charge of Trump's spy network is the best case reasonable possibility. The idea of anyone claiming to be on the left clutching pearls about the intelligence community being incompetently run under Trump is completely absurd and laughable.
The national security risk is why she was picked, hope that helps writers at the Atlantic.
The national security risk is the one who picked her.
I've listened to one of her Rogan podcasts. Hillary was absolutely right about her being a Russian puppet. T She parrots so much Russian propaganda it's asinine.
What I hate about the current situation is that there's no room for "Russia is a significant power that won't suddenly vanish, so maybe if we can avoid being at complete loggerheads with them 24/7, it might avoid decades of tension and expensive military grandstanding."
You must either fellate Putin or demand the entire 82 billion square kilometres of the Russian state turned to glass. No other options. It worries me that any more nuanced takes on Russia get pushed into the "Kremlin talking points" file.
Not that she isn't a screwball all on her own, but we could use a less militaristic take here.
Nope. They can't and won't.
Dumb fucking article asking for reason to the wrong crowd.
The Senate absolutely can stop her, if they choose to. They probably won't.
Some of them are talking publicly about Gaetz, so they might. Or, Trump might nominate so many other Russian assets that Gabbard looks goid in comparison and sneaks through. Or, recess might be called, allowing Trump to appoint his entire slate of doom with no opposition.
We’ll find out in February.
Thanks, non-voters!
i promise im not defending protest or non voters (i need to specify this before im picked apart by a swarm of piranhas) but does no one realize that this massive rift in our social fabric is no longer just a political issue? would defeating trump this year have ended the rise of fascism? the intensifying hatred of minorities, the puritanism, the scapegoating, the violence? kicking the can down the road to 2028 would have accomplished nothing but delaying the inevitable.
if trumps GOP is using the rhetoric they use purely for the purposes of gaining power, had they not gained power in this election they would have just intensified their rhetoric even more and gained power in 2028 instead. these people are literally willing to destroy American society to enrich themselves and their friends.
i voted, you voted, pretty sure everyone on lemmy (worth acknowledging anyway) voted. it was with an empty feeling in my gut though because ballots just determine presidents, they are not a panacea
Thanks regular voters too!
😂
No, it’s not. It’s a risk to those who have been breaking the law, including those who put her on a watchlist. I hope she’s planning to charge every one of them.
I bet the shredders in DC are working at their limits this week.
It’s a risk to those who have been breaking the law, including those who put her on a watchlist.
LOL, mmmkay.
Is she the reincarnation of Aaron Burr?