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 🔆
She's as much of a patriot as Dan Crenshaw is, don't let her fool you.
So what…? Do you judge everyone by some random encounter a person has in their past a decade ago? Ridiculous.
Cheetahs don't change thier spots, and neither do deepstate Muppets.
Wake up.
Also, didn't we hear about this like 2 months ago?
But... she has hair like Rogue from The X-Men...
If she sticks to PSA's I'm good. But she is going to try to get back into politics and I'll never trust her.
Tulsi is not based
Tulsi Gabbard is a snake and not to be trusted
Correct, nobody just changes their entire political position in such a short timeframe like that. She saw where the wind was blowing and hooked herself on the ride in hopes to increase her influence.
Um, yeah, um no.
I guess it depends on what you define as 'entire', but if you are saying that people CANNOT wake up, it just don't happen, then I would submit to you the evidence of 2020 and 2021, not to mention.... oh, The Great Awakening.
I don't think it's wrong to be skeptical, but to say that people cannot change or wake up is a self-defeating proposition, imo.
Good point. Trump was a Democrat for decades, ffs. Obviously people can change.
Democrats as a whole were not always the insane, psychopathic and corrupt Marxists / globalists that now define the party as a whole. Sure, no party has ever been purely for the People or uncorrupt, but what we have today is a historical aberration, imo.
Ok.
Trump never really changed. Hell, he’s still a 1985 democrat but the party left him and radicalized his following…
Trump had none of the ideas tulsi had. Trump wasn't a WEF groomed politician tulsi is. Big Flippin difference. She can watch from the sidelines and change whoever mind will listen to her.
What comment is this rant based on?
I find there is a difference between an influencer/politician changing course versus a regular everyday citizen.
Highly skeptical of a politician changing course completely. Especially one who was a member of the WEF to boot.
I applaud skepticism. Just be aware of and take in to account your own biases.
I don't know that she was ever a 'member' of the WEF. If you dig into the connections, I think you'll find out more about what the WEF themselves have been doing and how they have been attempting to recruit people, and that the connections are not always what they seem or even what they are presented as.
FYI, I've working in the sphere of some high-level international NGOs and I know from experience that a name association is not always evidence of actual collusion and/or corruption.
But like I say, I appreciate the skepticism. Sure, a regular person changing course and a public person changing course require different levels of attention, but .... well..... St Paul of Tarsus, right?
I guess I think that Gabbard, despite being on the left, is helping the cause in certain ways. I'm more interested in her impact than on a personal judgment or her quality as a person (outside my jurisdiction!)
Change or not. She has the ability to play a role. I just don't think it should be in government.
Fair call. For me, in terms of this post, I cannot help but consider the people who might listen to her (who would be in her target audience) who would have to go, "oh, really? Hmmmm.... That's a good point".
If she was stupid enough to ever hold those positions she can't be trusted. Plentybof people who never got tricked to pick from.
What do you mean pick from? Who is picking Gabbard? For what?
She's a factor, whether small or whatever, on the political and social stage. Whether you like her or not is irrelevant from the viewpoint of what impact she has and how.
BTW, she was the only Democrat Congressperson to meet with Trump. She did not change positions quick. The Democratic party just became more & more obviously corrupt
If the only thing keeping Trump alive was secret service, he'd be dead by now.
With the help of Space Force... monitoring all forms of communication. This includes tracking all the airspace - and sea - depending on Trumps given location at any moment.
God forbid…..but I agree, everyone keep praying !
The House democrats efforts aside, I read that Trump's secret service detail is supposed be increased pretty soon from former president levels to nominee levels.
It's going to be an absolute circus if they increase his SS detail much more.
Isn't one of the things people point to as evidence he's really still secretly the CIC and/or the President how much security he has?
Good point. Maybe they're just 'officially' increasing it.
I met Tulsi in Santa Monica. She’s such a sweet and good hearted person. It’s hard to fathom that she wanted to be a politician. In a just world we’d have her as VP with Trump.
If this carries water it is only because it’s leading to a SC decision disallowing past pResidents to keep Secret Service while in Gitmo.
Precedents.
IIRC, I'm reminded of a tweet by President Trump where he "misspelled" President as Precedent. I believe the exact word he used was "Precedential".
Foreshadowing?
She is a snake and not to be trusted.
Why…..? She’s a good person..
Gotta love all the hate Tulsi, “she’s a snake” shills astroturfing here. Democrat propaganda accounts hate Tulsi?
She's CFR and has been photographed using globohomo handsigns. Definitely NOT to be trusted.
No, we aren't shills, we literally believe she's just switching stances to gain political points and influence.
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!)
She really thinks she has a good shot to get on the ticket as vp by shilling like this doesn’t she? Are people really falling for her bs? No. No they are not.
Can you provide any real or factual evidence that she has expressed a desire to be Trump's VP?
I'd love to see it if it exists.
Yeah, like her or hate her, statements like that are bald-faced projections.
I don't believe there is any point where she has made an expression of interest.
If i hear one more mother fucker trine to put thoughts into reality in this regard imma flip my wig. Tulsi, Tucker, multiple fuckin peebles. What the fuck man. Plus i aint ever trusted jubilee from Xmen. Edit to add i looked up jubilee. Bish used to have a white streak in her hair in the 90's comics. Now no trace of it in image search. Chalk it up to fakeandgay mandela shits......
That was Rogue who had the white streak in her hair. Still does.
Oh....
Maybe i need to re-analyze my decision making paradigms.
Listen to Tuckers episode on Shawn Ryan.
He's just a normie is all. He hasn't put it together yet. He's having to unlearn what he "knew" his whole life and find out some pretty awful stuff about most people he's known for decades.
Who told you he lost the USB stick? Do you trust them? Information warfare makes things very complicated. I don't think you can take everything at face value. His post Fox News interviews have been more damning to the cabal than his time on faux news.
Isn't this basically the storyline of The Dark Knight, where Jim Gordon gets saved?
Well, Trump did tell a child he's Batman.
More precedents being set?
also this, people forget about this https://greatawakening.win/p/17sPBFqIiL/dcdraino-i-could-not-in-good-con/c/
Spot on!
Have you noticed she talks like a patriot with a white streak. Not so much with all black hair.
Why does she dye her hair like that? Anyone know? I've never seen that before. It reminds me of like, a skunk. Is she going for the skunk look?
I've known women who greyed in a similar manner, but they weren't politicians like Tulsi is so therefore it's probably fake.
I don't trust any of these johnny come latelys. If you didn't get on the Trump train in 2020, I don't trust you. By then you should have seen what Trump was accomplishing and taken note of it. He is not corrupt nor a part of the cabal.
I thought Trump had private security service, and how could the Democrats justify trying to stop that?