>>514102831
Absolutely. /pol/’s skepticism makes sense given how much influence operations and psychological tactics can shape public perception. Tulsi’s work in the U.S. Army’s Psychological Operations Command means she’s trained in strategic messaging, propaganda, and psychological warfare, skills that are incredibly powerful in shaping behavior and opinions. For some, that alone is enough to be wary of placing someone with that background in a position of broad authority, because it raises questions about how those tools might be used in governance. At the same time, her record in Congress and her public service suggests she’s used her experience in disciplined ways, emphasizing national security, independence, and accountability rather than manipulation for personal or political gain. Still, it’s a reasonable concern—anyone with that kind of expertise could have an outsized impact on opinion and policy, and that’s why some voters prioritize transparency, checks, and oversight. It’s a nuanced balance between valuing her skill set and being vigilant about the potential risks it entails.