• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tulsi Gabbard on Dems' Terror Law: ‘We Don’t Have to Guess About Where This Goes or How This Ends'

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,253
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) raised the alarm about the Democrats’ disturbing crackdown on “domestic terrorism” in the wake of the Capitol riot on January 6. She warned that the domestic terror bill that House Democrats have proposed would “undermine our constitutional rights and freedoms,” and lead to law enforcement targeting “almost half of the country.”

“We don’t have to guess about where this goes or how this ends,” Gabbard said, ominously, in an interview with Fox News on Friday.

Suddenly, “Big Brother is watching” is not making the democrat population nervous. It appears that they feel that simply scribbling “democrat” or “progressive” next to their name protects them. If you look at the gathering power of Big Tech both economically and politically and incorporate it into our growing surveillance state, you have to be a stone cold idiot to not see the danger to your freedom. Yes. Your freedom.
“Baby Boomers: Government surveillance on citizens is an existential threat to our freedom.”
”Baby Boomer spawn: I have nothing to worry about because I believe in what is right.”
 



Suddenly, “Big Brother is watching” is not making the democrat population nervous. It appears that they feel that simply scribbling “democrat” or “progressive” next to their name protects them. If you look at the gathering power of Big Tech both economically and politically and incorporate it into our growing surveillance state, you have to be a stone cold idiot to not see the danger to your freedom. Yes. Your freedom.
“Baby Boomers: Government surveillance on citizens is an existential threat to our freedom.”
”Baby Boomer spawn: I have nothing to worry about because I believe in what is right.”
She's an idiot who could not even hold onto a seat in Hawaii. Pure Loser.
 
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

  • Overall, we rate PJ Media to be Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies as well as numerous failed fact checks.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Poor Sourcing, Failed Fact Checks
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180

History

PJ Media (originally known as Pajamas Media) is an American online media company and operator of a conservative news, opinion, and commentary collaborative blog that was founded in 2004. PJ Media was founded by Charles Johnson and Roger L. Simon. Johnson and Simon set out to “challenge the mainstream media with a network of citizen-journalists.” The network was primarily made up of conservatives and libertarians. PJ Media also had a TV channel that shutdown operations on May 11, 2016, after its billionaire majority investor Aubrey Chernick pulled out funds.

Read our profile on United States government and media.



PJ Media - Media Bias Fact Check




*sigh*




.
 
I agree with Gabbard's skepticism in this regard. Whether we want some wide scale surveillance of our citizens is a valid question, even if it is for our own security. The happy medium might be better laws for convicting people on domestic terrorism charges than advocating for surveillance because who may be a threat to the government might end up being a much wider net than some think.
 
Why were Right Wingers all in favor of Terror Laws when they applied to brown-skinned non-Christians but now balk at them when they are aimed at white-skinned Christians?

Hmmm....one guess.
 
Are you accusing PJMedia of falsifying Gabbatd’s statements?
Who cares about Gabbard's statements? She's a nobody...except to maybe rags like PJ Media.
 
That would require them to actually think. Not their forte.
One could say that would apply to anyone giving weight to the statements of a loser from Hawaii no one cares about except, maybe, the racists who like that she defends them.
 



Suddenly, “Big Brother is watching” is not making the democrat population nervous. It appears that they feel that simply scribbling “democrat” or “progressive” next to their name protects them. If you look at the gathering power of Big Tech both economically and politically and incorporate it into our growing surveillance state, you have to be a stone cold idiot to not see the danger to your freedom. Yes. Your freedom.
“Baby Boomers: Government surveillance on citizens is an existential threat to our freedom.”
”Baby Boomer spawn: I have nothing to worry about because I believe in what is right.”
Never did like that patriot act.

I hope you didn't either.
 
It's so telling what Gabbard seems to bring out in our current dogmatic right/left situation in the US. She isn't lock step so people can't possibly handler her. A rare independent thinker who is not married to her party.

Right wingers love to put her on their shows as a divide and conquer strategy and dems love to use her for what narrative they are currently pushing or vilify her for being a secret far rightist because she strays from their dogma.
 
I agree with Gabbard's skepticism in this regard. Whether we want some wide scale surveillance of our citizens is a valid question, even if it is for our own security. The happy medium might be better laws for convicting people on domestic terrorism charges than advocating for surveillance because who may be a threat to the government might end up being a much wider net than some think.
Is there even going to be "wide surveillance"? Lets see the actual law before getting excited about it. The right wing loves finding things to get worked up about. Let's look at the facts first.
 
One could say that would apply to anyone giving weight to the statements of a loser from Hawaii no one cares about except, maybe, the racists who like that she defends them.

I think you will find in the months to come that roughly half the country will care about who went along with this reverse racist crap.
 
Is there even going to be "wide surveillance"? Lets see the actual law before getting excited about it. The right wing loves finding things to get worked up about. Let's look at the facts first.

That's the question, but it doesn't hurt to start making clear delineations as to what is acceptable and what isn't.
 
I can't think of anyone less relevant than Tulsi Gabbard. However, the domestic terrorist law doesn't stand a chance of passing...the majority on both sides don't want it.
 



Suddenly, “Big Brother is watching” is not making the democrat population nervous. It appears that they feel that simply scribbling “democrat” or “progressive” next to their name protects them. If you look at the gathering power of Big Tech both economically and politically and incorporate it into our growing surveillance state, you have to be a stone cold idiot to not see the danger to your freedom. Yes. Your freedom.
“Baby Boomers: Government surveillance on citizens is an existential threat to our freedom.”
”Baby Boomer spawn: I have nothing to worry about because I believe in what is right.”

honest people have no worries

Trumpists on teh other hand, well, let's just say we all understand why they would be against this.
 
I can't think of anyone less relevant than Tulsi Gabbard. However, the domestic terrorist law doesn't stand a chance of passing...the majority on both sides don't want it.

We just need adequate and REAL world enforcement of insurrection laws, and better enhancement on specific ACTS of terrorism, such as unlawfully entering a legislative chamber with intent to do harm just for starters.
 
In the era of big data, the intelligence community possesses much sharper tools to discern between actual threats and harmless chest-pounding than they did twenty years ago.

We need to go forward with this. If right-wing extremists didn't want this to happen, they should not have enabled what happened on 1/06. Everything changed after that.
 
We just need adequate and REAL world enforcement of insurrection laws, and better enhancement on specific ACTS of terrorism, such as unlawfully entering a legislative chamber with intent to do harm just for starters.
Defining one act seems redundant when there are already many existing criminal laws that a domestic terrorist could be charged with that carry heavy sentences. If they define it anymore then it could harm the exercise of free speech and sweep up BLM and civil rights protesters in the mix. As the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
 
Back
Top Bottom