politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
after Gaetz dropped out i told a friend of mine that if I could have only one other person kept from the new administration, it would be Gabbard.
She is absolutely compromised, and it must be very, very deep. Whatever she afraid of, it must be massive.
Either that or she's actually turned and loves (Soviet) Russia.
I'm interested where this certainty comes from. Diplomatically worded statements and a dislike of armed conflict doesn't imply pro-Russia.
What evidence do you expect the background report on tulsi to contain?
In 2017, she visited with Assad, and then she started saying the US was behind terrorist attacks in Syria. In 2022, she accused the US of helping Ukraine develop bioweapons, and that the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was justified.
She has parroted Russian propaganda for years now, and Russia plays clips of her doing so as "evidence" they were accurate.
And there's the little detail that in the last few years she's changed from Democratic Presidential primary contender to far-right Kremlin-backing MAGA troll.
At this point her not being compromised by Russia would be a shock.
You should look up exactly what was said, not what others insinuate.
Well, the United States was propping up radical elements with Syria’s anti-Assad rebels. Fighters posed as Free Syrian Army “moderate rebels” to obtain U.S. weapons before promptly defecting to al-Nusra.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/id-take-tulsis-record-in-syria-over-the-cias/
No, she said there are 25 to 30 American-funded biological laboratories in Ukraine. This is true, and public knowledge.
She served in the Army and is now very anti war. War hawks on all sides have a vested interest in painting her as a Russian Asset.
She very heavily implied it was for bioweapons. Why else would having laboratories be justification for war?
She 100% supports letting Russia bulldoze Ukraine.
She's only anti-war where war is against Russia's interests.
No, she called for an immediate ceasefire at the laboratories as they could spread dangerous pathogens. The World Health Organization made a similar call. Are they all Russian assets too?
[Citation needed]
[Citation needed]
It sounds like you are regurgitating propaganda without having confirmed any details yourself.
like Trump and a lot of Pro MAGA people, their trick is to say things that aren't explicit so they can lie later and say that's not what they meant.
Gabbard and her defenders will take each individual statement or act without context or predecessor and lie claiming that specific instance doesn't prove anything. They'll object to putting them all together to make the tapestry they represent.
I agree that taken each on their own with no context and no history, nothing Gabbard has said or done constitutes evidence of compromise.
But 20 years of her bullshit makes it absolutely clear that she's either an asset or a straight up agent.