Rapier108 said:

---

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

Rumor on X is that Cornyn is a no.

---

Susan Collins (Maine)
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Mitch McConnell (Kentucky)
John Cornyn (Texas)
Todd Young (Indiana)
Mike Rounds (South Dakota)
John Curtis (Utah)

None are a surprise.

And before anyone yells about primarying them, only 2 are up in 2026 and another not running.

Collins is the best we'll ever see out of Maine. Anyone else from there will be a Democrat. Replacing her is a fools' errand. Useful to ensure control of the Senate and that's it.

Murkowski needs to go, but she'll game the rank choice voting like always. Only way to get rid of her is to elect the Democrat for a term. Up for election in 2028.

McConnell is done in 2026.

Cornyn needs to go; will be interesting to see if anyone can successfully primary him in 2026.

Young is a ??? since Indiana is a red state, but incumbents are hard to unseat, especially Senate ones. Would take a well known and popular candidate to unseat him. Up for election in 2028.

Curtis is a Romney clone, but just got elected and won't be up until 2030. No one will remember or care by that point.

Truly, in 2026, far better to try to pick off Ossoff in Georgia, the open seat in Michigan, Shaheen in New Hampshire, and get rid of Cornyn. If Collins runs, it is not worth tossing away the seat for "revenge."

If the Republicans look to be extremely strong in 2026, they could try to pick off New Mexico, Minnesota, and Virginia, but none are overly likely.

---

What about recall? Any of the states have that?

A little early to surrender isn't it?

Cornyn tweeted about an hour ago that he will vote yes to confirm her. But nonetheless Polymarket.com shows her at 41% chance of confirmation.

titan said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

Rumor on X is that Cornyn is a no.

---

Susan Collins (Maine)
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Mitch McConnell (Kentucky)
John Cornyn (Texas)
Todd Young (Indiana)
Mike Rounds (South Dakota)
John Curtis (Utah)

None are a surprise.

And before anyone yells about primarying them, only 2 are up in 2026 and another not running.

Collins is the best we'll ever see out of Maine. Anyone else from there will be a Democrat. Replacing her is a fools' errand. Useful to ensure control of the Senate and that's it.

Murkowski needs to go, but she'll game the rank choice voting like always. Only way to get rid of her is to elect the Democrat for a term. Up for election in 2028.

McConnell is done in 2026.

Cornyn needs to go; will be interesting to see if anyone can successfully primary him in 2026.

Young is a ??? since Indiana is a red state, but incumbents are hard to unseat, especially Senate ones. Would take a well known and popular candidate to unseat him. Up for election in 2028.

Curtis is a Romney clone, but just got elected and won't be up until 2030. No one will remember or care by that point.

Truly, in 2026, far better to try to pick off Ossoff in Georgia, the open seat in Michigan, Shaheen in New Hampshire, and get rid of Cornyn. If Collins runs, it is not worth tossing away the seat for "revenge."

If the Republicans look to be extremely strong in 2026, they could try to pick off New Mexico, Minnesota, and Virginia, but none are overly likely.

---

What about recall? Any of the states have that?

---

There is no recall for members of Congress.

WolfCall said:

---

A little early to surrender isn't it?

---

Not surrendering on anything. Just stating what is reported to be out there.

If Cornyn has changed his mind, he might be able to convince others.

I'm not surprised she's unlikely to get confirmed. Some of the foreign policy positions she's taken in the past are untenable.

I am surprised that no dems will vote to get one of theirs in. They really do hate traitors to the party.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What about recall? Any of the states have that?

---

There is no recall for members of Congress.

---

On, not even in California then? Had the impression they and few others states did.

Probably should have such, ha.

Two weeks in to his term, and Trump is having to clean up a bunch of wet fart.
If Gabbard doesn't get through, no way Patel does, right?
Who would Trump turn to next to take the role? Is this where the swamp steps in and does its predictable thing? I sure hope not.
Liberals, for all of the bad and evil and stupid that they lay claim to, would certainty have all stuck together if the role was reversed. Any RINO needs to be neutered to end this cycle of kneecapping themselves when they've got leverage

What does the establishment not like about Gabbard ? Wasn't she a liberal originally?

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What about recall? Any of the states have that?

---

There is no recall for members of Congress.

---

On, not even in California then? Had the impression they and few others states did.

Probably should have such, ha.

---

Many states have recalls as an option for state and local elected officials, but it would likely require amending the US Constitution to allow for recall of members of Congress.

UPDATE: I’ve been assured on good authority that Tulsi is NOT in jeopardy.

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 31, 2025

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Recess appointment.
No reason she should not be confirmed.

**** the senate. They gave Biden his cabinet, even the weird ones.

Other than evidence of corruption there is no reason a cabinet nominee should not be confirmed after what we saw the Biden administration do

---

Agree fully. Not even persuaded it serves any point except to protect corrupt government. Cabinet officials are just extension of what the President wants, and the President has sufficient power that even though a PIA and time consuming, he theoretically could issue every direct his choice would have.

Mr President Elect said:

---

UPDATE: I’ve been assured on good authority that Tulsi is NOT in jeopardy.

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 31, 2025

---

Awesome!

normalhorn said:

---

Two weeks in to his term, and Trump is having to clean up a bunch of wet fart.
If Gabbard doesn't get through, no way Patel does, right?
Who would Trump turn to next to take the role? Is this where the swamp steps in and does its predictable thing? I sure hope not.
Liberals, for all of the bad and evil and stupid that they lay claim to, would certainty have all stuck together if the role was reversed. Any RINO needs to be neutered to end this cycle of kneecapping themselves when they've got leverage

---

Agree that Cornyn is a good sign she may be confirmed yet. However, from what know, technically Patel does't even have objections from RINOs per-se like Tulsi does. I don't see how her nomination or not scuttles Kash in turn. Patel will have the same Democrats objecting, but won't it be far less Republicans for him. (Edit: Meaning, far less objecting to him)

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Recess appointment.
No reason she should not be confirmed.

**** the senate. They gave Biden his cabinet, even the weird ones.

Other than evidence of corruption there is no reason a cabinet nominee should not be confirmed after what we saw the Biden administration do

---

Please list the non-weird ones for me.

WolfCall said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Recess appointment.
No reason she should not be confirmed.

**** the senate. They gave Biden his cabinet, even the weird ones.

Other than evidence of corruption there is no reason a cabinet nominee should not be confirmed after what we saw the Biden administration do

---

Please list the non-weird ones for me.

---

Blinken appears corrupt or part of laundering, but maybe not `weird'. Not many though.

I am not surprised that Tulsi Gabbard is unlikely to receive enough confirmation votes because some of her past foreign policy positions are untenable.

Tulsi scares the marxist democrats

I think Patel is on the glide path to confirmation after today. I think both Tulsi and RFK will need JD to be on speed dial if it is going to happen for them.

Seems like something would have had to have happened in the hearing if Rounds is now a 'nay'

Collins, Cornyn, and Rounds are yeahs.

Just need to get one more from that list to at least get it to Vance.

For all the good Turtle did keeping Garland off the Supreme Court he sure is being a monumental ****head with these confirmation votes.

2000AgPhD said:

---

I think Patel is on the glide path to confirmation after today. I think both Tulsi and RFK will need JD to be on speed dial if it is going to happen for them.

---

Works for me

Wild to think that if it hadn't been for Tulsi destroying Kamala at that debate we may well be looking at Kamala 2.0.

I think Veepthroat would have blown up her campaign anyway. She's barely able to form complete sentences on her own, and really melted under the camera's once she was gifted the nomination, including with her selection of Tampon Tim.

If Lankford, Young, and Turtle deep-six her I am disappointed but it's clear the Senate really wants to protect the 'intelligence community' more than America.

Quote:

---

Gabbard who has previously praised Snowden for his actions also told Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, that she would not advocate for Snowden to receive a pardon if confirmed as DNI.
Those answers apparently weren't good enough for Sens. James Lankford, R-Okla., Todd Young, R-Ind., and Michael Bennet, D-Colo., all of whom effectively hounded Gabbard to disavow Snowden as a "traitor."
Whatever one's thoughts on Snowden and his actions, the committee's obsession with the subject and its defending FISA without giving attention to the many documented abuses by America's intel agencies are appalling. Americans have been victimized by these highly politicized agencies, many of which have clearly redirected their focus from targeting foreign adversaries to targeting Democrats' domestic political opponents.
In addition to spying on Trump's 2016 campaign, agencies such as the FBI were instrumental in fomenting the debunked Russia collusion hoax, spying on Catholics, targeting Trump supporters and parents at school board meetings, arresting pro-lifers, and partaking in a whole host of other egregious abuses. And who could forget the infamous letter signed by 51 former intel officials, who falsely claimed contents from Hunter Biden's laptop exposing the Biden family's foreign business dealings were part of a Russian "disinformation" campaign.
That so many elected senators particularly Republican ones would largely fail to ask Gabbard how she would reverse such politicization and prevent it from happening in the future is a disgrace. If anything, it's a silent admission that they're much more interested in protecting these broken agencies than reforming them.
Gabbard is absolutely right to be skeptical of the vast surveillance powers wielded by America's intel apparatus. Any "Republican" who isn't has no business being in public office.

---

Which of her policy positions do you find untenable?

agpetz said:

---

Which of her policy positions do you find untenable?

---

Since he nearly 1:1 said the same thing I did earlier, I might as well answer. He's not doing much to combat the GPT/bot allegations, lol.

The simplest way to say it is that Tulsi is soft on foreign relations with hostile powers. For example:

- Against a trade war with China
- Wanted to cooperate with China in order to achieve denuclearization in the Korean Peninsula/South Korea (read: capitulate to China so they reign in their dog)
- Supported the Iran nuclear deal (reluctantly. I'll give her credit for that, at least)
- Wanted to deescalate Iran tensions by opening economic trade (this was in direct opposition to her earlier positions of extreme sanctions)
- Wants the US to distance from Saudi Arabia
- Was against the killing of General Soleimani, who funded multiple terrorist organizations, by claiming it was an act of war
- Is cautiously against Japanese militarization (she addressed this in her hearing yesterday. She tried to brush it off as it can cause instability in the region with China/Korea and she wants to watch/advise about how the situation changes. However, her original comments were about the US/Japanese relations only and potentially facing the Empire again, as it was made on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor. This position only benefits China and South Korea.)

I also recall her saying at some point that the U.S. should reduce their presence in the South China Sea and implied she would not defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion. I can't find these comments anywhere, however. The closest I can find is her saying the U.S. should end "gunboat diplomacy" and move to trade agreements and fair diplomacy (talk it out, basically).

Bonus:

- For the Paris Climate Accords
- Wants to cooperate with China to combat climate change (lol)
- Wanted DACA to become permanent law
- Wanted to abolish ICE
- Anti-nuclear power

Many of those positions have direct national and economic security ramifications and go directly against Republican/conservative stances and interests. So yeah, I'm not surprised Republicans don't want her.

Tergdor said:

---

agpetz said:

---

Which of her policy positions do you find untenable?

---

Since he nearly 1:1 said the same thing I did earlier, I might as well answer. He's not doing much to combat the GPT/bot allegations, lol.

The simplest way to say it is that Tulsi is soft on foreign relations with hostile powers. For example:

- Against a trade war with China
- Wanted to cooperate with China in order to achieve denuclearization in the Korean Peninsula/South Korea (read: capitulate to China so they reign in their dog)
- Supported the Iran nuclear deal (reluctantly. I'll give her credit for that, at least)
- Wanted to deescalate Iran tensions by opening economic trade (this was in direct opposition to her earlier positions of extreme sanctions)
- Wants the US to distance from Saudi Arabia
- Was against the killing of General Soleimani, who funded multiple terrorist organizations, by claiming it was an act of war
- Is cautiously against Japanese militarization (she addressed this in her hearing yesterday. She tried to brush it off as it can cause instability in the region with China/Korea and she wants to watch/advise about how the situation changes. However, her original comments were about the US/Japanese relations only and potentially facing the Empire again, as it was made on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor. This position only benefits China and South Korea.)

I also recall her saying at some point that the U.S. should reduce their presence in the South China Sea and implied she would not defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion. I can't find these comments anywhere, however. The closest I can find is her saying the U.S. should end "gunboat diplomacy" and move to trade agreements and fair diplomacy (talk it out, basically).

Bonus:

- For the Paris Climate Accords
- Wants to cooperate with China to combat climate change (lol)
- Wanted DACA to become permanent law
- Wanted to abolish ICE
- Anti-nuclear power

Many of those positions have direct national and economic security ramifications and go directly against Republican/conservative stances and interests. So yeah, I'm not surprised Republicans don't want her.

---

She's going to ultimately do what Trump wants her to do. She's a bulldog though, and I think she'll be great in this position.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Wild to think that if it hadn't been for Tulsi destroying Kamala at that debate we may well be looking at Kamala 2.0.

---

Beyond a frightening thought.

The Polymarket odds make it appear that all Trump nominees are safe to be confirmed as they are 95% or even better except for:

Tulsi 49%
RFKjr 77%

Nothing says “you can trust the intelligence community” like having to have a secret vote on who can run the intelligence community https://t.co/tIUEFFDIfD

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) January 31, 2025

ts5641 said:

---

Tergdor said:

---

agpetz said:

---

Which of her policy positions do you find untenable?

---

Since he nearly 1:1 said the same thing I did earlier, I might as well answer. He's not doing much to combat the GPT/bot allegations, lol.

The simplest way to say it is that Tulsi is soft on foreign relations with hostile powers. For example:

- Against a trade war with China
- Wanted to cooperate with China in order to achieve denuclearization in the Korean Peninsula/South Korea (read: capitulate to China so they reign in their dog)
- Supported the Iran nuclear deal (reluctantly. I'll give her credit for that, at least)
- Wanted to deescalate Iran tensions by opening economic trade (this was in direct opposition to her earlier positions of extreme sanctions)
- Wants the US to distance from Saudi Arabia
- Was against the killing of General Soleimani, who funded multiple terrorist organizations, by claiming it was an act of war
- Is cautiously against Japanese militarization (she addressed this in her hearing yesterday. She tried to brush it off as it can cause instability in the region with China/Korea and she wants to watch/advise about how the situation changes. However, her original comments were about the US/Japanese relations only and potentially facing the Empire again, as it was made on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor. This position only benefits China and South Korea.)

I also recall her saying at some point that the U.S. should reduce their presence in the South China Sea and implied she would not defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion. I can't find these comments anywhere, however. The closest I can find is her saying the U.S. should end "gunboat diplomacy" and move to trade agreements and fair diplomacy (talk it out, basically).

Bonus:

- For the Paris Climate Accords
- Wants to cooperate with China to combat climate change (lol)
- Wanted DACA to become permanent law
- Wanted to abolish ICE
- Anti-nuclear power

Many of those positions have direct national and economic security ramifications and go directly against Republican/conservative stances and interests. So yeah, I'm not surprised Republicans don't want her.

---

She's going to ultimately do what Trump wants her to do. She's a bulldog though, and I think she'll be great in this position.

---

I agree. Trump has shown, especially lately, that he won't tolerate someone that doesn't do what he wants and that he won't be tricked into being a puppet for a position an advisor holds. So while I don't think Tulsi is the best for the position, I don't have a problem with Trump picking her.

I think one question not being asked nor answered is whether the DNI needs to be a cabinet position.

It appears to have been created post 09/11 but honestly it seems it just added yet another layer of surveillance, intelligence gathering, and such.

Eliminate it and if you think Tulsi is key to providing consolidated intelligence input to POTUS, make her an advisor.

Farmer_J said:

---

Nothing says “you can trust the intelligence community” like having to have a secret vote on who can run the intelligence community https://t.co/tIUEFFDIfD

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) January 31, 2025

---

such Fn B.S.