this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
175 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19608 readers
4360 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
 

Hours before Tulsi Gabbard appeared for a combative hearing on her nomination as director of national intelligence on Thursday, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden gave some public advice to the woman who once pushed for his pardon.

“Tulsi Gabbard will be required to disown all prior support for whistleblowers as a condition of confirmation today. I encourage her to do so. Tell them I harmed national security and the sweet, soft feelings of staff. In D.C., that’s what passes for the pledge of allegiance,” Snowden said on X.

Even after facing more than a dozen questions about Snowden, however, Gabbard refused to back down.

Instead, Gabbard told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Snowden broke the law and that she would no longer push for his pardon — but that he had revealed blatant violations of the Constitution.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 87 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

That's her only decent opinion and THAT is what's going to tank her nomination???

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It's a bad look when the director of national intelligence supports someone who leaks intelligence secrets to enemy nations. It's a good reason to pass on her aside from all of her personal issues.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

He leaked information to the citizens of the country doing the spying.

It's interesting you describe them as enemies

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

I believe the letter agencies consider the public their enemy #1, there some old ex CIA dude quote about it I'm too lazy to open Firefox to find

[–] [email protected] 27 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It's opposite decade in the US.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

I find it hilarious that the 3 letter agencies are handing over big brother to the gustapo, without protest, while acting like they're the goodies... as though they aren't literally doing the exact thing Snowden warned everyone about — as a tool that will be turned against the people by domestic enemies.

And the best part? It only took 12 years post-leak for the worst case scenario to occur — for them to hand the keys to the entire kingdom over to fascism.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 17 hours ago

There's a lot of common sense, popular opinions that you can't have in Washington because there's a bipartisan consensus to do the opposite.