this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
353 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2306 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Republican senators are privately pushing to review Tulsi Gabbard’s FBI file amid concerns about her alignment with Russian interests following her nomination as Trump’s director of national intelligence.

Gabbard’s past support for Edward Snowden, who leaked U.S. state secrets, has drawn particular scrutiny, as has her history of echoing Russian talking points on Ukraine and Syria.

While GOP senators are publicly deferring to Trump’s pick, some, including Sens. Mike Rounds and Susan Collins, emphasize the importance of full background checks and hearings to address potential security risks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

There was never a real attempt to repeal it. Even when an effort passed in the House, it was obvious the Senate wouldn't do the same, and several times they explicitly voted DOWN the House version to write their own instead, which then never made it through the House. At no point was it really plausible both sides of Congress would actually pass a repeal.

The resident Republican Senator that is allowed to vote against the group to prevent shit they don't actually want to happen while making it look like they do... always would strike it down. This is the seat that Senators like McCain held as a failsafe against their propaganda actually passing, prior to Trump throwing a monkey wrench into everything by refusing to follow the carefully set playbook. It's not quite as neat since then, but there is a pattern with a couple Republican Senators that are allowed to occasionally vote against the party and prevent things from passing without much negativity from their propaganda outlets.

The party says what they want to rile up their base knowing it won't actually pass since they have specific individuals whose job it is to prevent that when necessary to stop their own fake initiatives.

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

So you do think it was a big conspiracy. Have a nice day.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

There's no conspiracy per se, just the Republicans lying about their intentions so they get specific votes. As they usually do.