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

politics

30907 readers
1645 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 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
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You don't have to trust her.

But if she says the sun will come up tomorrow, it doesn't mean we need to plan to live the rest of our days in fucking darkness man...

Like. You understand that right? Someone can be a habitual liar, but that doesn't mean the opposite of everything they say is true.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I understand that, but it seems habitual liars are not lying only when it fits the narrative.

There’s plenty of evidence that points to Iran building a nuke. They are not the good guys, so excuse me for being unconcerned about their literal dictatorship getting blown to hell.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There’s plenty of evidence that points to Iran building a nuke.

By all means share it with the class...

Because Israel's government isn't. And neither is any other government.

So I'm sure lots of people would absolutely love to see your proof

Otherwise, it's more likely Israel is lying because they've been saying Iran is a few years away from having nukes for literal decades. It means as much as Elmo saying Tesla will have auto omous driving in a few years

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Someone else did it, see above.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Christ's sake...

This is the fediverse, you can't assume everyone sees the same comments when everyone's on different instances. And that's not even getting into how people block other accounts.

This is like pulling fucking teeth. So speaking of block lists...

To be fair I didn’t know that. I thought within a given thread everyone could see everything.