Having read a ton of Tom's earlier works I learned quickly just how corrupt governments are and the lengths they will go to for information. In a lot of Tom's books he weaves stories around infiltrators and sleepers(sleeper cells) and their ability to convince even their closest loved ones what their beliefs and political views are, so much so, that when they're finally revealed as spies no one can believe it. Some cells stay hidden for two and three generations before they are called up for their missions, while some spend their entire lives infiltrating and relaying information, and others are just in and out spies, used and discarded. Infiltration isn't just a black hat action. If the white hats have been planning this as long as we've been told I'm sure there are thousands of operatives short and long term that have infiltrated the enemy's camp. This is why I'm waiting to see what Tulsi's, and others, do long term.
My perspective on Tulsi as a Tom Clancy fan, and why I've reserved judgment. Short and to the point.
Interesting take. Plausible. So let's run through the thought experiment here then.
if she's a white hat infiltrator, playing the role of black hat, it doesn't matter, why would we elect someone who publicly wears/wore a black hat?
Who said anything about electing her, right? Right. My point is, whatever her missions, WH or BH, double agent, triple agent, mercenary, whatever the case, it is unreasonable to expect or count on the people that are awake to the game, normies Republicans, or even to programmed Dem Droids (I'll explain why in a moment) to look at a Tulsi character without enormous skepticism and distrust. To trust a creature like Gabbard is unreasonable and illogical.
Here's why I think it is plausible she is a good actor; Using game theory, a boardgame piece like Tulsi Gabbard has very limited use as a genuine candidate for either of the 2 camps. If the uniparty were not being ousted from the Republican party post-2017, Gabbard's utility would have been entirely different. Remember Hillary was supposed to win. Interestingly Gabbard did a lot to split the DNC voters towards Bernie Sanders during the 2016 cycle, and indirectly it weakened Hillary's numbers and even helped Trump's numbers in some instances. The Bernie bros that were not Blue No Matter Who flipped to some degree. CNN/Hillary even spread a rumour that Tulsi was being groomed by Russia in 2019 (ahead of the COVID//Floyd/Biden run), the DNC, or WH (if Hillary was infact neutralized) didn't want Gabbard to run. But Russia Russia Russia narratives are swampy narratives, so that one doesn't read as WH to me. So if Hillary was not supposed to lose and Gabbard pushed the scale just a little bit and helped that happen, could that be her actual function on the board? Well, she just did it again ahead of midterms, so I would say yeah. On this boardgame this is exactly what the Tulsi Gabbard piece was made to do. She's not there for her voting record or to represent constituents. She's an election saboteur. I don't think she has any intention of ever being a genuine representative. The congressional track record required to maintain position in the enemy camp would make her unelectable to either side once her utility as a saboteur is expended.
"She's jumping off the sinking ship, we should be outraged!"
Losing the forest for the trees. The ship is sinking.