this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
808 points (99.0% liked)

politics

24228 readers
2943 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
 

Tulsi Gabbard left no doubt when she testified to Congress about Iran’s nuclear program earlier this year.

The country was not building a nuclear weapon, the national intelligence director told lawmakers, and its supreme leader had not reauthorized the dormant program even though it had enriched uranium to higher levels.

But Donald Trump dismissed the assessment of U.S. spy agencies during an overnight flight back to Washington as he cut short his trip to the Group of Seven summit to focus on the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran.

“I don’t care what she said,” Trump told reporters. In his view, Iran was “very close” to having a nuclear bomb.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 8 points 20 hours ago (4 children)

yeeeah... shrug, Trump ignores them all. And why shouldn't he? They didn't prevent him from happening, what's the point of the CIA, NSA etc when they either knew about him & putin, and let hit happen, or, they didn't know, even though it's been obvious since the 80s?

Nice job Intel community, you shot us all in the face.

[–] NewSocialWhoDis@lemm.ee 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

So we oppose US intelligence agencies overthrowing democratically elected leaders in other countries but not their own?

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

if your own intelligence organs don't warn your gov that there's a foreign power influencing the election, yeah, I think that group isn't doing their fucking job.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 11 hours ago

The point is to be additional arms of the government that he can manipulate and abuse to his own ends.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

The situation could be more nuanced. Putin lost in Syria and Europe is split from Russia and massively spending on weapons. That's already a huge win, maybe big enough to accept a bleeding face.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

tell that to the tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians murdered.

[–] daq@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

When was that ever a concern for the elite in power?

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

They're not reading my comments on lemmy.

Why do you give two flying fucks at a rolling donut what they think?

I fail to see your point regardless.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml -3 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

him & putin

obvious since the 80s

I can see a major problem with that timeline, but I suppose wild conspiracy theories don't have to make sense