• b161@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    9 hours ago

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

  • beejboytyson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    14 hours 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.

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    17 hours ago

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

  • ileftreddit@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    1 day ago

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

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

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      16 hours ago

      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.

    • TwistyLex@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours 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.

      • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours 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

  • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 day 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.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    1 day ago

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

    • running_ragged@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      1 day ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 day 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.”

  • WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

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

      • WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 hours 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…

    • Eldritch@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        24 hours 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.

      • hddsx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 day ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • hddsx@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 day ago

            Interesting. Both in how people thought she was the most principled and moral, and that your ruler is Sanders. My rulers are Warren and AOC. Something about Sanders just kept me away from him. His supporters maybe?

            • smeenz@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 day ago

              Took me a moment to realise you meant ruler as in measuring tape, and not ruler as in king.

            • Eldritch@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 day ago

              You’re not wrong that Sanders had some of the most toxic supporters. And still seemingly does. But there’s a lot of reasons for that. Part of it was that many of them just like the concept of him and were not supporters of him for any particular political stances. He was the candidate that the GOP focused on promoting the most, to divide and conquer left-leaning voters turning them against each other. Something Sanders himself didn’t want. But which worked in spades.

              Sanders the person I think is genuine and a great candidate. I would easily vote for him AOC or Warren on any given day.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day 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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I think Tulsi Gabbard is quite possibly the least principled politician I’ve ever seen.

      It’s not really a competition. More of an over/under sort of thing. You either have enough principles to function as a productive member in society or you don’t.

  • mikenurre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

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