Tulsi Gabbard talking about some Democrats wanting to stop Trump’s secret service detail- putting him in danger. She’s doing her part to wake people up
(youtube.com)
🫡 THE GREAT AWAKENING 🔆
I think it is about time that anons reflected on the lay of the land and stop trying to see everything as perfect black and white. There is a broad spectrum of people out there. Some, like we privileged (or blessed?) anons were able to recognize the veracity and significance of the Q operation, some earlier, some later. Still other people are not Q aware or awake but are devotedly MAGA in their perspectives.
But just as there are white hats, there is certainly a very small minority of (qualified) humans who are deeply evil and who are motivated by the darkest evil. Then, there are those that are fooled, misled, etc, and those that are awake and actively working for human liberty. And there is that very broad spectrum of people int he middle stream, who get and understand SOME stuff, but who do not get and understand OTHER stuff.
Someone compared Gabbard to Crenshaw. Yet, in my view, Crenshaw is clearly a bad player serving a false agenda, pretending to be something he isn't. But Gabbard doesn't quite come across like that. Could she be attempting to position herself as a gatekeeper, like Owens, like so many others (Shapiro comes to mind)? It's possible, but if we look at every person with glasses that are only black and white, we undermine the important work of waking up the whole and mobilizing the mainstream to MOVE IN A certain DIRECTION.
And ultimately, that is what's important here. It's about where, as a whole, the people, the population, the country and world goes. And, it doesn't help to demonize every or any person because who doesn't see the world as clearly as (we think we do).
Sometimes change and growth take years. There are many clear examples of, for instance, former liberals and liberal-types who have now shifted almost 180 degrees, who were once non- or anti-trumpers who now recognize and support Trump, or who were less than concerned about the 2nd amendment but who now are.
The CORE priority is whether people are moving in the right direction. It seems to be that Gabbard is one who, while still having a way to go, and maybe she doesn't eventually align with every conservative view, but she appears to have recognize the wrongness in the democrat marxism left, and has taken steps to go in the opposite direction.
It's not give to anons to stand in judgment over every individual. It's certainly valid to point out different (and in one's opinion flawed) political views or values, for example, but ultimately, unless we are pursuing a totalitarian world view, tolerance and acceptance of difference is actually important. It's OK to disagree with Gabbard on, for example, 2A views, meaning its OK for her to have what most anons here would consider harmful 2A views, but are we striving to put the social justice warriors out of work by practicing out own form of narrow-minded judgmentalism? Say it isn't so.
She might not be based, and she might be a bit screwed in terms of her political views, but is she moving, at least, in a direction that aids in our overall push? It's a question worth considering.
As for the "oooooh, she's a WEF 'leader'" nonsense, pedes pushing that really are thinking way to simplistically and have no real idea of who that stuff works. The WEF young leaders program gave certain 'honors' to people whether they wanted it or not, in an obvious operation to attempt to recruit people. It doesn't mean anything UNLESS they joined and became part of the gang. Folks like Trudeau did, folks like Putin did not.
It's easy to slam certain people, but I think (sadly) that sometimes pedes are doing this from the shallowest and prejudicial perspectives. No one is perfect, and not everyone is either perfectly good or totally corrupt.
Anyone seeking to inspire greatness in others should be wary of the temptation of self-righteousness. It has afflicted more people in history than the plague...
Just saying.
Or, it's more simple than all that.
Some of us remember that pile of shit we stepped in already, learned a lesson, and now know to go around it.
Just saying.
Do you realize how many people and how much of human life has been sustained by shit throughout the ages?
A farmer doesn't go out of his way to step in a pile of shit, but he'll happily scoop it up with his shovel and use it where it actually does a great good.
Not the point I was getting at, but your historical parallels can't be argued.
Here maybe this one's easier to inderstand:
A dog that keeps biting your livestock shouldn't be trusted in the field anymore.
Exactly. That's why I have an opinion of her, just like you do. Mine is different though. There are a lot of us that have a different opinion of her that you seem to. Just like Gen Flynn, or RFK Jr, or even some of the paytriots.
I don't get the Tulsi worship, or the RFK Jr worship for that matter. Same for people like Stu Peters, or a lot of these podcast people. I don't trust any of them. That doesn't make me self-righteous - it makes me a discerning human that did my own research and made a decision on the evidence I was presented.
As for seeing things as black or white - there are a fair amount of people that (like me) have done that all their lives. It is both a blessing and a curse. I can't change that anymore than you could change your skin color. That's why we have both anons and autists. That doesn't mean we are shallow or prejudicial either - it is the way we are, whether we were born that way or injected that way when we were babies.
You post well-thought-out posts. Think about the people that are all on the same side, but different from you.
One last thing:
That is a fair point, but I would counter with the fact that it does not mean she should be at places like CPAC yet. The first C is for Conservative - which she is not. This is the stuff that I, and people like me see that sours us on Tulsi and gets our radar up. To me it seems like some people are trying really hard to push Tulsi to MAGA people. The black-and-white in me wants to understand why, because it doesn't seem like a logical thing to do. I will say - better her than RFK Jr though.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, dec.
Variation in opinion in and of itself isn't a problem, but is often a plus (it can help generate stereoscopic perspective). To my mind, my comment above isn't concerned with based and discerning opinions, but rather is written in consideration of what seem to me to be emotionalistic knee-jerk reactions that are then employed as the basis for 'opinion'.
I think I'm on the same page as you re: 'Tulsi worship' or 'RFK Jr Worship', which adds to my point; the opposite also seems apparent to me. One might frame it as 'anti-Tulsi worship' or 'anti-RFK jr worship'. In other words, any opinion or view formulated on the basis of emotional reactionism - whether overly positive or overly against - is problematic in nature. It's not discernment. It's reactionism.
Likewise, the 'self-righteous' comment is directed not to discerning perspectives that may, for example, see Gabbard as a less-than-desirable ally or as a fundamentally destructive agent (e.g. a DS asset). Rather, the impulse to self-righteousness is a highly emotional impulse, infused with certain intellectual positions that see the flaws in others above and beyond one's own shortcomings. In short, not a balanced discerning view.
Thus, my comment is more concerned with what is driving people's views and (re)actions, rather than something like diversity of opinion or disagreement.
I think its a valid concern or topic. Q's admonition to be wary of how emotions can affect critical thinking and to eschew allowing emotions to take over (2816) comes to mind.
In summary, all I am saying is (and not necessarily to anons like you, so one needs to discern whether what I'm saying applies to oneself or not): Don't just knee-jerk react because Gabbard was once a democrat or because she has held (or even now holds) political positions that you (the generic you) personally disagree with. Try to consider what impact or effect she might be having on the overall battlefield, who she may be in a position to influence, and whether it's valuable or not to build alliances, not because of uniform agreement on all topics, but because of the contributions that some players might make.
So, to be more concrete: As far as I understand RFK jr., I think he is certainly NOT material for Trump team (i.e. as VP? no way) and I also think in general, his many positions are or have been squarely in opposition to the objectives of Maga (or the Great Awakening). But that opinion doesn't stop me from considering what benefits his actions or role might be bringing (conscious or unconscious) to the objectives of the Great Awakening and ultimate Trump Victory.
Just a final note: you mentioned Stew Peters. I have a particular detestation for disinfo operatives and opportunistic pretend 'truth tellers' who are motivated by personal ambitions or nefarious agendas rather than by pure and patriotic motivations. I'll own up to that position (detestation), and won't go so far so say that it doesn't impact my discernment, but I'm OK with it as far as it goes, and acknowledging or recognizing it is, imo, an important protection.
I don't have much of an issue if someone's view re: Gabbard is different to mine. I only have an issue if it comes across as reactive, as being emotionally driven, rather than actually discernment based and balanced (balanced meaning considering various conflicting views and then choosing the one that rings true the most to oneself.)
But I've written far too much on this topic! Thanks in any case for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate being encouraged to "Think about the people that are all on the same side, but different from you". I hope to and aspire to do that, but maybe I could make more effort there.
Hopefully, this conversation has enhanced our respective views. (I don't have any objection to the view that Gabbard should not be at CPAC... I don't really have an opinion on that point!)