Lt. Col. Tulsi Gabbard has changed her position on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the warrantless surveillance authority that was used to spy on the 2016 Trump campaign and was exploited by the FBI hundreds of thousands of times to spy on American citizens.

Gabbard told Punchbowl News last week that she will support the controversial act if confirmed as President-elect Donald Trump's director of national intelligence.

Section 702 allows the government to spy on foreign nationals outside the U.S. with the compelled aid of electronic communication service providers. While supposedly outward-facing, if an American contacts or is contacted by a foreign national over email, social media, or the phone, the American's communications could potentially be tapped, searched, and stored without a warrant.

Gabbard appears to have jettisoned her principled stand in order to survive the confirmation process.

I've said it before: Tulsi's guiding star is political ambition, specifically of the executive variety. She'll say and do anything she believes will help her achieve that goal.

And yes, I donated to her 2020 campaign to be the democrat presidential candidate but mostly because I didn't want someone like Biden to get it (I also donated to Bernie's 2020 campaign for the same reason).

I support policies, not candidates, because like Tulsi and Kamala a politician's stances are liable to twist in the wind so they point in whichever direction they think will be most expedient. If a candidate stops supporting good policies I can no longer support that candidate.

I have to admit Tulsi is a good politician but that's not a compliment. All that means is she lies easily and often; she doesn't actually have core principles or personal integrity. She merely adopts what she sees as the most advantageous position to take at any given moment. In a year, a month, or a week it could be the exact opposite.

Quote from: Garraty_47 on January 14, 2025, 12:55:52 PMI've said it before: Tulsi's guiding star is political ambition, specifically of the executive variety. She'll say and do anything she believes will help her achieve that goal.

And yes, I donated to her 2020 campaign to be the democrat presidential candidate but mostly because I didn't want someone like Biden to get it (I also donated to Bernie's 2020 campaign for the same reason).

I support policies, not candidates, because like Tulsi and Kamala a politician's stances are liable to twist in the wind so they point in whichever direction they think will be most expedient. If a candidate stops supporting good policies I can no longer support that candidate.

I have to admit Tulsi is a good politician but that's not a compliment. All that means is she lies easily and often; she doesn't actually have core principles or personal integrity. She merely adopts what she sees as the most advantageous position to take at any given moment. In a year, a month, or a week it could be the exact opposite.

I admit that is as big a reversal as Kamala supporting fracking or border walls.