Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are freaking out because they're finally putting someone in charge of national security that isn't a psychopath.

Why do you think she’s the best candidate for the job. Not asking why you think she’s minimally qualified. Asking why, of all the options Trump has, she’s the best choice.

Before criticizing Trumps picks you need to defend Biden picks.

What was Blinken’s qualifications? The guy spent his career as a Biden staffer.

Or how about Jake Sullivan? Campaign aid to Obama and Clinton followed by sinecure at Yale.

Democratic partisans are fascinating in their inability for self reflection before accusation.

Not sure why you’re bringing up other people. This thread is about Tulsi Gabbard. I’d like to know why you think she’s the best person for the job. Can you answer?

If you never questioned the credentials of Biden’s natsec appointments then you really don’t get to question Trump’s selections. Particularly since Biden has probably been the worst President for American power in since, well, pre-WW2. His team was a bunch of incompetent lackeys.

Biden was our FDR and one day to will appreciate him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are freaking out because they're finally putting someone in charge of national security that isn't a psychopath.

Why do you think she’s the best candidate for the job. Not asking why you think she’s minimally qualified. Asking why, of all the options Trump has, she’s the best choice.

Before criticizing Trumps picks you need to defend Biden picks.

What was Blinken’s qualifications? The guy spent his career as a Biden staffer.

Or how about Jake Sullivan? Campaign aid to Obama and Clinton followed by sinecure at Yale.

Democratic partisans are fascinating in their inability for self reflection before accusation.

Not sure why you’re bringing up other people. This thread is about Tulsi Gabbard. I’d like to know why you think she’s the best person for the job. Can you answer?

If you never questioned the credentials of Biden’s natsec appointments then you really don’t get to question Trump’s selections. Particularly since Biden has probably been the worst President for American power in since, well, pre-WW2. His team was a bunch of incompetent lackeys.

Someone on Russian TV called her “our girlfriend “. I’d like to know more about why they said that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is a woman, of Polynesian (Samoan) descent, and serves in the military.

She meets all of the Dem DEI requirements for being appointed.

But she’s compromised so then fails on that alone. Next!

Nice libel.

Yup. It's all they have.

I like Tulsi. She will be great.

Hope she takes vengeance too for Biden & Company putting her on the terror watch list, and abusing power in general.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are freaking out because they're finally putting someone in charge of national security that isn't a psychopath.

Why do you think she’s the best candidate for the job. Not asking why you think she’s minimally qualified. Asking why, of all the options Trump has, she’s the best choice.

Before criticizing Trumps picks you need to defend Biden picks.

What was Blinken’s qualifications? The guy spent his career as a Biden staffer.

Or how about Jake Sullivan? Campaign aid to Obama and Clinton followed by sinecure at Yale.

Democratic partisans are fascinating in their inability for self reflection before accusation.

Not sure why you’re bringing up other people. This thread is about Tulsi Gabbard. I’d like to know why you think she’s the best person for the job. Can you answer?

DP. I guess you'll have to research her for yourself. Plenty of podcasts and writings by her out there.

Don't ask other people to do your homework for you, lackey.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is a woman, of Polynesian (Samoan) descent, and serves in the military.

She meets all of the Dem DEI requirements for being appointed.

But she’s compromised so then fails on that alone. Next!

Nice libel.

Anonymous wrote:She is a woman, of Polynesian (Samoan) descent, and serves in the military.

She meets all of the Dem DEI requirements for being appointed.

You’d think. But Democrats have a pattern of viciously attacking all women who don’t toe the party line.

Anonymous wrote:She is a woman, of Polynesian (Samoan) descent, and serves in the military.

She meets all of the Dem DEI requirements for being appointed.

But she’s compromised so then fails on that alone. Next!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are freaking out because they're finally putting someone in charge of national security that isn't a psychopath.

Why do you think she’s the best candidate for the job. Not asking why you think she’s minimally qualified. Asking why, of all the options Trump has, she’s the best choice.

DP. I have no idea what her qualifications are, but her record in the military and as a Congressmember seemingly makes her significantly more qualified than a lot of people on the Biden NatSec team. Blinken and Jake Sullivan didn’t have any of her qualifications even and they have done an objectively bad job because the world is on fire at the moment and there has been zero US leadership.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are freaking out because they're finally putting someone in charge of national security that isn't a psychopath.

Why do you think she’s the best candidate for the job. Not asking why you think she’s minimally qualified. Asking why, of all the options Trump has, she’s the best choice.

Before criticizing Trumps picks you need to defend Biden picks.

What was Blinken’s qualifications? The guy spent his career as a Biden staffer.

Or how about Jake Sullivan? Campaign aid to Obama and Clinton followed by sinecure at Yale.

Democratic partisans are fascinating in their inability for self reflection before accusation.

Not sure why you’re bringing up other people. This thread is about Tulsi Gabbard. I’d like to know why you think she’s the best person for the job. Can you answer?

Checking back. Still waiting to hear why Tulsi is the best candidate for this job.

It's kind of a dumb question.

Demonstrated willingness to put her life on the line to serve her country.
Demonstrated ability to stand up for her principles.
Long-standing unwillingness to throw away American lives for no good reason.
Demonstrated willingness to seek solutions to significant issues impacting national integrity.
General lack of the psychopathy that is so endemic to the typical picks for this sort of position.

It was an obvious choice.

She is a woman, of Polynesian (Samoan) descent, and serves in the military.

She meets all of the Dem DEI requirements for being appointed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are freaking out because they're finally putting someone in charge of national security that isn't a psychopath.

Why do you think she’s the best candidate for the job. Not asking why you think she’s minimally qualified. Asking why, of all the options Trump has, she’s the best choice.

Before criticizing Trumps picks you need to defend Biden picks.

What was Blinken’s qualifications? The guy spent his career as a Biden staffer.

Or how about Jake Sullivan? Campaign aid to Obama and Clinton followed by sinecure at Yale.

Democratic partisans are fascinating in their inability for self reflection before accusation.

Not sure why you’re bringing up other people. This thread is about Tulsi Gabbard. I’d like to know why you think she’s the best person for the job. Can you answer?

Checking back. Still waiting to hear why Tulsi is the best candidate for this job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are freaking out because they're finally putting someone in charge of national security that isn't a psychopath.

Why do you think she’s the best candidate for the job. Not asking why you think she’s minimally qualified. Asking why, of all the options Trump has, she’s the best choice.

Before criticizing Trumps picks you need to defend Biden picks.

What was Blinken’s qualifications? The guy spent his career as a Biden staffer.

Or how about Jake Sullivan? Campaign aid to Obama and Clinton followed by sinecure at Yale.

Democratic partisans are fascinating in their inability for self reflection before accusation.

Not sure why you’re bringing up other people. This thread is about Tulsi Gabbard. I’d like to know why you think she’s the best person for the job. Can you answer?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are freaking out because they're finally putting someone in charge of national security that isn't a psychopath.

Why do you think she’s the best candidate for the job. Not asking why you think she’s minimally qualified. Asking why, of all the options Trump has, she’s the best choice.

Before criticizing Trumps picks you need to defend Biden picks.

What was Blinken’s qualifications? The guy spent his career as a Biden staffer.

Or how about Jake Sullivan? Campaign aid to Obama and Clinton followed by sinecure at Yale.

Democratic partisans are fascinating in their inability for self reflection before accusation.

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are freaking out because they're finally putting someone in charge of national security that isn't a psychopath.

Why do you think she’s the best candidate for the job. Not asking why you think she’s minimally qualified. Asking why, of all the options Trump has, she’s the best choice.