Jump to content
If you posted something on 21 Feb 21, it likely didn't stick during the server migration. -DFRESH ×

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, pcola said:


My apologies to you then. I assumed you were affirming the misconception that Parler is predominantly construed of social media misfits. And it is spelled with an “er”. And actually you still can. But we’ll see for how long...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I was construing it's got a problem with a large amount of toxic people, militias fomenting insurrection and neo-nazis.  But social media misfits are ok.

And we're not fucking, so I'll spell whatever I want however I want.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Want to slash American carbon?  Build nuclear power plants.  

When MSNBC announced Trump's win in Iowa, there was an audible grunt from Rachel Madow. By the sound of it, she apparently sat on her sack wrong. Happens to the best of us.

Found this entertaining Because screw that bitch and her "it's my turn" mentality. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted Images

6 hours ago, slackline said:

Edit to clarify: of course everyone should be held to the same standard, but comparing anyone to Trump right off the bat eliminates anything resembling a "like" comparison.  You just seem angry that Trump's bully pulpit was finally yanked. Just the perception. Maybe that's not the case.

 

Do you even hear your own double standard sometimes?  Of course that is an unacceptable tweet.  Does he have a history like Trump did of posting inflammatory things?  Does he have a following of 88M people?  If the answer to either of those things is no, he's probably got some slack to play with. Even if he has a history, does anyone care what he thinks, so is it therefore likely that he could incite violence on the level Trump did, or even at all?

 

Just thoughts, but it seems as if you're so bent on the left being wrong, evil or whatever it is you need to tell yourself to sleep at night that it doesn't matter what anyone says.  You'll make an argument to counter everything anyone says...  It's like I'm talking with my teenagers!

I literally laughed at the fact you don't see your glaring hypocrisy.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

I know there is a Tulsi thread on BO.net but I think it’s more relevant to the many conversations going on here.  She touches on a lot of topics in this interview and speaks of her personal experiences in DC.  I also applaud her courage to speak like she does.  It can’t be easy.   

 

I just got around to watching this. I'll be honest, our country lost a great oppurtunity when it was decided she wasn't the "golden child." But maybe that was the point. It sounds like she came to a lot of her bipartisanship after going through the Presidential election process and realizing how edged it was against people not in the chosen few. Great on her for speaking out though. Hope she finds her way into public service again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the folks complaining that Trump has been muzzled, ya know, there’s a way for him to get his message out:

image.thumb.jpeg.131220c6b632a55ae1fc6214e3268732.jpegWhen’s the last time this podium was used? Seemed to work fine for every president preceding Trump. Sorry, but I always thought Twitter was an inappropriate place for presidential messaging anyway. Let’s see the man show his face and explain himself. 

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2021 at 5:27 PM, FLEA said:

When discussing liberal media bias, most people are getting at this: 

professions_league_table crowdpac donor politics

 

The following data is sourced from OpenSecrets which gathers data based on political donations made by employees of said industries. Anytime a political donation of more than $100 is made the person must include their employer along with other information on the donation. OpenSecrets is a non-partisan group that gathers and evaluates data based on where people come from who donate. The most concerning thing about the above chart is that the quad on the far left, deals business in information. It includes Hollywood, social media, search engines, educational institutions, etc... You are never going to convince conservatives that these people present unbiased information because they are the same people that are donating billions of dollars each year to the democratic caucuses. 

newspaper_print_media

online_computer_services crowdpac donor politics

 

Very interesting data.  I'm wondering if there is data on individual small donations (<$100).  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2021 at 3:41 AM, Pooter said:

The cancel culture stuff is way overblown. There are huge communities of conservatives on every platform that exist without the threat of bans for one simple reason: they don't go around threatening people and inciting violence. 
 

If cancel culture is such a problem you're gonna have to explain to me how the #4 and #5 podcasts on apple right now are Dan bongino and Ben Shapiro. Seriously.. All of the biggest political channels are conservative.  This is the case across most platforms.  Conservatives are killing it on social media, and this has been the case for a long time. 
 

The problem Parler has is that they are the dumping ground for everyone that got kicked off normal social media for rules violations. This isn't a healthy pool of people from which to draw your user base. Think of it like AETC. It's no wonder the culture is toxic when you're getting the rejects from everywhere else. On top of that they weren't enforcing their own terms of service or maybe the wretched hive of scum and villainy grew too large to enforce, and at some point the hosting companies took notice. Probably doesn't help when a contingent of your nutjob users storms the capitol of the country. 

I actually think social media companies have been handling the delineation between conservative opinions vs things that are actually illegal and dangerous really well. Platforms like YouTube and Twitter keep conservatives around who actively trash them on a daily basis as long as what they're saying isn't incitement. Hell, every Steven crowder episode is basically just 90 minutes of him complaining about the YouTube algorithms. 

 

Lastly, to everyone invoking the section 230 town square argument I have two things:

1. If you go to the town square and try to start an insurrection, you will get arrested.

2. If you want to form your own alternative town square, no one is legally obligated to lease the space they own to you.

 

TL;DR - if you want to behave like sh1t you're probably going to need to build your own infrastructure from the ground up.

 

"Think of it like AETC."   I see what you did there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FLEA said:

I just got around to watching this. I'll be honest, our country lost a great oppurtunity when it was decided she wasn't the "golden child." But maybe that was the point. It sounds like she came to a lot of her bipartisanship after going through the Presidential election process and realizing how edged it was against people not in the chosen few. Great on her for speaking out though. Hope she finds her way into public service again. 

I like Tulsi's stated positions on many issues, which are moderate and for the most part sensible.  However, something isn't quite right.  On Rogan and other podcasts she spends almost all her time railing against the left and virtually no time discussing/defending her political positions.  My cynical side thinks that she is a "democrat" in order to stand apart from the crowd.  Once her awareness grows beyond the IDW, she'll reposition herself as a republican and drop some of the more progressive positions she claims to have but never discusses.  If true, it is deceptive, although I may still be in alignment with much of her platform. 

Edited by Swamp Yankee
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, pcola said:

No you’re actually missing the point entirely. When it became apparent that the leftist tech/social media giants were unabashedly censoring the speech of prominent right voices, the next move was clear. Do what everyone said (which has been said on this very thread several times): create your own platform. The platform luckily already existed and people naturally flocked to it (hence the recent surge in downloads you just shrugged off.) If you believe Parler was killed because it’s a threat to national security than you might want to expand your critical thinking skills. Parler was killed in an effort to maintain control of the narrative.

Your argument would make sense if it weren't for all of the prominent conservative voices that are still all over Twitter and the rest of big tech. You act like there was some giant purge and every conservative on the internet is now some sort of social media refugee wandering the wilderness looking for a place to exercise their FiRsT aMeNdmUnt rIGhts!!!
 

This is not what's happening, but it fits perfectly into your view of the world, so it's no surprise that you believe it to be the case.  But the truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle.


Did some conservatives flock to parler out of fear of being silenced? Yes.  Did other conservatives make an account because it's literally the first time they've heard of the app? Also yes. Did curious liberals download the app just to peep on the shitstorm? Also yes.  The events of last week brought parler from a tiny fringe social media site into the mainstream (however temporarily.) And since neither of us has parler's account statistics, the only unbiased read of the situation is that any publicity is good publicity and this caused increased engagement across all demographics.  
 

As for parler's regular users, the truth also lies somewhere in the middle.  I'm sure there are plenty of responsible wonderful people on parler who just want to exchange ideas.  I'm sure there are also trolls, and I'm sure there of some severely radicalized, dangerous nut jobs.  Also, I don't doubt that Amazon and apple have left leaning biases and would look for any excuse to axe a hotbed of conservative activity.  So the job of a responsible community would be to self-regulate, and not shit the bed.. giving big tech an excuse to do exactly that.

But we all saw what happened last week. The bed was shat in historic fashion and now no one is particularly interested in hearing about all of the good aspects of parler.  Assuming you're in the Air Force, you should be very familiar with everyone having to wear diapers because of an isolated incident.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:


It may be the homework they turned in but it’s an F
If he is unacceptable then why is this turd still on and his post still up?

 

 

 


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2020/12/29/david-cross-defends-saying-i-want-blood-after-biden-called-for-healing-i-was-referring-to-menstrual-blood/amp/

You can’t play a fair game if the players aren’t treated equally


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

I'm going to guess it's because a B-list comedian doesn't have the bully pulpit that the MOST POWERFUL MAN in the world has.  Thus, not nearly the public safety issue.  

Edited by Swamp Yankee
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Social media hasn't been given a legal carve out anymore than a business that owns a theater/stage has, or any private gathering. A private theater running an open mic night can cut the mic off on a speaker who's opinions they feel are inappropriate without repercussions from the government. Or they could choose not to. It's their mic and venue, and they can choose who to let up on their stage. Same goes in my backyard, if someone is acting up and I don't like it, I can tell them to get off my property without fear of the government telling me I have to let that individual state their opinion in my yard. Same idea applies to social media. Even to this forum, which falls under the social media umbrella; our mods shouldn't have to justify to the government why a post was removed or why SpecOpsFighterPilot was banned. Social media platforms can moderate, but they aren't legally required to. Not to say they won't, but they'll do enough to stay out of civil or criminal courts, which a lot of their current efforts are focused on (blocking and reporting to the government things such as child porn, murders, etc), and I'm sure they do a lot of work with law enforcement behind the scenes. But requiring them to moderate everything leads to a very ugly world: someone would have to be the arbiter of truth and appropriateness, or the business case goes away due to the workload required and the company closes.

So who owns the truth and arbitrates what is acceptable? A private company not held to public responsibility? Does the government step in and give the private companies the rules users must abide by in their speech on the platforms?

If a platform has to justify blocking a user to the government, then the government is in the position of now restricting that individual's free speech, by agreeing that the block is legitimate. That is not a place we want this country to go, and violates the underlying principles of the first amendment you are arguing we need to protect. It's something some on the left have wanted, and now I'm surprised many "small government" conservatives have jumped on the bandwagon for more government control in regulating what we can and cannot say. If the government is granted that ability, it won't be long until it starts to block criticism of the government.

You don't have "rights" on a private platform-your use of that service is dependent on both parties (you and the company providing the service) agreement to use that service, and that agreement can be terminated by either party at their leisure. This is the same as a store asking (or forcing) you to leave their place of business for causing a disturbance.

If you don't like it, go somewhere else. If there's nowhere else to go, well, apply some of that good ol' American entrepreneurial spirit and start your own platform business. If the people want want you're selling, you'll also have the added benefit of getting rich. The American dream 🙂 This is what the free market brings: competition. If there's a need it the on the market, or you don't like what's on the open market, build a business to fill that need, and if your product or service is better, then people will come to your business. And this is what should happen in social media: let the market decide. Users will go to the platform they like, and if they don't like it, they will leave. If you don't like what twitter is doing, quit using twitter and go somewhere else. Vote with your feet.

There is no such thing as a neutral platform; they will skew with the users and moderators. And that's stuff that changes over time. But for most, the common social media outlets are good enough for most who use them to get their full of updates on friends and family, and cute pictures of cats and dogs.

We're dancing around what needs to happen, basically that political persuasion should likely become a protected class on online social platforms that advertise themselves as open to all.  If one is specifically and advertised as for one particular religious, ethnic or political persuasion then it could legally discriminate IMHO, but not others that are advertised for all.

Eventually IMHO this is going to come to a head as Woke Capital is going to want to exclude the deplorables to crush them further:

https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/11/big-corporate-uses-capitol-riots-to-push-communist-style-social-credit-system-on-americans/

As to good ol' American entrepreneurial spirit concur but when monopolies and cartels have been allowed to form, colluding to destroy rivals and start-ups ref Parler being attacked on all sides and now going dark, it is time for the government to step in.  Funny how things seem to be just peachy now that conservatives and nationalists are on a certain end of the whip.

Will agree to disagree with you and I respect your reasoned responses, I just don't agree with them and interpret the behavior of large tech companies of late as anti-democratic.  It's possible they are legal in the sense that it will be interpreted that way by agreeable justices and gov officials, if the party says it's 4 fingers even if 5 are extended then it's 4.  No matter what, they will get what they want and do whatever they want, they see themselves as morally superior and therefore any means available are justified.

Next frontier looks to be business services to cut off political / cultural opponents:

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/01/11/payment-processor-stripe-blacklists-trump-campaign/

A total system of alternative services, technology, products and businesses must be made to meet the needs of those who are not down with the Wokeness.

Edited by Clark Griswold
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I'm going to guess it's because a B-list comedian doesn't have the bully pulpit that the MOST POWERFUL MAN in the world has.  Thus, not nearly the public safety issue.  

No, he’s already agreed to disagree here.  What you’ve said doesn’t fit his narrative, so the easy answer is, “conservatives are being silenced only, and what they’re saying isn’t that bad anyway.  Also, you can’t really blame Trump or Cruz or Hawley because they didn’t literally say, ‘storm the Capitol’!”  That’s more of the GOP apologist system that is going to prevent the GOP from ever really winning anything anymore if they don’t change.  There are a lot of Republicans waking up to the fact that they’ve been hoodwinked for the last 4 years, and people like Cruz and Hawley will never have the voice they could have if they don’t own the fact that Trump was bad for the GOP.

They still refuse to admit that Trump was an experiment gone wrong.  None of his political wins can compensate for the damage he’s done to our country both at home and abroad.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Your argument would make sense if it weren't for all of the prominent conservative voices that are still all over Twitter and the rest of big tech. You act like there was some giant purge and every conservative on the internet is now some sort of social media refugee wandering the wilderness looking for a place to exercise their FiRsT aMeNdmUnt rIGhts!!!
 

This is not what's happening, but it fits perfectly into your view of the world, so it's no surprise that you believe it to be the case.  But the truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle.


Did some conservatives flock to parler out of fear of being silenced? Yes.  Did other conservatives make an account because it's literally the first time they've heard of the app? Also yes. Did curious liberals download the app just to peep on the shitstorm? Also yes.  The events of last week brought parler from a tiny fringe social media site into the mainstream (however temporarily.) And since neither of us has parler's account statistics, the only unbiased read of the situation is that any publicity is good publicity and this caused increased engagement across all demographics.  
 

As for parler's regular users, the truth also lies somewhere in the middle.  I'm sure there are plenty of responsible wonderful people on parler who just want to exchange ideas.  I'm sure there are also trolls, and I'm sure there of some severely radicalized, dangerous nut jobs.  Also, I don't doubt that Amazon and apple have left leaning biases and would look for any excuse to axe a hotbed of conservative activity.  So the job of a responsible community would be to self-regulate, and not shit the bed.. giving big tech an excuse to do exactly that.

But we all saw what happened last week. The bed was shat in historic fashion and now no one is particularly interested in hearing about all of the good aspects of parler.  Assuming you're in the Air Force, you should be very familiar with everyone having to wear diapers because of an isolated incident.

It's not so much that they are being silenced as much as they are being filtered. They are still allowed to express their views as long as they aren't too far right and fit with in acceptable tolerances of their left leaning censors. Meanwhile, the left can be as grotesquely radical as much as they want with little consequence. Lets not pretend that social media wasn't used to coordinate many of the riots this summer. 

Edited by FLEA
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

We're dancing around what needs to happen, basically that political persuasion should likely become a protected class on online social platforms that advertise themselves as open to all.  If one is specifically and advertised as for one particular religious, ethnic or political persuasion.

Eventually IMHO this is going to come to a head as Woke Capital is going to want to exclude the deplorables to crush them further:

https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/11/big-corporate-uses-capitol-riots-to-push-communist-style-social-credit-system-on-americans/

As to good ol' American entrepreneurial spirit concur but when monopolies and cartels have been allowed to form, colluding to destroy rivals and start-ups ref Parler being attacked on all sides and now going dark, it is time for the government to step in.  Funny how things seem to be just peachy now that conservatives and nationalists are on a certain end of the whip.

Will agree to disagree with you and I respect your reasoned responses, I just don't agree with them and interpret the behavior of large tech companies of late as anti-democratic.  It's possible they are legal in the sense that it will be interpreted that way by agreeable justices and gov officials, if the party says it's 4 fingers even if 5 are extended then it's 4.  No matter what, they will get what they want and do whatever they want, they see themselves as morally superior and therefore any means available are justified.

Next frontier looks to be business services to cut off political / cultural opponents:

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/01/11/payment-processor-stripe-blacklists-trump-campaign/

A total system of alternative services, technology, products and businesses must be made to meet the needs of those who are not down with the Wokeness.

So which is it, unregulated capitalism, or just the regulations you want?  You’re not going socialist are you?  That seems to be the accusation thrown at everyone wanting any kind of regulation.  Can’t have your cake and eat it too.

My apologies if you’ve laid out your vision previously, and I just missed it.  Otherwise, it seems as if it’s a typical GOP trope of wanting zero regulations when it benefits Wall Street, but they want some regulations to protect them from the big bad liberal bias machine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, slackline said:

So which is it, unregulated capitalism, or just the regulations you want?  You’re not going socialist are you?  That seems to be the accusation thrown at everyone wanting any kind of regulation.  Can’t have your cake and eat it too.

My apologies if you’ve laid out your vision previously, and I just missed it.  Otherwise, it seems as if it’s a typical GOP trope of wanting zero regulations when it benefits Wall Street, but they want some regulations to protect them from the big bad liberal bias machine.

I'm all about regulated capitalism and social welfare man. I do not like suppression of opinions though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I'm going to guess it's because a B-list comedian doesn't have the bully pulpit that the MOST POWERFUL MAN in the world has.  Thus, not nearly the public safety issue.  

 

2 minutes ago, slackline said:

No, he’s already agreed to disagree here.  What you’ve said doesn’t fit his narrative, so the easy answer is, “conservatives are being silenced only, and what they’re saying isn’t that bad anyway.  Also, you can’t really blame Trump or Cruz or Hawley because they didn’t literally say, ‘storm the Capitol’!”  That’s more of the GOP apologist system that is going to prevent the GOP from ever really winning anything anymore if they don’t change.  There are a lot of Republicans waking up to the fact that they’ve been hoodwinked for the last 4 years, and people like Cruz and Hawley will never have the voice they could have if they don’t own the fact that Trump was bad for the GOP.

They still refuse to admit that Trump was an experiment gone wrong.  None of his political wins can compensate for the damage he’s done to our country both at home and abroad.  

You're both right, Conservatives are held to lower standards and Letists never encourage violence, use language that could be interpreted as violence approving or have used language that has degraded our political conversation.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/10/politics/eric-holder-republicans-when-they-go-low/index.html

http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/tag/punish-our-enemies/

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FLEA said:

I'm all about regulated capitalism and social welfare man. I do not like suppression of opinions though. 

Well, to be honest, not "all about." I generally think that regulation for social welfare is acceptable but it should be done VERY carefully and VERY limited. 

Edited by FLEA
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, slackline said:

So which is it, unregulated capitalism, or just the regulations you want?  You’re not going socialist are you?  That seems to be the accusation thrown at everyone wanting any kind of regulation.  Can’t have your cake and eat it too.

My apologies if you’ve laid out your vision previously, and I just missed it.  Otherwise, it seems as if it’s a typical GOP trope of wanting zero regulations when it benefits Wall Street, but they want some regulations to protect them from the big bad liberal bias machine.

No but I'm not nor ever have been full bore unregulated capitalism ala Libertarians.  I'm realistic, we change our laws, policies and structures as time and conditions require.  

I'm for Realistic Capitalism, the free market and free enterprise is the most successful and efficient means of economic activity for the vast majority of the population of any group of people but people are inherently flawed and fallen, therefore a set of rules that are fixed but adjustable must be imposed, interpreted and enforced to deliver the maximum amount of benefit to the maximum amount of people while not discouraging the industrious and ambitious.  This system will also be run so as to not exceed the moral bounds of our culture / society, again adjusted with time and conditions as opinions, preferences and attitudes change.

Now back to typing my manifesto... 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites



We're dancing around what needs to happen, basically that political persuasion should likely become a protected class on online social platforms that advertise themselves as open to all.  If one is specifically and advertised as for one particular religious, ethnic or political persuasion then it could legally discriminate IMHO, but not others that are advertised for all.
Eventually IMHO this is going to come to a head as Woke Capital is going to want to exclude the deplorables to crush them further:
https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/11/big-corporate-uses-capitol-riots-to-push-communist-style-social-credit-system-on-americans/
As to good ol' American entrepreneurial spirit concur but when monopolies and cartels have been allowed to form, colluding to destroy rivals and start-ups ref Parler being attacked on all sides and now going dark, it is time for the government to step in.  Funny how things seem to be just peachy now that conservatives and nationalists are on a certain end of the whip.
Will agree to disagree with you and I respect your reasoned responses, I just don't agree with them and interpret the behavior of large tech companies of late as anti-democratic.  It's possible they are legal in the sense that it will be interpreted that way by agreeable justices and gov officials, if the party says it's 4 fingers even if 5 are extended then it's 4.  No matter what, they will get what they want and do whatever they want, they see themselves as morally superior and therefore any means available are justified.
Next frontier looks to be business services to cut off political / cultural opponents:
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/01/11/payment-processor-stripe-blacklists-trump-campaign/
A total system of alternative services, technology, products and businesses must be made to meet the needs of those who are not down with the Wokeness.


Also respect (and appreciate) your replies, and I think makes for good discussion that really needs to happen in Congress.

But you're right, we have been dancing around some points.

True net neutrality (and not what the Trump administration pushed) is essential: ISPs need to be considered common infrastructure just like phone companies or electric companies, because if they are not, they can definitely cut off individuals with no recourse. But conservatives have been fighting that tooth and nail, because it would make ISPs less profitable, much more regulated, and bring more government oversight.

Money is another issue like you raise up. Sure, cash is king, but we've moved to a largely digital currency, and rely on commercial vendors to facilitate the electronic movement of money. Should electronic money transfers be nationalized? Or should there be a government service to guarantee access to electronic payments in a cashless environment so companies can't cut off people from buying/selling goods and services? It's a good question, and needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, the GOP would likely fight it since it hurts the banking industry (lost revenue from transfer fees)

"Good ol' American entrepreneurial spirit" was a bit tongue in cheek. What some conservatives are learning is that the free market can be very brutal if your interests don't align with what businesses or market interests are.

Who stops monopolies from forming? Typically, the government, but conservatives have been pushing to deregulate and allow the free market to reign in the name of smaller government, without considering there's a price to pay for allowing the market to set what is acceptable.

I'm not throwing spears at conservatives save for one- sometimes people (both conservative and liberal) don't critically think about their values and the potential ramifications of putting those values into practice, especially when it relies on others behaving how we want them to behave. Some values are just parroted from their parties stance with an oversimplification explanation that ignores real issues with the stance.

And you're right, the debate on what a platform's responsibility is not settled, and you and I have different opinions on that responsibility. My viewpoint may be a bit skewed because I gave up on most social media (not BaseOps, obviously), so maybe I'm biased in believing a person can live a happy life without checking the Facebook or twitter feed, and keep in contact with friends and family through other means. But we need to continue taking a hard look at this problem, debating potential options, and eventually putting it into law (and not just executive order or executive agency policy).
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I like Tulsi's stated positions on many issues, which are moderate and for the most part sensible.  However, something isn't quite right.  On Rogan and other podcasts she spends almost all her time railing against the left and virtually no time discussing/defending her political positions.  My cynical side thinks that she is a "democrat" in order to stand apart from the crowd.  Once her awareness grows beyond the IDW, she'll reposition herself as a republican and drop some of the more progressive positions she claims to have but never discusses.  If true, it is deceptive, although I may still be in alignment with much of her platform. 
Agreed. She's trying to position herself for a fox news gig. She went from actively working against gay marriage, to speaking for Bernie Sanders at the DNC, to suddenly spending every outlet she gets to talk about her newly found conservative positions and rail against Democrats.

Add to this her being outright strangely defensive of Assad and I can't figure her out. Plus there is the whole growing up in the cult thing (an offshoot of Hare Krishna called the Science of Identity Foundation) and being married to a guy who's still heavily involved.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, N730 said:

Agreed. She's trying to position herself for a fox news gig. She went from actively working against gay marriage, to speaking for Bernie Sanders at the DNC, to suddenly spending every outlet she gets to talk about her newly found conservative positions and rail against Democrats.

Add to this her being outright strangely defensive of Assad and I can't figure her out. Plus there is the whole growing up in the cult thing (an offshoot of Hare Krishna called the Science of Identity Foundation) and being married to a guy who's still heavily involved.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app
 

I think people have mistaken "Let's not get into yet another war like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya with Syria" for a defense of Assad.  She's said repeatedly he's a bad person and we need to bring diplomatic pressure to bear.  Her stance is, and always has been, we have no national interest in changing the regime in Syria just because Assad is a bad person.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pawnman said:

I think people have mistaken "Let's not get into yet another war like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya with Syria" for a defense of Assad.  She's said repeatedly he's a bad person and we need to bring diplomatic pressure to bear.  Her stance is, and always has been, we have no national interest in changing the regime in Syria just because Assad is a bad person.

Tulsi said with regard to whether Assad is a war criminal - March 2019:

“I think that the evidence needs to be gathered, and as I have said before, if there is evidence that he has committed war crimes, he should be prosecuted as such,” Gabbard told CNN host Dana Bash during a town hall event in Austin, Texas.

Previously, the DoD, US intelligence community, and UN determined that Assad was responsible for the April 2017 chemical weapon attack on his own people.  So she does not believe our own intelligence analysis?  Why not?  She doesn't address that from what I could find.  Seems weird.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Swamp Yankee
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

Tulsi said with regard to whether Assad is a war criminal - March 2019:

“I think that the evidence needs to be gathered, and as I have said before, if there is evidence that he has committed war crimes, he should be prosecuted as such,” Gabbard told CNN host Dana Bash during a town hall event in Austin, Texas.

Previously, the DoD, US intelligence community, and UN determined that Assad was responsible for the April 2017 chemical weapon attack on his own people.  So she does not believe our own intelligence analysis?  Why not?  She doesn't address that from what I could find.  Seems weird.  

 

 

 

Well those same intelligence agencies said there were WMDs in Iraq. 

Don't believe everything national intelligence says. They do a decent job most of the time but they have been wrong a lot. 

I'm not saying they were wrong in this instance but I havent personally reviewed the analysis and I doubt Tulsi had either when she made that comment. You will save lives as a military commander if you always approach intelligence you recieve with scrutiny and skepticism. 

Edited by FLEA
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...