That’s nice, but what about Epstein and the fact that the current president is a pedophile rapist?
Good thing the supreme Court already ruled that presidents can’t be persecuted for crimes.
well, they tried very very hard to make sure the immunity does not apply to presidents they dont like
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.
If she is going backwards in time I think she should be looking at that Taft guy as well.
“How could Kamala and Biden do this to us?”
Trump during Bidens administration: “he’s weaponizing the justice system, waaahhhhh”
Trump now: “weaponize this baby, let’s fuckin go”
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.
Waaahhhh! Cancel culture!!!
**immediately cancels immigrants and Medicare
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.
Every accusation is a confession. Every fucking time.
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
Accuse your enemy of what you plan to do.
Anything to avoid solving an actual problem.
A distraction from Epstein files.
Yet another distraction from the Epstein files.
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.
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.”
Everything is a distraction from everything else, and they are all fucking awful.
Remember when dems were wringing their hands about prosecuting Trump because that’d invite tit-for-tat retribution? some_guy remembers.
Remember when Merick Garland is a traitor?
Boooo
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.
In spite of the staggering number of competitors, I think Tulsi Gabbard is quite possibly the least principled politician I’ve ever seen.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
Took me a moment to realise you meant ruler as in measuring tape, and not ruler as in king.
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.
They are in the same place they were then, Moscow or St Petersburg
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.
It’s funny how literally all of them are spineless weasels
Yeah but remember George Santos?
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…
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.
American president Donald John Trump is a pedo.
Pedo POTUS
Let’s see… 2025-2016 = past the statute of limitations. So, more attempted distractions from the EPSTEIN PEDO FILES.
Statute of Limitations isn’t going to save you from a fascist pogrom.
Refer Gabbard for prosecution for that abominable hairdo!
Why does she want to cosplay as Cruella De Vil with that hair? I guess she is a puppy murderer like Kristi Noem.
Do you think it’s natural or does she use dye? Like grey dye for the strip or black dye for the rest of her hair.
Yeah first thought too.
