this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
240 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19857 readers
3387 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 117 points 1 week ago (24 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's opposite decade in the US.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The keys have always been in the hands of fascists.

The Reagan/Bush Era was plenty reactionary. The Carter/Nixon era wasn't anything to brag about, either. FFS, the Eisenhower government had a healthy assortment of literal ex-Nazis scattered through it. The ugly specters of J. Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles, Henry Ford, and Prescott Bush have haunted our country for longer than any of us have been alive.

Trumpism is the dead fish rot finally reaching the noses of the white working class (and even then, just barely). Americans are looking on in horror at the prospect of the government treating everyone like we've been treated Black People and Native Americans for the last century.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] xmunk 84 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Damn, this is a hard one. Gabbard is right to defend him but likely for deeply shitty motivations.

At the end of the day this is probably going to make it much more difficult to discuss why whistle-blowers deserve protection with my liberal family.

[–] gravitas_deficiency 66 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is a stopped clock situation.

She’s not wrong to defend him. But she would be a catastrophically awful pick for this position.

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

Stopped digital clocks just display 88 all the time.

[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 week ago

Edward Snowden sitting in Russia thinking "Damn it, if I had just kept those documents in my bathroom, I could be President right now!"

[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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

Is that not backing down?

[–] Kecessa 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I can try making a cake, if I stop trying before I manage to make one, it doesn't mean I will complain if my girlfriend decides to make one instead of me!

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

It's not even that, it's someone told you to make a cake, so you talk about how you don't make cakes, your against making a cake, but you could make a cake if someone really needs you to.

And if your girlfriend does then make a cake, you just start taking credit.

Actions are louder than words.

[–] Kecessa 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

She pushed for his pardon

She now says she won't do it anymore, that she agrees he broke the law (need to have broken the law to get a pardon) BUT that she still believes what he did was right, implying that he deserves a pardon, she just won't be the one trying to make it happen anymore.

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

Yes u am so confused by the quote and article. Snowden said she’d need to disown whistleblowers and she did just that. Seems to me like she stepped in line. Maybe I’m misunderstanding something?

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

Listening to her is incredibly frustrating. I don’t see Snowden as a traitor but this bitch is one of the last people that should be trusted with intelligence

[–] Corkyskog 7 points 1 week ago

It's just furthers Putin's goals, even if it was the right thing to do. Broken clocks and all that.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago

Damn, the one thing she's right on.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago

When the worst people make the right decision for the wrong reasons

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Isn't American law supposed to protect whistleblowers? I mean we all know it doesn't but at least in public speaking defending whistleblowers should be considered a good thing no?

[–] xmunk 30 points 1 week ago

It doesn't though - and that's had an obvious chilling effect on whistle-blowers.

One of the key issues is that most politicians will express support for whistle-blowing in the abstract or when exposing flaws of opposing administrations. But the administration that is likely to be damaged by whistle-blowing is the one vested with the responsibility to protect it... and that abstract support evaporates pretty fucking quickly if it's damaging your image.

Unless my memory is faulty the modern attacks on whistle-blowing mostly date back to Obama's administration. During W Bush we had the Abu Ghraib torture revelations and the whistle-blower in that case ended up receiving high praise even while causing significant damage to both W Bush and Rumsfeld.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

No it only pretends to. Because whistleblowers have to leak sensitive information to blow the whistle, the US goes after them for treachery.

These days whistleblowing against America or big companies leads to suicide with a bullet to the back of the head.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Sometimes I wonder if Snowden is given a script to post when needed or if the FSB just controls his social media. We'll find out everything one day because he's undoubtedly under constant surveillance.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

I’d wager there’s no way his staying in Russia doesn’t come with many strings attached. He’s only useful to them in these kinds of situations saying these kinds of things.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

I mean to be fair I'd be salty too if I were him.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The idea that any senators would attack anyone for supporting Snowden is much more disturbing than any of the bullshit accusations they toss at Gabbard.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago

This is the line that the American Senatorial Leadership wants to draw. You can take money from the Qatars until your pockets burst. You can hold really perverse anti-American views on a caste system and work to enshrine them in public law. You can play footsie with the fascist Modi regime in India, the mafia-style business cartels in S. Korea, Indonesia, and the Phillipines, and the Russian oligarchy.

But to suggest that a Bush 43 Era massive domestic spying operation violated the 4th amendment?

Get thee behind me, Satan!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

I bet you it won't.

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

Something left of some principles in there?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No. She's a Russian asset, and Russia purchased Snowden's compliance with safe harbor. Everything else is theatre as far as she is concerned.

The thing about wedge issues and propaganda is that they're wedge issues for a reason, that there is something fundamentally wrong with the society that makes it divisive in the first place, as some advocate for change and others resent it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

She’s a Russian asset,

How so? What's the evidence?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

There is no smoking gun. More like she has parroted Russian propaganda for a long time. Why would she do this though? The answer seems to be she is a Russian asset.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tulsi-gabbard-russian-connection-dni-trump-syria-b2688466.html

An Assad defender and prolific spreader of misinformation. She is a garbage person for trying to lie to victims of Assad's reign. She tried to pin the blame on ISIS when they have no fucking jets. Why would she lie to children who lost everything?

load more comments
view more: next ›