Anonymous wrote:I really feel bad for The Onion. No way to compete with these headlines.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yeah, let's have a DNI who's on the terrorism watchlist. What is wrong with you people?
https://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/2024/08/14/hawaii-news/gabbard-cites-political-retaliation-for-her-addition-to-tsa-watch-list/
BTW, PP, it's SUSIE Wiles
This was political retaliation, obviously.
Again, she is an active Lieutenant Colonel. If the Army really believed that she was a Russian Agent or any of the BS you are peddling why is she currently an officer in our military? Make it make sense please.
Because the Army makes personnel decisions based on facts, not political smears. And if there was even a hint that she was a Russian Agent or a terror risk she would be court martialed and thrown in Federal prison. But she’s none of those things, obviously, which makes it so sick that these cretins are trying to smear her for the sin of supporting Bernie over HRC in 2016.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Democrats complain that Trump is a racist and misogynist that surrounds himself with incompetents. You don’t need to agree with Gabbard to know that above all else the woman is highly competent.
Tulsi Gabbard is batshit crazy.
No she is calm, detailed and cares about US safety and safety of US troops.
She used to be a D so clearly a reaching over isle.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:First Stacy Wiles, then Usha Vance, Noem, and now Gabbard. For the people that champion woman, you sure do a lot of bashing here. Kind of telling yourselves, you're not serious people and definitely champions for women unless they agree with you.
It's never about "women only." Do you get it yet? It's about competence AND being women. Not being denied solely because of being women. Women aren't just supporting women for the sake of supporting women and never have. Maybe you'll understand it now.
Stacy Wiles engineered an EC and popular vote win by a political pariah and convicted felon against an opponent with a $1 billion war chest. If that’s not competence I don’t know what is.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:First Stacy Wiles, then Usha Vance, Noem, and now Gabbard. For the people that champion woman, you sure do a lot of bashing here. Kind of telling yourselves, you're not serious people and definitely champions for women unless they agree with you.
It's never about "women only." Do you get it yet? It's about competence AND being women. Not being denied solely because of being women. Women aren't just supporting women for the sake of supporting women and never have. Maybe you'll understand it now.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:First Stacy Wiles, then Usha Vance, Noem, and now Gabbard. For the people that champion woman, you sure do a lot of bashing here. Kind of telling yourselves, you're not serious people and definitely champions for women unless they agree with you.
Not all women deserve championing. None of the women listed voted for Kamala Harris, who would have been the first woman president but that’s ok? No obviously I support women who represent my values. Those women have no values IMO.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:First Stacy Wiles, then Usha Vance, Noem, and now Gabbard. For the people that champion woman, you sure do a lot of bashing here. Kind of telling yourselves, you're not serious people and definitely champions for women unless they agree with you.
It's never about "women only." Do you get it yet? It's about competence AND being women. Not being denied solely because of being women. Women aren't just supporting women for the sake of supporting women and never have. Maybe you'll understand it now.
Tulsi has a lengthy military and political career. She was promoted to Lt Col and served in Congress. She seems pretty competent to me.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yeah, let's have a DNI who's on the terrorism watchlist. What is wrong with you people?
https://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/2024/08/14/hawaii-news/gabbard-cites-political-retaliation-for-her-addition-to-tsa-watch-list/
BTW, PP, it's SUSIE Wiles
This was political retaliation, obviously.
Again, she is an active Lieutenant Colonel. If the Army really believed that she was a Russian Agent or any of the BS you are peddling why is she currently an officer in our military? Make it make sense please.
Because the Army makes personnel decisions based on facts, not political smears. And if there was even a hint that she was a Russian Agent or a terror risk she would be court martialed and thrown in Federal prison. But she’s none of those things, obviously, which makes it so sick that these cretins are trying to smear her for the sin of supporting Bernie over HRC in 2016.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:First Stacy Wiles, then Usha Vance, Noem, and now Gabbard. For the people that champion woman, you sure do a lot of bashing here. Kind of telling yourselves, you're not serious people and definitely champions for women unless they agree with you.
Not all women deserve championing. None of the women listed voted for Kamala Harris, who would have been the first woman president but that’s ok? No obviously I support women who represent my values. Those women have no values IMO.
Tulsi Gabbard is a decorated war veteran. That doesn’t align with your values? Figures…
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hey “Russian Agent” smear merchants. You might want to alert Tusli’s superiors that an active Lieutenant Colonel is a puppet for Putin. I’m sure you have some evidence to back this up and aren’t just parroting some Alex Jones talking point you read on Reddit.
Shame on you for smearing a woman who’s a combat veteran and a role model for young girls in this country because she didn’t want to play in your sandbox and stood behind a candidate who would’ve beaten Trump in 2016…not the loser who lost to Trump who had a history of attacking sexual assault victims on behalf of her creepy husband.
Trump is hiring loyalists. We’ll see if her loyalty is to him or the constitution soon enough.