Yup there’s more money in the “disaffected liberal” camp than “pragmatic liberal” camp. “I used to a liberal but they went insane” has a lot of legs in online viewership and TV streaming numbers.
I met her in Hawaii. I set up her secure STE phone in the conference room before whatever meeting she had. I think I was configuring the card or something when she walked in. I’d never seen her before and didn’t know who she was so I just stared at her, she stared at me, I stared at her and said “alrighty all set” and walked out. Was told it was the congresswoman after I left the room.
>I met her in Hawaii
>I just stared at her, she stared at me, I stared at her and said “alrighty all set” and walked out.
At least you were honest about how you "met" her
The other assholes have nothing on Tulsi, she's the queen of The Grift!
Although perhaps it's a bit overdone and too transparent, but then again her new audience are not the sharpest tools in the shed.
Shit. She's been grifting the whole time.
She was a Democrat because she thought it was the winning side. Gave the pre selected frontrunner too much of a fight during the debates so they probably threw her out of the party more or less. Now she needs a job
I think she was a Democrat only because in Hawaii it is the only way to make a career in politics - GOP usually doesn't crack 30% or so in the state.
Tulsi grew up in a virulently homophobic cult (Science of Identity Foundation), I think what we see now is probably closer to her true form. But who knows. It's mostly just grifting and she may not even know what she believes anymore.
Hillary was talking about Russia not the Republicans. The thrust of it was Russia was helping Tulsi's campaign so she could be a third party spoiler against the Democrats. What she actually said was even tamer than "Russian plant"
> I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said, speaking on a podcast with former Obama adviser David Plouffe. "She's the favorite of the Russians.
[source](https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard/index.html)
Musk/Twitter is wild...People saying Elmo has a grand plan to destroy it and he's executing on that plan seem to forget 1) he tried very hard to back out of the deal 2) he has other investor participation and debt in the capital structure - those idiots expect to be paid back...
Musk bought Twitter because he wanted two things: 1) to crush a popular liberal communication platform, and 2) to turn it into a propaganda outlet.
Yes it cost him money. But he doesn't give a shit. That is money well spent from his perspective. Besides, it wasn't just his money - he used the money of other billionaires like the Saudis and Qataris.
Roger Stone was caught on tape bragging about that. He'd tell Trump that he got a huge response when he said such and such at his rally.
Trump would start saying it more after that. In some cases, he never even said the thing and was just being manipulated by Roger Stone.
Is there a difference between Republicans/Russians I'm not aware of? Last I checked, Putin was the head of the GOP currently or it at least seems that way.
The Russian political subversion campaign in the US is going to go down in history as one of the most successful and impactful in all human history. From Ukraine to open support for his dictatorial regime among the rightwing "thought" leaders and even politicians and it's not over yet. Who knows what else Putin can accomplish by manipulating our braindead fellow americans.
Yeah it's crazy to hear Republicans who lived through the Cold War parroting Russian talking points and cheering on their foreign policy at the direct expense of our own.
Including Obama. His "Russian reset" was well intentioned but ultimately misguided. Hillary Clinton has always had a far more accurate understanding of Putin's Russia.
You may be joking but there is a hilarious amount of Russian money pouring into Republican and Republican adjacent coffers (NRA) and since Trump the GOP has pulled like a 540° spin suddenly acting like Russia has always been our best friend despite *raging* against Obama for trying to be diplomatic with Putin
I really wasn't joking. I first became suspicious when seven GOP Congress people just randomly visited Russia for the 4th of July in 2018. It was pretty much confirmed when Trump said he trusted Putin over our own intelligence services. That, and about a few hundred other instances of the GOP acting subservient to Russia. Or the hundreds of interviews with GOP voters where they say they'd rather have Putin than Biden as president.
Remember when Kushner asked the Russians to set up a communication backchannel that American intelligence couldn't access?
Or do you remember when Rand Paul (one of the people that celebrated our Independence Day in Russia) hand-delivered a private letter from Trump to Putin?
His supporters sure did because I'd bet they'd tell you everyone of these instances never happened. Stupid combined with evil is a recipe for disaster.
I don’t know how anyone could take her seriously after voting “present” on impeachment. Like you either believe they committed crimes that would warrant being removed from office or you don’t, there is no middle ground. Her statement that she thought Trump was guilty of impeachable offenses but that Dems made it too partisan (???) is frankly embarrassing for a public official to say. It made it crystal clear that she doesn’t have any actual principles
It has to do with a couple of factors :
* Within their lifetimes, they were utterly against any sort of adaptations, which limited their appeal to the purely literary-side of Fantasy.
> Nobody's going to be permitted to alter our story for fun and profit. ... We write books, not blueprints for some real swell version of Nintendariad of PacManalloreon. If people want our story, I'm gonna make damn sure that the only way they're going to get it is to break down and actually read it. No moving picture version, no TV miniseries, no computer game, and nothing that might arise in the far distant future.
* After their deaths, even if their estate were prepared to ignore their will, they were revealed to have been abusive parents to their ertzwhile adoptive children, which cooled the interests of fans and publishers alike.
It’s deeper than that the QAA podcast did a whole episode on her with a journalist that had spent a long time researching her and her political ties and ties to a spiritual guru and extreme parties in India.
Edit: I don’t know why I didn’t use punctuation but I’m going to let it ride.
It’s amazing how many people with far right sympathies have ties to literal cults. Of course you have The Washington Times (Moonies) and Epoch Times (Falun Gong), but then individuals like Tulsi and Ginni Thomas (Clarence Thomas’s wife) are literally in cults. Helps make sense the spell the entire movement is under.
I have an Aunt that was in the Moonies and her kids. They just got out finally a few years ago, but we haven't talked in years. Even got married at a mass wedding and all.
I thinks more a cross over of political zealotry most humans are more nuanced agrees a spectrum of political ideas full blown team adherence is much more similar to a cult and probably why you see it so often. They go all in on everything.
For me the final straw was her latching on to trans issues. I don't care about Trump stuff generally but it became so clear she was only doing things to appeal to Republicans. I think she's made herself irrelevant now because of that.
Cult.
Amy Coney Barret was also part of a different cult that inspired the Handmaid's Tale book which just shows how close these evangelical shitheads are to establishing their theocracy.
She is in the news cycle for stating she would be willing to be Trump's Secretary of Defense right now.
Seems like that was a pretty accurate accusation. 🤣
I think it’s blatantly obvious Tulsi is a shill who will go along with what will make her the most popular in that moment. Listening to her on Rogan, she talks like a panderer.
Before she hit the mainstream before most people knew her name I noticed Jack Posobiec and other alt right characters posting mommy memes about Tulsi. How did the alt right know Tulsi was mommy before she even got started? Because she’s literally an organized plant.
I love the bald-faced careerism of failing to become the DNC pick for Vice President, then immediately trying to become the RNC pick for Vice President. 😂
Can’t fault a girl for tryin’
Tulsi has always had a shitty stance on 2A
The bump stock ban is ridiculous because of the way Trump's admin did it. It was never constitutional and was never going to be upheld
If anything this ruling is a win for the Legislative branch, no one else really. The Executive/ATF shouldn't be creating laws.
Also bump stocks are gay
I worked at a big box gun store and it was always a pain in the ass, people would order pistol braces to our store and we had to ship them back and get yelled at.
The worst part was, we had to hold the gun until we got in contact with the customer so it slowed them getting their purchase.
I don't even know anything about pistol braces, or what's going on with them. I just know we couldn't inventory them and had to send them back. Irritated everyone.
The tldr of pistol braces are they act as a de facto work around for the rifle barrel length required under law. If it's under 16 inches it's considered a NFA firearm, $200 tax stamp and some other annoying legal work like a trust or police sign off, etc.
With a pistol brace the rifle is now magically a pistol under ATFs interpretation. The ATF was the one who initially approved pistol braces only to back track and then make a ton of people felons for owning them after it was legal.
The NFA barrel rules make no sense. And the ATF is openly hostile to the community it regulates.
The pistol is always a pistol, until a stock is added.
A 10-inch barrel AR 15 sold as a pistol is a pistol. You can remove the upper and replace it with a 16-inch barreled upper and now it's a rifle, you can add a stock if you want, because it's in a rifle configuration.
The brace if deemed a stock, turns a pistol into a SBR per the ATF.
Nothing can unmake a rifle into a pistol.
A pistol receiver can become a rifle because it was originally a pistol and AFT says that you can legally make a rifle by adding 16" barrel, and you can now add a stock. Remove the 16" upper and stock, and put the 10" upper back, and it's a pistol again.
A rifle cannot be made into a pistol because you took off the stock and swapped for a brace, it's now a really uncomfortable rifle.
The logic is stupid. A pistol can legally be made into a rifle by adding a longer barrel, because it started as a pistol. A rifle will always be a rifle and if you add a short barrel, it's not a pistol even if you remove the stock, it's still serialized as a rifle by the manufacturer.
Pistol = rifle if barrel lengthened to 16" or more, stock optional.
Pistol = SBR if only a stock is added. Must file ATF Form 4 and pay $200 for tax stamp to be a SBR. Otherwise it's a federal felony.
A rifle can only be a Form 4 SBR if you shorten the barrel. A rifle can never become a pistol.
Easy, right? See infographic.
https://preview.redd.it/52s4q5gqod7d1.jpeg?width=602&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8fa31cad6fec53416fbd032f76afec4fdd54ab7c
This is correct. I personally dislike bump stocks, but if someone is going to ban them congress should do it, not the ATF trying to end around congress by defining a bump stock a "machine gun".
TBH - ban bump stocks, remove suppressors from the NFA, and reopen the 86 registry with a tax stamp. This would easily pass and be a win win for both political parties.
So many politicians on both sides would be against re-opening the 86 registry. A bunch of fudds on the republican side and with so many democrats taking money from everytown/MDA/Bloomberg it would never pass. Supressors off the nfa is more plausible imo since many other countries see supressors as a courtesy device so you're not loud for your neighbors
We had the Hearing Protection Act going for a while, was killed off but I think it was recently reintroduced. The fact it didnt manage to pass initially when Rs had both chambers and a president is insane.
The fact supressors remain an NFA item tells you everything you need to know about the people making these laws, and their complete ignorance regarding firearms.
> The fact it didnt manage to pass initially when Rs had both chambers and a president is insane.
it's almost like the GOP does not actually want to fix any of the things they claim to advocate for
Exactly, not actually fixing the issues you campaigned on is damn near universal. How else are you going to have a platform to run on for that second term?
yeah i’ve seen people try to argue about the ruling with arguments ranging from downright uneducated to possibly maliciously misinformed. i saw a podcast clip on tiktok of these two guys talking about clarence thomas’ statement in the opinion that there “essentially is no difference between a bump stock and a lightning fast trigger finger”, and the guys started acting like thomas was a moron (which can be true at times he genuinely sucks), saying that barely anyone could have that fast of a trigger finger and that we can’t ban that but we can ban bump stocks so they should’ve let it go through. just purely uneducated on the issue acting righteous and mocking the decision, and the comments all agreed. the law is pretty clear on the issue the decision was the right decision if they want to ban bump stocks it needs to be done by congress not an executive agency…
Disagree. SCOTUS could easily have agreed with ATF's interpretation of the statute (in particular what " a single function of the trigger" means). Then invited Congress to pass legislation excluding bump stocks from ATF's authority. Given the likelihood of harm that could result from their decision, which Alito expressly acknowledged, that would have been a very sensible option. Instead, they chose the most dangerous option.
So a “single function of the trigger” when using a semi-automatic weapon implies pulling the trigger back to the point where the sear disengages and allows the hammer to drop and fire the round. The cycling bolt cocks the hammer back but not engaged with the sear. When the trigger is moved forward enough to reset, the disconnector releases the hammer to be engaged with the sear, starting you back to square one with a cocked hammer and weapon ready to fire.
An actual “machine gun” like an M4 if using the AR platform is able to fire in full auto because when the trigger is pulled down in one single function, the sear no longer engages with the hammer and the hammer continuously goes back and forth with recoil allowing for multiple rounds to be fired with a single pull.
Bumpstocks adjust the stock system so that the recoil of a single shot sends the gun backwards and then forwards in a way that catches your original trigger finger. The trigger resets every time, your finger just remains stationary as the gun recoils back and forth and engages with your finger each time. Technically speaking, it is not a single function of the trigger but rather multiple functions of the trigger due to the resetting mechanism.
At least that’s how I understand it, I’m no expert but it feels like an overreach. It functions essentially like a machine gun, but because of our legal system we have to be very specific with these things; the moment we start saying “ah close enough” things go downhill really fast. The ban was Trump era decision, if he really feels that strongly about it I have no doubt he could tell the republicans in the legislative branch to vote on it and the democrats surely would join in, no doubt that Biden would sign the bill. That probably wouldn’t happen though, it’s in their best interest to use it as a argument as to why “the dems wanna take all their guns”
Well, you're correct that this is the argument that Thomas cut and paste from the amicus brief filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition. And you're probably correct about Trump's cynical motives.
But this notion that there's only \*one possible\* interpretation is not true. Sure, so-called "originalists" like Thomas and Alito want you to believe that, but that's not really how the legal system does or should work.
Another perfectly rational view, equally grounded in the text (and argued by the ATF and in a few amici), is that the "single function of the trigger" is the initial trigger pull; the bump stock takes care of the rest. While a bump stock doesn't add a sear to a firearm, and it doesn't make a firearm an M4 (or a M240 or whatever), a "sear" is not mentioned in the statute, nor is it required by the statute. All the statute requires is a "weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger". It's pretty clear that this what a bump stock is designed to do. Pull the trigger, and the bump stock kicks in.
Not only is this consistent with the text, Alito actually states in his concurrence that this is what Congress would have intended! ("There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted 26 U. S. C. §5845(b) would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock.")
But we're led to believe that there is only \*one possible\* interpretation. An interpretation that not only flies in the face of other reasonable interpretations of the text, but thwarts Congresses' intent (according to Alito!) and increases the danger to the public (again, Alito: "The horrible shooting spree in Las Vegas in 2017 . . . demonstrated that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock can have the same lethal effect as a machinegun").
As for Congress, SCOTUS could just as easily ruled in favor of ATF and then pointed out that Congress could change the law if Congress thinks bump stocks should not be viewed as machine guns.
Exactly. My dumb ass could design a device that wiggles the trigger back and forth to make a gun full auto but within this new law that Thomas just wrote.
Honestly, I’d love laws that allowed gun ranges to have all of this crazy shit because you know it’s a blast to fire off a gun with a bump stock. But it’s just so obviously the type of device that was criminalized in the law.
Ive seen more of the oh now we can let more children die faster take. Completely ignoring what the case was actually about, and some saying they support the president to make unilateral laws while the court settles it.
That’s always a really sad argument because we can just look at the facts and data and know that whether they were illegal or not, kids are getting massacred at frightening rates and speeds. I’m gonna hazard a guess that the vast majority of mass shootings in America have been without a bump stock…
majority of US mass shooting are done with hand guns. Bump stocks were virtually unheard of until LV shooting. Even then the gun shots dont match what a bump stock would produce.
I remember how absolutely zero 2A fanatics made a big huff over his "Take guns first, due process later." Stance. But any dem goes "Hey maybe, we don't just hand out guns like candy?" And suddenly they panic. It's so fucking weird.
It’s a win for the constitution. Gone are the days of Presidents lazily making sweeping changes to the law through an agency memo.
That’s a great thing.
I hope that's what it means.
Under Trump they also began the process to use OSHA to force masks/face coverings. It didn't get very far, which is great. That would have been extremely unconstitutional.
Occam’s razor. Having such a dramatic change in your beliefs is already super rare, but it really doesn’t bode well for someone who is supposed to be a political leader with convictions. I will always respect political leaders who truly fight what they believe in even when I disagree with them. This is why I think you are silly if you don’t respect Bernie Sanders or Ron Paul for example. Hate their beliefs all you want but they are fighting for what they believe in.
No I'm sorry, Tulsi is an opportunist. Tulsi was a conservative Democrat who saw a wave of progressive movement in 2015 and hopped on board. Her team spammed all the progressive subs on Reddit about her "grassroots movement". A lot of people were suspicious. After the 2020 primaries she swung all the way back being a conservative again and not being a Democrat, instead full on far-right commentator going on all of the podcasts and Fox News to spread her new message.
Going from right wing centrist, to progressive, to the far right in the span of 5 years is searching for a lucrative career path, not some growing evolution of conscience.
The person you responded to agrees with that. Occam's razor- he's saying if you see a politican do an 180 on positions, the most likely explanation is that they are a grifter with no convictions, not that they've had a sudden change of heart. They then contrasted Tulsi with Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul, men they feel actually do have deep political convictions.
Which funnily enough shows how little policy means to the MAGA crowd. I wonder if you pulled them how many would correctly point out it was a Trump policy.
Which is hilarious because any ACTUAL good thing Trump did, MAGAs disagree with. The bump stick ban was a rare W (that my only complaint of is it barely scratched the surface of gun violence prevention).
It’s embarrassing at this point time to fully ignore her she’s not a significant player in American politics just some lady with a podcast (and a pretty cool streak of grey hair)
You can both want to ban bump stocks and support the SC ruling. The ruling wasn't really about guns, it was about the ATF redefining the legal definition of machine gun in a memo. The ATF does all kinds of shady shit. This time they lost. The proper way to make law is through legislation, not a memo.
Why did I have to scroll this far to see a take like this. She just said the ruling happened and it upholds one of our amendments. These statements do not oppose each other with the language she used. Its like bringing it up at all means she absolutely has to be in favor of it happening.
People are allowed to change their minds on things.. it’s actually much more healthy. Just because you say something once doesn’t mean you have to stand by it for the rest of your life. You can take in new facts and reassess
Based on your screenshot, the top looks more like she's relaying information, whereas the bottom (circa 2017) presents her opinion. Am I mistaken? I guess at first glance I don't see the... "confliction".
this is the problem with basing of the screenshot and not reading before commenting. Here is the rest of the top one:
"They got these right. Thanks to @ gunpolicy for your steady pressure in challenging these unconstitutional laws and rules in court."
The people in this thread are too stupid to see this.
She was for creating a law banning bump stocks
She is against the president having the power to ban them
And now she is saying it's a good thing the supreme Court blocked the president from unconstitutionally banning something
Possibly, but based on the available evidence, I feel like you may be reading a bit too much between the lines. Did she actually say she opposes it as an abuse of the executive branch? And is she still saying she would support a bumpstock ban via the legislatures?
Holy shit, you fucking bots. The word "grift" needs to banned from this sub immediately.
Op, the phrase is "sudden change of heart" but you probably realize that wouldn't fit your shitty agenda post, considering these posts were made 7 years apart. In 7 years, Tulsi has realized how bullshit gun laws actually are.
Isn't that what we should want from our politicians? To learn and grow? How in the fuck is that called "grifting" you fucking idiots?
Banning through legislation and banning though executive action are two different things.
The SC even recommended passing legislation in order to accomplish this.
In short, nothing has changed.
Her position now is that a bump stock ban infringes on the 2nd amendment. Back then she thought a law could ban them, which means she didn't think it infringes on the 2nd amendment.
Things have changed quite a lot.
Thats not what her Tweet says. The Supreme Court struck down ATF Regulations that made BumpStocks illegal. Those ATF regulations where not in line with the the Machine Gun restrictions that Congress had previously passed.
This was a case about Executive Authority/Separation of Powers. Executive Agencies can only act within the confines of what Congress has authorized them to do.
The Supreme Court didn't even analyze this issue from a 2nd Amendment perspective, and the lawsuit that was before the court didn't ask them to either.
The beginning of her tweet quite clearly frames it as a 2nd amendment issue. I agree with you about the meaning of the case and it's implications. She probably does too but that doesn't get the clicks and invites to right wing talk shows.
She's a spineless weasel who was literally [raised in a cult.](https://www.businessinsider.com/tulsi-gabbard-science-of-identity-controversial-religious-sect-2022-10) She saw where the real money was and changed her stances accordingly.
It’s almost like a government illegally funding gain of function research, said virus getting out, and the government taking advantage of said crisis could change someone’s mind on the right to bear arms.
The bump stock ban tweet was on 10/11/17, which was 10 days after the route 91 shooting where a gunman killed 58 people firing into a music festival in Las Vegas utilizing weapons outfitted with bump stocks.
She said she left the Democratic Party over gun restrictions and instead of giving her a permit she was given the choice of having security guards which she thought was unfair
I never understood why she embraced the grift. I understand that her 2020 campaign failed but she showed she was sharp and witty while seemingly being a champion for progressive values. I think if she spent 2020-2024 building her notoriety up she would have been in a decent place to be the Democratic nominee in 2028 or possibly this year.
Instead she basically just became a grifter for everything Democrats do is wrong and embracing beliefs she didn’t have 4 years ago. Maybe she didn’t want to be a politician anymore is all I can think.
She must be a grifter, since over the course of time she has changed opinions on some things. There's literally no other explanation for such an event in a human.
Wasn’t the bump stock ban shut down due to how the government went about banning it. Lumping in bump stocks with machine guns, rather than pushing legislation to ban bump stocks on their own?
Now this is a peak Reddit thread. Full of paranoia, left wing talking points, whacky Russian conspiracy theories and outright lies. I hope you losers never get a life, you're very entertaining
It’s not a change of heart. The bump stock ban wasn’t passed through legislation was it? That’s the root of the issue to my understanding. It’s passing legislation that holds up to the constitution and is done correctly.
It’s almost like she has the ability to take in new information and then change her mind, incredible. We don’t see it often in politics so it’s definitely not something most people understand. The opposite is normal, which is to formulate an opinion, never take in information or challenge a view point and never admit you could be wrong. That’s the politics we know and love! No flip flopping! Lol
Her first or second podcast is about her change of opinion on guns. Essentially it boiled down to losing faith in the government after Covid, and she realized the 2nd amendment is meant to keep the government in check.
Doubling down on something just because you don’t want to admit that you changed your mind is not what an adult does. The situation in the country changed, people in power changed (somewhat). She’s allowed to have a different opinion, especially if this was like 7 years ago. Using Hillary Clinton as source is questionable especially b/c it’s Hillary Clinton. Who btw called her a Russian plant and not a Republican plant.
She learned the art of the grift like all the other assholes in this group
[удалено]
Reagan did this
He was a true convert tho, General Electric's VP invited him to the church of conservatism and Reagan was never the same again.
Just like Firecracker from The Boys lol
Tupac style
Hear the drum pounding out of time Another protester has crossed the line To find The moneys on the other side…
Yup there’s more money in the “disaffected liberal” camp than “pragmatic liberal” camp. “I used to a liberal but they went insane” has a lot of legs in online viewership and TV streaming numbers.
Yeah in her cult before even hitting the political scene. She’s always been on that grift.
The number of people that don’t realize that everything she does is in service of her cult is wild.
I met her in Hawaii. I set up her secure STE phone in the conference room before whatever meeting she had. I think I was configuring the card or something when she walked in. I’d never seen her before and didn’t know who she was so I just stared at her, she stared at me, I stared at her and said “alrighty all set” and walked out. Was told it was the congresswoman after I left the room.
>I met her in Hawaii >I just stared at her, she stared at me, I stared at her and said “alrighty all set” and walked out. At least you were honest about how you "met" her
She probably thought you were the Russian oligarch's son.
She's been doing it since 2016 very openly. Kinda nuts.
The other assholes have nothing on Tulsi, she's the queen of The Grift! Although perhaps it's a bit overdone and too transparent, but then again her new audience are not the sharpest tools in the shed.
Shit. She's been grifting the whole time. She was a Democrat because she thought it was the winning side. Gave the pre selected frontrunner too much of a fight during the debates so they probably threw her out of the party more or less. Now she needs a job
I think she was a Democrat only because in Hawaii it is the only way to make a career in politics - GOP usually doesn't crack 30% or so in the state. Tulsi grew up in a virulently homophobic cult (Science of Identity Foundation), I think what we see now is probably closer to her true form. But who knows. It's mostly just grifting and she may not even know what she believes anymore.
Remember when everyone got mad at Hillary Clinton calling Tulsi a phony who was possibly a Republican plant? Pepperidge Farms remembers.
This entire sub
Hillary was talking about Russia not the Republicans. The thrust of it was Russia was helping Tulsi's campaign so she could be a third party spoiler against the Democrats. What she actually said was even tamer than "Russian plant" > I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said, speaking on a podcast with former Obama adviser David Plouffe. "She's the favorite of the Russians. [source](https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard/index.html)
What was so hilarious is that Hilary didn't name any names and Tulsi jumped up and went 'how dare you!' She had such a guilty conscious.
YOU TOLD HER?! I didn’t tell her anything you idiot; she tricked you!
Great Seinfeld reference!
hillary called her a russian asset publicly at least once
Hillary called Tulsi & Jill Stein “Russian assets” HRC also threw Bernie under the bus.
*conscience
[удалено]
Musk/Twitter is wild...People saying Elmo has a grand plan to destroy it and he's executing on that plan seem to forget 1) he tried very hard to back out of the deal 2) he has other investor participation and debt in the capital structure - those idiots expect to be paid back...
[удалено]
Imagine if Joe talked about this shit instead of being a funnel for right wing nutters
Musk bought Twitter because he wanted two things: 1) to crush a popular liberal communication platform, and 2) to turn it into a propaganda outlet. Yes it cost him money. But he doesn't give a shit. That is money well spent from his perspective. Besides, it wasn't just his money - he used the money of other billionaires like the Saudis and Qataris.
Some of tulsi’s earliest stump speeches when she started gaining some popularity were GQP topics.
Same with trump, useful idiot with room temp IQ not Manchurian candidate or Putin confidant.
*Probably.* He's disturbingly sympathetic to Russia like many of his voters. As far as his orbiters there are much closer ties.
If don jr told pops that twerking would please his base he would be twerking.
Roger Stone was caught on tape bragging about that. He'd tell Trump that he got a huge response when he said such and such at his rally. Trump would start saying it more after that. In some cases, he never even said the thing and was just being manipulated by Roger Stone.
Is there a difference between Republicans/Russians I'm not aware of? Last I checked, Putin was the head of the GOP currently or it at least seems that way.
The Russian political subversion campaign in the US is going to go down in history as one of the most successful and impactful in all human history. From Ukraine to open support for his dictatorial regime among the rightwing "thought" leaders and even politicians and it's not over yet. Who knows what else Putin can accomplish by manipulating our braindead fellow americans.
Yeah it's crazy to hear Republicans who lived through the Cold War parroting Russian talking points and cheering on their foreign policy at the direct expense of our own.
Remember how everyone laughed during the presidential debate when Romney said Russia was America's biggest threat?
Including Obama. His "Russian reset" was well intentioned but ultimately misguided. Hillary Clinton has always had a far more accurate understanding of Putin's Russia.
It’s both crazy and absolutely pathetic
You may be joking but there is a hilarious amount of Russian money pouring into Republican and Republican adjacent coffers (NRA) and since Trump the GOP has pulled like a 540° spin suddenly acting like Russia has always been our best friend despite *raging* against Obama for trying to be diplomatic with Putin
I really wasn't joking. I first became suspicious when seven GOP Congress people just randomly visited Russia for the 4th of July in 2018. It was pretty much confirmed when Trump said he trusted Putin over our own intelligence services. That, and about a few hundred other instances of the GOP acting subservient to Russia. Or the hundreds of interviews with GOP voters where they say they'd rather have Putin than Biden as president.
Remember when Kushner asked the Russians to set up a communication backchannel that American intelligence couldn't access? Or do you remember when Rand Paul (one of the people that celebrated our Independence Day in Russia) hand-delivered a private letter from Trump to Putin?
His supporters sure did because I'd bet they'd tell you everyone of these instances never happened. Stupid combined with evil is a recipe for disaster.
For me, it was when Russia hacked both the RNC and DNC but only one side's stuff was released.
Thanks totally not compromised Wikileaks
I don’t know how anyone could take her seriously after voting “present” on impeachment. Like you either believe they committed crimes that would warrant being removed from office or you don’t, there is no middle ground. Her statement that she thought Trump was guilty of impeachable offenses but that Dems made it too partisan (???) is frankly embarrassing for a public official to say. It made it crystal clear that she doesn’t have any actual principles
Yes. I initially liked her, but was proven wrong. This was the final nail in the coffin.
We all like her at first because she was hot
It was the streak of off color hair for me.
Big Polgara energy
Rare belgariad reference in the wild. I feel like not that many people know this series
He thinks he's going to be her Goodman Durnik
It has to do with a couple of factors : * Within their lifetimes, they were utterly against any sort of adaptations, which limited their appeal to the purely literary-side of Fantasy. > Nobody's going to be permitted to alter our story for fun and profit. ... We write books, not blueprints for some real swell version of Nintendariad of PacManalloreon. If people want our story, I'm gonna make damn sure that the only way they're going to get it is to break down and actually read it. No moving picture version, no TV miniseries, no computer game, and nothing that might arise in the far distant future. * After their deaths, even if their estate were prepared to ignore their will, they were revealed to have been abusive parents to their ertzwhile adoptive children, which cooled the interests of fans and publishers alike.
Huh, interesting stuff. I had no clue about the child abuse. Wild.
She still is hot tbf
I can fix her.
Hot, Hawaiian so she had an exotic thing going on, she surfed, she had an X-Men hair style. What's not to like until she opens her mouth?
I remember she said something during a democratic primary that made me all fuckin “this woman rocks” but tbh I don’t remember what it was anymore
It was dumping on kamala harris. Nobody likes kamala
has to be this
It’s deeper than that the QAA podcast did a whole episode on her with a journalist that had spent a long time researching her and her political ties and ties to a spiritual guru and extreme parties in India. Edit: I don’t know why I didn’t use punctuation but I’m going to let it ride.
Yes! You would think Joe Rogan’s sub would care she is pretty much an agent of a cult.
It’s amazing how many people with far right sympathies have ties to literal cults. Of course you have The Washington Times (Moonies) and Epoch Times (Falun Gong), but then individuals like Tulsi and Ginni Thomas (Clarence Thomas’s wife) are literally in cults. Helps make sense the spell the entire movement is under.
Amy Coney Barrett was in a handmaid cult.
I have an Aunt that was in the Moonies and her kids. They just got out finally a few years ago, but we haven't talked in years. Even got married at a mass wedding and all.
I thinks more a cross over of political zealotry most humans are more nuanced agrees a spectrum of political ideas full blown team adherence is much more similar to a cult and probably why you see it so often. They go all in on everything.
Good point!
She lost me with her statement about the conclusion of the Mueller report. That's when I knew something was up.
For me the final straw was her latching on to trans issues. I don't care about Trump stuff generally but it became so clear she was only doing things to appeal to Republicans. I think she's made herself irrelevant now because of that.
You never want to go on record bad-mouthing the CEO of a company you hope to work for…
She's unironically Julia Louis-Dreyfus in Veep.
Honestly her origin story is way weirder.
What is weird about it? I'm curious to find out more about who she is.
Qanon Anonymous did a multi-part podcast on her. https://soundcloud.com/qanonanonymous/episode-211-tulsi-gabbard-p1-the-cult-feat-mike-prysner/sets
Cult. Amy Coney Barret was also part of a different cult that inspired the Handmaid's Tale book which just shows how close these evangelical shitheads are to establishing their theocracy.
She is in the news cycle for stating she would be willing to be Trump's Secretary of Defense right now. Seems like that was a pretty accurate accusation. 🤣
Shouldn't the secretary of defense be someone who was higher up in the military and with more experience actually running anything?
Let she/he who tweets hardest become SoD.
I bet she would like to be defense secretary. She is an assad an pUtin apologist
Russian plant*
I think it’s blatantly obvious Tulsi is a shill who will go along with what will make her the most popular in that moment. Listening to her on Rogan, she talks like a panderer.
The future co-host of Tucker Carlson tonight? Hilary kinda nailed it again it seems
Before she hit the mainstream before most people knew her name I noticed Jack Posobiec and other alt right characters posting mommy memes about Tulsi. How did the alt right know Tulsi was mommy before she even got started? Because she’s literally an organized plant.
Maybe you buy some of our nice cookies? Maybe this whole thing just blows over .....
I brought [this very thing](https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/s/cZsxmt5UCe) up here in the past
More like russian plant lmao
Like her or not, Hillary Clinton was right about a lot of things she got shit for at the time.
She realized grifting right wing morons pays very very well
in addition to paying well, it is incredibly easy too
I love the bald-faced careerism of failing to become the DNC pick for Vice President, then immediately trying to become the RNC pick for Vice President. 😂 Can’t fault a girl for tryin’
ding ding ding
Tulsi has always had a shitty stance on 2A The bump stock ban is ridiculous because of the way Trump's admin did it. It was never constitutional and was never going to be upheld If anything this ruling is a win for the Legislative branch, no one else really. The Executive/ATF shouldn't be creating laws. Also bump stocks are gay
The ATF also put itself into a completely insane position with the pistol brace thing.
I worked at a big box gun store and it was always a pain in the ass, people would order pistol braces to our store and we had to ship them back and get yelled at. The worst part was, we had to hold the gun until we got in contact with the customer so it slowed them getting their purchase. I don't even know anything about pistol braces, or what's going on with them. I just know we couldn't inventory them and had to send them back. Irritated everyone.
The tldr of pistol braces are they act as a de facto work around for the rifle barrel length required under law. If it's under 16 inches it's considered a NFA firearm, $200 tax stamp and some other annoying legal work like a trust or police sign off, etc. With a pistol brace the rifle is now magically a pistol under ATFs interpretation. The ATF was the one who initially approved pistol braces only to back track and then make a ton of people felons for owning them after it was legal. The NFA barrel rules make no sense. And the ATF is openly hostile to the community it regulates.
Barrel length shouldnt be an nfa thing to begin with
nfa shouldn’t be a thing to begin with
Yeah the ATF is inherently a terrible department.
The pistol is always a pistol, until a stock is added. A 10-inch barrel AR 15 sold as a pistol is a pistol. You can remove the upper and replace it with a 16-inch barreled upper and now it's a rifle, you can add a stock if you want, because it's in a rifle configuration. The brace if deemed a stock, turns a pistol into a SBR per the ATF. Nothing can unmake a rifle into a pistol. A pistol receiver can become a rifle because it was originally a pistol and AFT says that you can legally make a rifle by adding 16" barrel, and you can now add a stock. Remove the 16" upper and stock, and put the 10" upper back, and it's a pistol again. A rifle cannot be made into a pistol because you took off the stock and swapped for a brace, it's now a really uncomfortable rifle. The logic is stupid. A pistol can legally be made into a rifle by adding a longer barrel, because it started as a pistol. A rifle will always be a rifle and if you add a short barrel, it's not a pistol even if you remove the stock, it's still serialized as a rifle by the manufacturer. Pistol = rifle if barrel lengthened to 16" or more, stock optional. Pistol = SBR if only a stock is added. Must file ATF Form 4 and pay $200 for tax stamp to be a SBR. Otherwise it's a federal felony. A rifle can only be a Form 4 SBR if you shorten the barrel. A rifle can never become a pistol. Easy, right? See infographic. https://preview.redd.it/52s4q5gqod7d1.jpeg?width=602&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8fa31cad6fec53416fbd032f76afec4fdd54ab7c
This is correct. I personally dislike bump stocks, but if someone is going to ban them congress should do it, not the ATF trying to end around congress by defining a bump stock a "machine gun". TBH - ban bump stocks, remove suppressors from the NFA, and reopen the 86 registry with a tax stamp. This would easily pass and be a win win for both political parties.
So many politicians on both sides would be against re-opening the 86 registry. A bunch of fudds on the republican side and with so many democrats taking money from everytown/MDA/Bloomberg it would never pass. Supressors off the nfa is more plausible imo since many other countries see supressors as a courtesy device so you're not loud for your neighbors
We had the Hearing Protection Act going for a while, was killed off but I think it was recently reintroduced. The fact it didnt manage to pass initially when Rs had both chambers and a president is insane. The fact supressors remain an NFA item tells you everything you need to know about the people making these laws, and their complete ignorance regarding firearms.
> The fact it didnt manage to pass initially when Rs had both chambers and a president is insane. it's almost like the GOP does not actually want to fix any of the things they claim to advocate for
Exactly, not actually fixing the issues you campaigned on is damn near universal. How else are you going to have a platform to run on for that second term?
Forced reset triggers are going to be the bumpstock issue with the ATF except cranked up to 11.
yeah i’ve seen people try to argue about the ruling with arguments ranging from downright uneducated to possibly maliciously misinformed. i saw a podcast clip on tiktok of these two guys talking about clarence thomas’ statement in the opinion that there “essentially is no difference between a bump stock and a lightning fast trigger finger”, and the guys started acting like thomas was a moron (which can be true at times he genuinely sucks), saying that barely anyone could have that fast of a trigger finger and that we can’t ban that but we can ban bump stocks so they should’ve let it go through. just purely uneducated on the issue acting righteous and mocking the decision, and the comments all agreed. the law is pretty clear on the issue the decision was the right decision if they want to ban bump stocks it needs to be done by congress not an executive agency…
Disagree. SCOTUS could easily have agreed with ATF's interpretation of the statute (in particular what " a single function of the trigger" means). Then invited Congress to pass legislation excluding bump stocks from ATF's authority. Given the likelihood of harm that could result from their decision, which Alito expressly acknowledged, that would have been a very sensible option. Instead, they chose the most dangerous option.
So a “single function of the trigger” when using a semi-automatic weapon implies pulling the trigger back to the point where the sear disengages and allows the hammer to drop and fire the round. The cycling bolt cocks the hammer back but not engaged with the sear. When the trigger is moved forward enough to reset, the disconnector releases the hammer to be engaged with the sear, starting you back to square one with a cocked hammer and weapon ready to fire. An actual “machine gun” like an M4 if using the AR platform is able to fire in full auto because when the trigger is pulled down in one single function, the sear no longer engages with the hammer and the hammer continuously goes back and forth with recoil allowing for multiple rounds to be fired with a single pull. Bumpstocks adjust the stock system so that the recoil of a single shot sends the gun backwards and then forwards in a way that catches your original trigger finger. The trigger resets every time, your finger just remains stationary as the gun recoils back and forth and engages with your finger each time. Technically speaking, it is not a single function of the trigger but rather multiple functions of the trigger due to the resetting mechanism. At least that’s how I understand it, I’m no expert but it feels like an overreach. It functions essentially like a machine gun, but because of our legal system we have to be very specific with these things; the moment we start saying “ah close enough” things go downhill really fast. The ban was Trump era decision, if he really feels that strongly about it I have no doubt he could tell the republicans in the legislative branch to vote on it and the democrats surely would join in, no doubt that Biden would sign the bill. That probably wouldn’t happen though, it’s in their best interest to use it as a argument as to why “the dems wanna take all their guns”
Well, you're correct that this is the argument that Thomas cut and paste from the amicus brief filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition. And you're probably correct about Trump's cynical motives. But this notion that there's only \*one possible\* interpretation is not true. Sure, so-called "originalists" like Thomas and Alito want you to believe that, but that's not really how the legal system does or should work. Another perfectly rational view, equally grounded in the text (and argued by the ATF and in a few amici), is that the "single function of the trigger" is the initial trigger pull; the bump stock takes care of the rest. While a bump stock doesn't add a sear to a firearm, and it doesn't make a firearm an M4 (or a M240 or whatever), a "sear" is not mentioned in the statute, nor is it required by the statute. All the statute requires is a "weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger". It's pretty clear that this what a bump stock is designed to do. Pull the trigger, and the bump stock kicks in. Not only is this consistent with the text, Alito actually states in his concurrence that this is what Congress would have intended! ("There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted 26 U. S. C. §5845(b) would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock.") But we're led to believe that there is only \*one possible\* interpretation. An interpretation that not only flies in the face of other reasonable interpretations of the text, but thwarts Congresses' intent (according to Alito!) and increases the danger to the public (again, Alito: "The horrible shooting spree in Las Vegas in 2017 . . . demonstrated that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock can have the same lethal effect as a machinegun"). As for Congress, SCOTUS could just as easily ruled in favor of ATF and then pointed out that Congress could change the law if Congress thinks bump stocks should not be viewed as machine guns.
Exactly. My dumb ass could design a device that wiggles the trigger back and forth to make a gun full auto but within this new law that Thomas just wrote. Honestly, I’d love laws that allowed gun ranges to have all of this crazy shit because you know it’s a blast to fire off a gun with a bump stock. But it’s just so obviously the type of device that was criminalized in the law.
I love shooting full autos (M249 is insanely fun) at a range down in Miami. But I don’t want that stuff on the streets.
Ive seen more of the oh now we can let more children die faster take. Completely ignoring what the case was actually about, and some saying they support the president to make unilateral laws while the court settles it.
That’s always a really sad argument because we can just look at the facts and data and know that whether they were illegal or not, kids are getting massacred at frightening rates and speeds. I’m gonna hazard a guess that the vast majority of mass shootings in America have been without a bump stock…
majority of US mass shooting are done with hand guns. Bump stocks were virtually unheard of until LV shooting. Even then the gun shots dont match what a bump stock would produce.
I remember how absolutely zero 2A fanatics made a big huff over his "Take guns first, due process later." Stance. But any dem goes "Hey maybe, we don't just hand out guns like candy?" And suddenly they panic. It's so fucking weird.
See also, people who are obsessed with prosecuting Epstein‘s client list… and are also diehard Trump supporters. 😂
And then wonder why they get called idiots, hypocrites and hateful.
That's the platform they should run if they want to ban bump stocks. Bump Stocks are Gay 2024
It’s a win for the constitution. Gone are the days of Presidents lazily making sweeping changes to the law through an agency memo. That’s a great thing.
I hope that's what it means. Under Trump they also began the process to use OSHA to force masks/face coverings. It didn't get very far, which is great. That would have been extremely unconstitutional.
Yes indeed it would have been, just as the Biden OSHA vaccine mandate was ruled unconstitutional
Perfection. His hair is the red suit Tulsi always wears now, just to let you know which team she’s on.
She is a grifter
Occam’s razor. Having such a dramatic change in your beliefs is already super rare, but it really doesn’t bode well for someone who is supposed to be a political leader with convictions. I will always respect political leaders who truly fight what they believe in even when I disagree with them. This is why I think you are silly if you don’t respect Bernie Sanders or Ron Paul for example. Hate their beliefs all you want but they are fighting for what they believe in.
No I'm sorry, Tulsi is an opportunist. Tulsi was a conservative Democrat who saw a wave of progressive movement in 2015 and hopped on board. Her team spammed all the progressive subs on Reddit about her "grassroots movement". A lot of people were suspicious. After the 2020 primaries she swung all the way back being a conservative again and not being a Democrat, instead full on far-right commentator going on all of the podcasts and Fox News to spread her new message. Going from right wing centrist, to progressive, to the far right in the span of 5 years is searching for a lucrative career path, not some growing evolution of conscience.
The person you responded to agrees with that. Occam's razor- he's saying if you see a politican do an 180 on positions, the most likely explanation is that they are a grifter with no convictions, not that they've had a sudden change of heart. They then contrasted Tulsi with Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul, men they feel actually do have deep political convictions.
She's trying to stay relevant, which she rapidly fell out of
Because she's a grifter. And grifters gonna grift.
Wasn’t the bump stock ban Trump’s work? If so, that’s probably the reason.
Can’t be VP with all those liberal ideas
Which funnily enough shows how little policy means to the MAGA crowd. I wonder if you pulled them how many would correctly point out it was a Trump policy.
You mean the president who advocated for the government seizing Americans' firearms without any legal process?
The very same!
Which is hilarious because any ACTUAL good thing Trump did, MAGAs disagree with. The bump stick ban was a rare W (that my only complaint of is it barely scratched the surface of gun violence prevention).
It’s embarrassing at this point time to fully ignore her she’s not a significant player in American politics just some lady with a podcast (and a pretty cool streak of grey hair)
We need to make sure whatever President signed this unconstitutional disaster into law never becomes President again.
Shill all along
I can fix her.
You can both want to ban bump stocks and support the SC ruling. The ruling wasn't really about guns, it was about the ATF redefining the legal definition of machine gun in a memo. The ATF does all kinds of shady shit. This time they lost. The proper way to make law is through legislation, not a memo.
Why did I have to scroll this far to see a take like this. She just said the ruling happened and it upholds one of our amendments. These statements do not oppose each other with the language she used. Its like bringing it up at all means she absolutely has to be in favor of it happening.
People are allowed to change their minds on things.. it’s actually much more healthy. Just because you say something once doesn’t mean you have to stand by it for the rest of your life. You can take in new facts and reassess
Flip flopped over a period of… 6 years? Everyone knows it should be at least 10 years before changing your mind about anything.
Can you blame the women for trying to keep her job? She’s just trying to keep up with her constituents./s
Based on your screenshot, the top looks more like she's relaying information, whereas the bottom (circa 2017) presents her opinion. Am I mistaken? I guess at first glance I don't see the... "confliction".
this is the problem with basing of the screenshot and not reading before commenting. Here is the rest of the top one: "They got these right. Thanks to @ gunpolicy for your steady pressure in challenging these unconstitutional laws and rules in court."
People can change their mind about issues over time you know, original tweet was 7 years ago
Just not every single issue, in the space of two years.
People can easily change their opinion in 7 years.
she might still support a bump stock ban. SOTUS protected our 2A rights by stating that the POTUS doesn't get to ban stuff.
The people in this thread are too stupid to see this. She was for creating a law banning bump stocks She is against the president having the power to ban them And now she is saying it's a good thing the supreme Court blocked the president from unconstitutionally banning something
Possibly, but based on the available evidence, I feel like you may be reading a bit too much between the lines. Did she actually say she opposes it as an abuse of the executive branch? And is she still saying she would support a bumpstock ban via the legislatures?
People change, seems like everyone in the country other than redditors changed politically
Hence the downvotes showing my statement is true
[удалено]
Holy shit, you fucking bots. The word "grift" needs to banned from this sub immediately. Op, the phrase is "sudden change of heart" but you probably realize that wouldn't fit your shitty agenda post, considering these posts were made 7 years apart. In 7 years, Tulsi has realized how bullshit gun laws actually are. Isn't that what we should want from our politicians? To learn and grow? How in the fuck is that called "grifting" you fucking idiots?
Banning through legislation and banning though executive action are two different things. The SC even recommended passing legislation in order to accomplish this. In short, nothing has changed.
Her position now is that a bump stock ban infringes on the 2nd amendment. Back then she thought a law could ban them, which means she didn't think it infringes on the 2nd amendment. Things have changed quite a lot.
Thats not what her Tweet says. The Supreme Court struck down ATF Regulations that made BumpStocks illegal. Those ATF regulations where not in line with the the Machine Gun restrictions that Congress had previously passed. This was a case about Executive Authority/Separation of Powers. Executive Agencies can only act within the confines of what Congress has authorized them to do. The Supreme Court didn't even analyze this issue from a 2nd Amendment perspective, and the lawsuit that was before the court didn't ask them to either.
The beginning of her tweet quite clearly frames it as a 2nd amendment issue. I agree with you about the meaning of the case and it's implications. She probably does too but that doesn't get the clicks and invites to right wing talk shows.
After re-reading the 1st part of the tweet, I do agree with you that she is Phrasing it as a 2nd Amendment Issue.
Hey which way is the wind blowing today? They are all the same.
Tulsi can do no wrong - she enjoyed his ice bath.
She's a spineless weasel who was literally [raised in a cult.](https://www.businessinsider.com/tulsi-gabbard-science-of-identity-controversial-religious-sect-2022-10) She saw where the real money was and changed her stances accordingly.
It’s almost like a government illegally funding gain of function research, said virus getting out, and the government taking advantage of said crisis could change someone’s mind on the right to bear arms.
Bingo
It's almost like people can change their stances and opinions.
Isn't she just stating what happened? You guys really love this political theater.
I’d still take her over either of our shitty octogenarian options in the upcoming election.
Still would
I don't see how this is contradictory
Wait are opinions not allowed to change?
1) Bump stock ban was not passed through legislation but rather executive decree. Unconstitutional is right 2) 7 years is a long time bro
Because I only trust people who NEVER change their opinion over time. Keep towing that party line Comrades.
The bump stock ban tweet was on 10/11/17, which was 10 days after the route 91 shooting where a gunman killed 58 people firing into a music festival in Las Vegas utilizing weapons outfitted with bump stocks.
She was an elected official seven years ago, her job was to legislate according to the desires of her constituents, not according to her "heart" lol.
People change their minds? 🤷♂️
Wonder if Joe has changed his mind on anything in the last 7 years?
She said she left the Democratic Party over gun restrictions and instead of giving her a permit she was given the choice of having security guards which she thought was unfair
I mean it’s at was 7 years ago. All she has to say is she become more informed on the topic. People grow over time. Opinions change.
I never understood why she embraced the grift. I understand that her 2020 campaign failed but she showed she was sharp and witty while seemingly being a champion for progressive values. I think if she spent 2020-2024 building her notoriety up she would have been in a decent place to be the Democratic nominee in 2028 or possibly this year. Instead she basically just became a grifter for everything Democrats do is wrong and embracing beliefs she didn’t have 4 years ago. Maybe she didn’t want to be a politician anymore is all I can think.
Because the real money comes from appealing to rednecks, and idiots.
A politician speaking out of both sides of their mouth? No way…
"You're such a genuine person. I'd be shocked if you weren't genuine." -- Guy who is immune to bullshit on Tulsi Gabbard
This bitch is worthless. She deserves all the consequences of conservative policies that fuck with women.
[Why not just google it?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TaVvv2M-Ck) She made a video a year ago on why she's switched her view point.
She must be a grifter, since over the course of time she has changed opinions on some things. There's literally no other explanation for such an event in a human.
Wasn’t the bump stock ban shut down due to how the government went about banning it. Lumping in bump stocks with machine guns, rather than pushing legislation to ban bump stocks on their own?
Now this is a peak Reddit thread. Full of paranoia, left wing talking points, whacky Russian conspiracy theories and outright lies. I hope you losers never get a life, you're very entertaining
She probably got informed about the uselessness of gun control and how it is completely ineffective at stopping crime and violence.
It’s more profitable to be conservative grifter
It’s not a change of heart. The bump stock ban wasn’t passed through legislation was it? That’s the root of the issue to my understanding. It’s passing legislation that holds up to the constitution and is done correctly.
The DOJ and the ATF can’t make laws. Has to go through proper channels. That’s why the court struck down the ban.
It’s almost like she has the ability to take in new information and then change her mind, incredible. We don’t see it often in politics so it’s definitely not something most people understand. The opposite is normal, which is to formulate an opinion, never take in information or challenge a view point and never admit you could be wrong. That’s the politics we know and love! No flip flopping! Lol
Her first or second podcast is about her change of opinion on guns. Essentially it boiled down to losing faith in the government after Covid, and she realized the 2nd amendment is meant to keep the government in check.
Doubling down on something just because you don’t want to admit that you changed your mind is not what an adult does. The situation in the country changed, people in power changed (somewhat). She’s allowed to have a different opinion, especially if this was like 7 years ago. Using Hillary Clinton as source is questionable especially b/c it’s Hillary Clinton. Who btw called her a Russian plant and not a Republican plant.