this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
166 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19150 readers
2029 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
 

The Republican response focused on a brutal story of sex trafficking, which actually took during George W. Bush’s presidency.

Independent journalist Jonathan Katz put out a viral TikTok video on Saturday scrutinizing the anecdote, in which he reported discovering that the person Britt was referring to was a woman named Karla Jacinto Romero, an activist who has spoken publicly for many years about her experience being sex trafficked and forced to work in Mexican brothels. But Romero was never brought across the southern border against her will, as Britt seemed to imply, and her horrific experiences in Mexico took place between the years of 2004 and 2008, when George W. Bush was president, The Washington Post confirmed.

Britt spokesman Sean Ross confirmed that the Senator was indeed speaking about Romero, whom she met at the southern border in 2023, but denied that her speech was misleading, saying in a statement that the story “was 100 percent correct” and that “there are more innocent victims of that kind of disgusting, brutal trafficking by the cartels than ever before right now.”

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 71 points 8 months ago (3 children)

So if I can paraphrase her response:

Even though I was lying, you should believe me anyway.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 months ago

"Even though I was lying, I wouldn't have been lying if it were the truth."

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago

"But it feels like the truth." Also this same bunch: "liberals are so emotional".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Classic facts > feelings sentiments from a conservative~

[–] spaghettiwestern 35 points 8 months ago

Oh look, another pathological liar and malignant narcissist in a leadership position at the GQP. They should start a choir.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 8 months ago (1 children)

denied that her speech was misleading, saying in a statement that the story “was 100 percent correct” and that “there are more innocent victims of that kind of disgusting, brutal trafficking by the cartels than ever before right now.”

She more than implied that the story was Biden's fault and a problem for the US when it happened twenty years ago in another country. Yes, that stuff still happens, and it's terrible, but what does it have to do with Biden? If anything, letting people like her have sanctuary in the US would help, but the Republicans don't want that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

If anything, letting people like her have sanctuary in the US would help, but the Republicans don't want that.

You just pointed out another reason why her using this story to score political points is so disgusting. These are the people whom the asylum program is supposed to help, and the Republicans actively work against helping.

If there's a hell, she's going to it. She deserves it.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 months ago (2 children)

That's the third time I've seen her since the SotU. And that's three times too many. I liked it better when she wasn't in the news. Let's just let this one evaporate and we'll be on our merry way.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

Exactly. We're falling into the "any engagement will make them a star" trap.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

Oh, no, no

She may well have known exactly what she was doing and deliberately put some stuff in that would generate controversy and sustained news stories after her little speech was over

She's here to stay now, I think, although I share in your displeasure about it

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

She’s such an asshole.