Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was somewhat shocking (well, not really) that Biden didn't save any positions in his administration for Gabbard. She was very well suited for some of them, and it would have been a great way to show that the Democratic Party was above empowering the petty smears coming out of the sleaze & corruption wing of the party.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Florida Democratic representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Friday claimed that Tulsi Gabbard, US President-elect Trump's pick for director of national intelligence, is "likely a Russian asset,"

She should be barred from public office and expelled from Florida. She’s the hack who dismissed a Jewish senior citizen out of the race and then got herself dismissed as well.

She’s a horrible person. She deserves cancellation and social ostracization

I think all of America would agree with you on this one. She exemplifies everything that is wrong in politics today. Kinda like MTG

Mtg would’ve been in a group home for unwell 50 years ago

So would Trump and Biden. We have different standards now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Florida Democratic representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Friday claimed that Tulsi Gabbard, US President-elect Trump's pick for director of national intelligence, is "likely a Russian asset,"

She should be barred from public office and expelled from Florida. She’s the hack who dismissed a Jewish senior citizen out of the race and then got herself dismissed as well.

She’s a horrible person. She deserves cancellation and social ostracization

I think all of America would agree with you on this one. She exemplifies everything that is wrong in politics today. Kinda like MTG

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was somewhat shocking (well, not really) that Biden didn't save any positions in his administration for Gabbard. She was very well suited for some of them, and it would have been a great way to show that the Democratic Party was above empowering the petty smears coming out of the sleaze & corruption wing of the party.

Maybe it has something to do with why someone on Russian TV called her “our girlfriend”?

They don’t literally mean girlfriend as in lover. They just mean a female friend to Russia. Contrary to Washington propaganda, Russians are excited to form a friendship and a bond with the US/Americans. Most leaders are. Washington wants another Cold War.

Hahahahahahhaha

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Florida Democratic representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Friday claimed that Tulsi Gabbard, US President-elect Trump's pick for director of national intelligence, is "likely a Russian asset,"

She should be barred from public office and expelled from Florida. She’s the hack who dismissed a Jewish senior citizen out of the race and then got herself dismissed as well.

She’s a horrible person. She deserves cancellation and social ostracization

I think all of America would agree with you on this one. She exemplifies everything that is wrong in politics today. Kinda like MTG

Mtg would’ve been in a group home for unwell 50 years ago

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was somewhat shocking (well, not really) that Biden didn't save any positions in his administration for Gabbard. She was very well suited for some of them, and it would have been a great way to show that the Democratic Party was above empowering the petty smears coming out of the sleaze & corruption wing of the party.

Maybe it has something to do with why someone on Russian TV called her “our girlfriend”?

They don’t literally mean girlfriend as in lover. They just mean a female friend to Russia. Contrary to Washington propaganda, Russians are excited to form a friendship and a bond with the US/Americans. Most leaders are. Washington wants another Cold War.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was somewhat shocking (well, not really) that Biden didn't save any positions in his administration for Gabbard. She was very well suited for some of them, and it would have been a great way to show that the Democratic Party was above empowering the petty smears coming out of the sleaze & corruption wing of the party.

Maybe it has something to do with why someone on Russian TV called her “our girlfriend”?

They don’t literally mean girlfriend as in lover. They just mean a female friend to Russia. Contrary to Washington propaganda, Russians are excited to form a friendship and a bond with the US/Americans. Most leaders are. Washington wants another Cold War.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was somewhat shocking (well, not really) that Biden didn't save any positions in his administration for Gabbard. She was very well suited for some of them, and it would have been a great way to show that the Democratic Party was above empowering the petty smears coming out of the sleaze & corruption wing of the party.

Maybe it has something to do with why someone on Russian TV called her “our girlfriend”?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was somewhat shocking (well, not really) that Biden didn't save any positions in his administration for Gabbard. She was very well suited for some of them, and it would have been a great way to show that the Democratic Party was above empowering the petty smears coming out of the sleaze & corruption wing of the party.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Florida Democratic representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Friday claimed that Tulsi Gabbard, US President-elect Trump's pick for director of national intelligence, is "likely a Russian asset,"

She should be barred from public office and expelled from Florida. She’s the hack who dismissed a Jewish senior citizen out of the race and then got herself dismissed as well.

She’s a horrible person. She deserves cancellation and social ostracization

I think all of America would agree with you on this one. She exemplifies everything that is wrong in politics today. Kinda like MTG

Anonymous wrote:The Democrats should be embarassed that Trump picked up Robert F Kennedy Jr and Tulsi Gabbard and they picked up Liz Cheney

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.

Anonymous wrote:The Democrats should be embarassed that Trump picked up Robert F Kennedy Jr and Tulsi Gabbard and they picked up Liz Cheney

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Florida Democratic representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Friday claimed that Tulsi Gabbard, US President-elect Trump's pick for director of national intelligence, is "likely a Russian asset,"

She should be barred from public office and expelled from Florida. She’s the hack who dismissed a Jewish senior citizen out of the race and then got herself dismissed as well.

She’s a horrible person. She deserves cancellation and social ostracization