this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
226 points (97.1% liked)

politics

24887 readers
2853 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] b161@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 1 day ago

That’s nice, but what about Epstein and the fact that the current president is a pedophile rapist?

[–] UnspecificGravity@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Good thing the supreme Court already ruled that presidents can't be persecuted for crimes.

[–] burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

well, they tried very very hard to make sure the immunity does not apply to presidents they dont like

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 108 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yet another distraction from the Epstein files.

[–] running_ragged@lemmy.world 54 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It might be that, but I don't think that makes it any less dangerous as a path to set precedent to start going after any political group that they don't like.

Couple that with an illegal, but unchallenged executive order (not implemented yet) to prevent candidates from running, or appearing on ballots who are 'under investigation', and the mid-terms could be completely derailed by bogus charges on key candidates, cementing the current administrations strangle-hold.

They've already shown they have to problem doing the exact things they accused the Democrats of doing, so I wouldn't put this past them at all.

[–] AngryRobot@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

There are multiple ways they're ratfucking the 2026 elections already. I'm sure what you describe iw on their menu. Don't forget taco said he only won PA because, "Elon knows how those vote counting machines work."

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago

Everything is a distraction from everything else, and they are all fucking awful.

[–] ileftreddit@piefed.social 58 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Trump during Bidens administration: “he’s weaponizing the justice system, waaahhhhh”

Trump now: “weaponize this baby, let’s fuckin go”

[–] AngryRobot@lemmy.world 37 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Every accusation is a confession. Every fucking time.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 13 points 2 days ago

Accuse your enemy of what you plan to do.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

at this point if Rs complain about some made up bullshit that should be a given that we go ahead and use it against them because they’re gonna believe it’s being done anyway, and they’ll go right ahead and do it when they’re in power

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

These people spent years mewling about "lawfare". Just like they bitched about "free speech", "cancel culture" and "making comedy legal again".

And what do they do the minute they get (more) power? They start up with tons of legal action against virtually every facet of society. They worked to actually cancel comedy.

[–] ileftreddit@piefed.social 7 points 2 days ago

Waaahhhh! Cancel culture!!!

**immediately cancels immigrants and Medicare

[–] TwistyLex@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 days ago

It's tactical. The idea is that if you convince your supporters that your enemies are breaking the rules and getting away with it that your supporters will cheer you punishing those enemies by breaking those same rules.

It's just like in sports. People get upset when the refs punish their team for what they perceive the other team getting away with.

[–] some_guy 58 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Remember when dems were wringing their hands about prosecuting Trump because that’d invite tit-for-tat retribution? some_guy remembers.

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Remember when Merick Garland is a traitor?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world 30 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Anything to avoid solving an actual problem.

[–] cashsky@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 days ago

A distraction from Epstein files.

[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 40 points 2 days ago

What's that sort of government you get when you prosecute political enemies for doing completely legal and ethical work that just so happens to undermine your position of power?

Oh right, Authoritarianism. Tyranny, monarchy, fascism, it's almost like these all have a problem in common.

[–] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 65 points 3 days ago (4 children)

In spite of the staggering number of competitors, I think Tulsi Gabbard is quite possibly the least principled politician I've ever seen.

[–] Eldritch@piefed.social 32 points 3 days ago (4 children)

All the people that tried to convince me over the last decade that she was somehow an intelligent principled candidate. Where are they now LOL. She was worse than even I implied at the time.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

During what time period? I remember when she was trying to enter the presidential primary, I looked into her. She seems great on the surface, but you don’t have to go much beneath the surface to see differently, and the further you looked, the worse it got

[–] Eldritch@piefed.social 9 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I was still referring to the last decade so yes. 2015 till now. That particular patch of time. People were telling her as the most principled and moral candidate rivaling even Bernie Sanders.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I remember when people preferred her to Bernie or thought she was like Bernie in 2020.

I always thought she was a Putin loving cultist stooge and she keeps proving me correct.

[–] bigfondue@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

They are in the same place they were then, Moscow or St Petersburg

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

All the people that tried to convince me over the last decade that she was somehow an intelligent principled candidate.

Just like with Ron Paul, the fact that she was outspokenly critical of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (among other fronts) made her such an outlier that people would tilt towards her on reflex. Also like Ron Paul, her deeply reactionary religious beliefs and her profound racism never got the kind of daylight it deserved even among her mainstream media critics.

She was worse than even I implied at the time.

I saw a lot of people lashing out at her as a "Russian Asset" precisely because she was so staunchly anti-war. The fact that she was corrupt (and, largely corrupt in favor of Narendra Modi, whom these hawks continue to adore) was incidental to the fact that she was opposed to the Bush Era Middle East atrocities.

One of the most damning critiques of Gabbard in the modern day is that she was absolutely full of shit with regard to her anti-war stance. Turns out it was entirely circumstantial and fell away rapidly when the belligerents changed. But, again, this never seems to be a point against her with the Bush Era neocons. If you can get Gabbard on board with bombing China or Pakistan or Iran, that's good enough for them.

[–] ileftreddit@piefed.social 2 points 2 days ago

It’s funny how literally all of them are spineless weasels

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah but remember George Santos?

[–] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago

Hmm...

Santos was a bit different though. Gabbard tries to tell something resembling the truth, twisted as necessary to accommodate her lack of principles. Santos didn't even try to tell anything vaguely resembling the truth. He just spewed a constant stream of ridiculously obvious lies.

Yeah.... probably on an absolute scale, Santos was even more unprincipled than Gabbard.

I guess I didn't even consider him because it was never necessary to dive that deep into his character to discover fatal flaws. I never made it to the point of questioning his principles because he couldn't even open his mouth without lying. With Gabbard on the other hand, her sort of superficially honest-ish approach to things throws her complete and total lack of principles into stark relief.

Or something like that...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] beejboytyson@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

Idc what anybody says I KNOW she sucked dick in the military. The way she turned as soon as a nice job opened up in the leopards party.

[–] renamon_silver@lemmy.wtf 37 points 3 days ago (1 children)

American president Donald John Trump is a pedo.

[–] bradinutah@thelemmy.club 10 points 2 days ago
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago

If she is going backwards in time I think she should be looking at that Taft guy as well.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

"How could Kamala and Biden do this to us?"

[–] mikenurre@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Let's see... 2025-2016 = past the statute of limitations. So, more attempted distractions from the EPSTEIN PEDO FILES.

[–] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Why does she want to cosplay as Cruella De Vil with that hair? I guess she is a puppy murderer like Kristi Noem.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] fittedsyllabi@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Refer Gabbard for prosecution for that abominable hairdo!

[–] proper@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Did she eat toenail clippings? And FFS, could the Democratic establishment please bring back "weird" when they talk about conservatives and Republicans? Because the right are just fucking weird.

https://www.wonkette.com/p/was-tulsi-gabbard-in-a-cult-that

[–] lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

They should all seek out lawyers with the last name Epstein to keep the name in the news

[–] PedroMaldonado@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Fucking theater

[–] Wazowski@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Suck my dick

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Trump complains about people still asking about Epstein, even though he’s still pushing on election stuff that’s nearly 10 years old.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

One of the best Onion headlines: "Trump: ‘I’m Not In These Nonexistent Files Concocted To Destroy Me’"

load more comments
view more: next ›