Tulsi Gabbard, this sub's favorite, believes whistleblowers should be punished. She promised to protect them 5 years ago.

[-]

BarryLicious2588@reddit

"This subs favorite" in a sub of ... her?

[-]

wamj@reddit

r/fettermania used to be a sub in favor of him and now they’re against him because he doesn’t hold the same views he was elected on.

[-]

Browser1969@reddit

Nothing suspicious there, just different accounts posting the exact same thing in a list of subreddits (you can still find one that hasn't been removed in r/conspiracy).

[-]

bailey25u@reddit

If that is homie think he’s being clever, no wonder he doesn’t know the difference between whistleblowing and releasing confidential documents

[-]

watching_whatever@reddit

Snowden was a special case. Most of the leaks now are for news stories, perhaps for money payouts to the leakers or to strong Democratic supporters.

Tulsi needs experience in a high level position before she can be a very serious candidate for the first women President. Hope she does well in her job and catches some insider and outsider criminals.

[-]

NaggingNavigator@reddit

How on earth was Snowden supposed to get a direct meeting with the president?

[-]

watching_whatever@reddit

With his credentials it might be possible, I don’t know as I said above.

[-]

NaggingNavigator@reddit

He would have gotten taken down by the three letter agencies and likely silenced and killed before he could get an audience with the president. This is besides the fact that Obama knew of the program and authorized it's use. I recommend reading Snowden's memoir Permanent Record for a better idea of the specifics of how he came across the program and why he chose to release it the way that he did.

[-]

Jroiiia423@reddit

How do you get it authorized?

[-]

Tucana66@reddit

As a private U.S. citizen, Tulsi can have an opinion--and choose to share it, given freedom of speech within the U.S. As a public figure, she has the additional burden as a famous person that her opinions will receive more scrutiny and attention than the average citizen.

As a U.S. congresswoman, Tulsi can have an opinion--and could advance such opinions into legislative action.

As U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi has a responsibility to follow the principles, directives and laws which apply to her position.

This is not a defense of Tulsi Gabbard, rather somethings to consider before judging her past statements on whistleblowing against her present cabinet-level position within the U.S. government's executive branch. I wouldn't call it "hilarious"--that's a thought-less reaction.

[-]

romerom@reddit

You do make a valid point. I might have been quick to judge. Tough balance here for sure. She’s probably finding out all sorts of things that would embarrass the country maybe to the brink of war. Who knows

[-]

PackAttacks@reddit

Your inane posturing provides no additional insight into her hypocrisy. She changes her stance on right vs wrong quite often.

[-]

romerom@reddit

Well now damn… this is a bit of a crossroads

[-]

Miserable-Bit5939@reddit

Did you not listen to her say she wants to crack down on politically motivated leaks?

[-]

ProfessorOnEdge@reddit

Anyone thinks any leaks that they don't like are 'politically motivated'.

[-]

rafajafar@reddit

Someone made the claim that people who are down voting you are doing so because they don't have a response. I'm going to dignify you with a response: politically motivated is a loaded term. You may be correct that they are all politically motivated, but I don't think you're hitting the point.

There is lawfully politically motivated and then there is unlawfully politically motivated.

The distinction is when the government is breaking the law you should feel protected in pointing that out and secure in knowing that it will be addressed.

If you point out that the government is doing something egregious and unlawful, that to me is a lawfully politically motivated leak.

If you leak something like, say, military plans, For the purpose of protecting a foreign nation, say, Palestine because you believe that the military's actions are unethical... The military has full right to undertake these actions. The government has full right to undertake these actions. If you disagree with them, that's what the voting box is for. If you leak the plans to protect another country's interest at the expense of your own country's elected authority, that is extraordinarily unlawful.

And while I'm certain there are gray areas in between both of these, I find it very difficult to say that this case surrounding Edward Snowden was unlawful. He was left with no choice and chose patriotism.

That is why they're down voting you.

But I will upvote you because I'm not a dick and you should have an opinion.

[-]

ProfessorOnEdge@reddit

"When the immoral is legal, it becomes a moral responsibility to break the law. "

[-]

njckel@reddit

When the immoral is legal, it becomes a moral responsibility to fight to make it illegal. Nothing about that necessitates nor excuses breaking the law.

[-]

rafajafar@reddit

If enough people agree with you, I think so. Otherwise, you're just a dork Luigi'ing himself into oblivion.

[-]

rafajafar@reddit

If enough people agree with you, I think so. Otherwise, you're just a turd Luigi'ing himself into oblivion.

[-]

rafajafar@reddit

If enough people agree with you, I think so. Otherwise, you're just a turd Luigi'ing himself into oblivion.

[-]

Miserable-Bit5939@reddit

Tulsi knows what she’s doing. It’s wrong to call her a hypocrite when she advocated for years to pardon Snowden. At her confirmation hearing, she acknowledged that Snowden broke the law by leaking information to the press, but she upheld her argument that Snowden revealed abuses of power by our government. It is beyond me why anyone cannot see that Tulsi is cracking down on the corruption within our country’s intel community

[-]

cackslop@reddit

You're being downvoted by people who have no response to you.

[-]

Which-Supermarket-69@reddit

Leaks are different than whistleblowers

[-]

Miserable-Bit5939@reddit

Exactly. She knows the difference between the two

[-]

beavis617@reddit

She’s gone full MAGA now because she’s an opportunist seeking power and probably another Presidential run. She couldn’t do that as a Democrat so she crossed over to the other party. She’s a fraud.

[-]

workitloud@reddit

She got kneecapped by the DNC, had the sense to get away from them, and now looks very much like someone who could hold serious office, based upon actual qualifications as opposed to falling up the food chain.

[-]

beavis617@reddit

Well, if the plan is to join Russia in a mutual love fest/alliance she’s our gal….

[-]

plsobeytrafficlights@reddit

youre not allowed to point out when she says horrible things.

[-]

Typical_Morning_6723@reddit

Awww..you going to cry about it?

[-]

babelon-17@reddit

Whistle blowing is not identical to surreptitiously and anonymously leaking documents in violation of the trust vested in you. Whistle blowers by definition have identified themself to a responsible authority.

Ha, just imagine the whistle blowers of old, like a British Bobby, their cheeks turning red as they very publicly blow their whistles, signal wrongdoing has happened, and call for assistance.

Afaik, years ago Congress laid out the ground rules for those in government who see a need to expose something that seems off to them. A bit of a chore, and it necessitates a sympathetic ear, but it is doable, and anyone who didn't at least try to go that route before going outside its guidelines deserves to be viewed with suspicion.

Huh, I'd forgotten, Bobbies initially had rattles to signal the alarm, only later did they get whistles.

https://www.acmewhistles.co.uk/the-first-whistle

[-]

sayzitlikeitis@reddit

I'm not a fan of her flip flopping in recent years but I don't think this tweet shows hypocrisy very clearly.

[-]

Browser1969@reddit

She literally launched a whistleblower hotline in the same press release so you're right. Reporting wrongdoing in the public interest and selectively leaking information to target your political opponents don't have the same definition.

[-]

Heavyspire@reddit

She also testified almost every single time the Snowden question came up that she would allow a pathway for people to whistle blow "the correct way" and not let her secrets out.

Does it seem like she's trying to stick to that talking point she had during her hearings?

[-]