Why are the dems(or anyone that is intelligent) not screaming about this?
probably because there is not a single shred of evidence that gabbard has any ties to russia, and if they really dug in on this, they would wind up looking silly because ALL of the "russian asset" claims surrounding gabbard stem from one or two accusations coming from high level establishment dems like hillary, with no evidence or in depth explanation having ever been provided.
she has a handful of opinions on foreign policy that differ from the bipartisan foreign policy consensus, which apparently makes her some kind of russian asset. its the EXACT same line of thinking as "youre either with us or with the terrorists" stuff that was so common in the years following 9/11.
worst case scenario, gabbard is wrong about some foreign policy stuff.
personally, i trust the process by which she has had her security clearance renewed time and time again by the US military, or the 5 FBI background checks she has gone thru, than claims made by hillary clinton for which no evidence exists.
More than 20 civil service employees resigned Tuesday from Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, citing their refusal to use their technical expertise to "dismantle critical public services." Musk, a billionaire and adviser to former President Trump, faced backlash as the departing staffers voiced concerns over the department's mission.
"We swore to serve the American people and uphold our oath to the Constitution across presidential administrations," the 21 staffers wrote in a joint resignation letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press. "However, it has become clear that we can no longer honor those commitments."
"We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work, because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down … We want to put them in trauma.”
Russell Vought
Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget
Trump allies circulate mass deportation plan calling for ‘processing camps’ and a private citizen ‘army’
A group of prominent military contractors, including former Blackwater CEO Erik Prince, has pitched the Trump White House on a proposal to carry out mass deportations through a network of “processing camps” on military bases, a private fleet of 100 planes, and a “small army” of private citizens empowered to make arrests.
The blueprint — laid out in a 26-page document President Donald Trump’s advisers received before the inauguration — carries an estimated price tag of $25 billion and recommends a range of aggressive tactics to rapidly deport 12 million people before the 2026 midterms, including some that would likely face legal and operational challenges
its very easy to draw find commonalities between critics of US power and adversaries of US power. its the same for most any US adversary - there will be things they have in common with critics of US power. as a country, we have already been through this kind of thing with the mccarthy era - idk why we're insisting we go thru this again.
as a critic of US power, some of tulsi's ideas will appeal to people who are adversaries of the US. duh.
the links you provided are not "evidence" of ties to russia. tulsi has a different opinion on the situation in ukraine, its an opinion that many in russia share, and IMO, there are strong arguments in favor of this position if you give it an honest listen instead of freaking about about russian propaganda or whatever. because tulsi is one of the only US politicians to have a different view of the ukraine situation, , obviously russian political commentators will pay some attention to her and will speak positively of her, that doesnt mean she is some kind of spy or is working for russia or some craziness like that. she has different opinions on foreign policy than the bipartisan blob, and it pretty much begins and ends there. its the exact same thought process that was behind accusations of "helping the terrorists" leveled at people who, despite being patriotic americans and disliking islamist terrorists, didnt want to go to war in iraq or afghanistan.
foreign policy wrongthink = youre working for our enemies
It really doesn't matter about Gabbard when the POTUS is pro Putin. And everyone knew that when they cast their vote. Amerika voted for this.
Did anyone see that a former KGB agent is coming out and saying Trump was flipped and became a Russian asset on his 1987 trip to Russia. This former KGB agent worked in the unit that attempted to turn wealthy U.S. businessmen into Russian assets. Not agents, just assets. It is the long term game that the intelligence services play. Just entice influential citizens of your enemy with some quid pro quo and then send them on their way.
My God we are voting in agreement with Russia and North Korea now in the U.N.
its pretty simple judit - i find that a lot of the criticisms the mainstream media levies against her are criticisms of foreign policy views i support - a good example is that she is commonly cast as some kind of assad supporter/sympathizer simply because she met with him in 2017. i strongly disagree with the modern american ideal that we "dont negotiate with terrorists", meaning we often dont talk to our staunchest enemies, like how biden did not speak with putin for most of his term. i disagree with this. i think we should be attempting to communicate and negotiate with all of our enemies - assad, bin laden, putin, hitler, even mike love of the beach boys, so i think its great that during a time when we were at war in that country and not really communicating with assad at all, that she did so.
based on her confirmation hearings, it seems like a lot of these "russian asset" claims come from her views on civil liberties issues that the foreign policy blob feels will weaken america, like repealing section 230, a variety of other criticisms she has against warrantless surveillance, or her support of snowden. im generally with her on this stuff, i dont agree with any of this draconian patriot act stuff and am a supporter of snowden.
its the same kind of "youre with us or with the terrorists" mentality that ive mentioned a few times here - if you dont toe the line on american foreign policy, its assumed that your perspective and your interests are fully aligned with some enemy of america or another - no discussion on all the different complex reasons someone might take a specific viewpoint, just "you must love al-queada" or "youre a russian asset". this thread is an example - nobody has even articulated a single substantive reason *why* they dislike tulsis foreign policy views or what their disagreements with them are - just accusations that she is a russian spy or asset. why is she a russian spy or asset?
often it comes back to her views on nato enlargement being a primary reason for the russia/ukraine conflict, and when ive heard this viewpoint explained in depth by people like jeffery sachs or john mearsheimer, it seems pretty reasonable. i dont really know enough about the history of the region and the conflict to have some kind of passionate concrete opinion here, but as far as i know, the general idea is just that the US has been influencing ukrainian politics for a long time now, and we have been on a path of nato enlargement that russia dislikes, and ukraine joining nato was a red line for them, and maybe in order to avoid the conflict we could have respected that. if mexico were to join some kind of military alliance against western aggression with russia, the USA would lose our shit.
as far as i know, that is pretty much the russian perspective on why they invaded ukraine...so yeah, duh, its a russian talking point. if you want to consider the perspective of your enemies, and want to try and negotiate or debate the issue, youre going to have to speak about and address the talking points of your opposition. i dont have a problem with that.
is this view correct? i dont really know. i dont have enough faith in either side of the debate to really feel sure without devoting a huge amount of time to really in depth research, and to be honest, im probably not going to do that, im just going to listen to all sides(including, gasp, russians!), and see how the situation plays out in time. i just do not beleive that people who hold these opinions or question official foreign policy narratives should be cast as some kind of foreign asset or enemy of the state. wong? sure. stupid? by all means, go for it. but the whole "russian asset" narrative just seems like something that's pulled directly out of the same playbook that was used against the left and antiwar movements during the mccarthy era, vietnam and the war on terror - that people with viewpoints contrary to the state must "hate america", or they're supporting the terrorists, or that theyre secret communists, or whatever. its just part of a political playbook that i hate and disagree with.
daylight, you and I share some sensibilities, more than you might think. I think people should be able to talk to whomever they want to, without others assuming their intent. Information (and knowledge) is power, more to the point, know what others know. Listen. I also think change should be expected, we find out more about ourselves as we get more information.
You and I differ in that I'm only intuitively analytical, if analytical at all. My feelings about Gabbard are that I don't like or trust people who want to support Trump and she is one. It's simple; he's scum. He doesn't care for the well-being of the rest of us.
Actually, I wasn't calling her >>> incompetent lying scum? Maybe that Russian dependent? Or something... <<<. I was saying that calling her those things was more acceptable than "that bitch" to me.
It was wrong when Hitler et al did it to start WWII, wrong when the US did it in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, and so many other places, wrong when the USSR did it, wrong when Israel did it in Gaza, and it was wrong when Putin did it in Ukraine.
You and I differ in that I'm only intuitively analytical, if analytical at all. My feelings about Gabbard are that I don't like or trust people who want to support Trump and she is one.
im right there with you judit. i totally get why she wanted to burn ties with the dnc, but i dont really understand why that propelled her into supporting trump or accepting some of the right wing ideas she has accepted over the past year or so. for me, the final straw was her repeating the "post birth abortion" conspiracy. the easiest answer might just be that she is pandering to the side she thinks will garner her the most power or career advancement, but what i heard during her senate confirmation hearing doesnt really jive with that - she was grilled over things like her support for snowden, and several times it was implied that her confirmation would hinge on her calling snowden a "traitor", which she refused to do. i would have expected an outright grifter to ust acquiesce on this, especially considering that the 1st trump administration was staunchly opposed to snowden. she didnt need to hold fast in her support of snowden and risk her confirmation in order to show allegiance to trump.
the answer that seems more likely to me is that she is a religious nut who, during her time in the DNC, focused on things like civil liberties and foreign policy, where she could keep her religious nuttery under wraps, and after leaving the dnc, these religious ideals had her well primed to accept ideas that are rooted in the religious nuttery of the christian right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_Identity_Foundation
when i speak in defense of gabbard against these kinds of "russian asset" comments, i dont feel like i am defending gabbard specifically, although obviously thats how its interpreted. i am defending the foreign policy/civil liberties ideals that, despite everything else, i still STRONGLY share with tulsi, like her support of snowden, distrust of the national security state, and opposition to regime change wars. because i believe that accusations that gabbard is a "russian asset" stem not from any real evidence, but because she supports ideas that are contrary to the consensus of the national security state, i will always feel the need to rebutt those accusations. its not an out and out defense of gabbard as a whole human being, its a defense of my own political ideals that i share with gabbard, as well as a defense of the idea that american citizens should be able to explore and hold ideas that are contrary to our national security state or that happen to align with our adversaries without being labeled as "the enemy within" without additional evidence to support that claim.
Invading other countries is wrong, OK?
It was wrong when Hitler et al did it to start WWII, wrong when the US did it in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, and so many other places, wrong when the USSR did it, wrong when Israel did it in Gaza, and it was wrong when Putin did it in Ukraine
for sure. this doesnt make it ok for russia to have invaded ukraine, but if we could have avoided the invasion by simply treating other countries as our equals and respecting the national interests of our adversaries, maybe we should have tried that. again, if mexico were to join a nato-like military alliance with russia, and russian weapons were stationed in mexico on our border, the US would lose its shit. feels like we could have at least tried to be more diplomatic and understanding rather than taking the approach that the US/western EU rules the world and can do what it wants, pushing forward an agenda to bring a military alliance to russias borders when we would never allow that same thing to happen to us.
Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014 because he views it as part of Russia. He wants the port access and their natural resources. He opposes NATO membership for Ukraine because that would thwart his goal.
When a potential intelligence director flatly refuses (via silence) to take a principled stand on any one particular side of a very important national security issue (Snowden), and especially while under oath;
Absolute disaster for American foreign policy. All those past presidents staring down from the walls of the Oval Office in utter disgust on how we betray our allies and coddle dictators.
He's a coward because he fled to the security of our adversary rather than stand tall in front of a jury of his peers."
thats a little disingenuous. snowden's plan was to fly from hong kong, through russia, to cuba, and on to a south american country such as ecuador where he would seek political asylum. snowden's passport was then canceled by the state dept under john kerry after leaving hong kong, and cuba was threatened with an end to the political normalizations happening under obama if they allowed him safe passage into latin america - he was intentionally trapped in russia by the obama state department, directly admitted to by ben rohdes in his book "the world as it is, a memoir of the obama white house".
There was one other, more important signal. Around the time of our second meeting, Edward Snowden was stuck in the Moscow airport, trying to find someone who would take him in. Reportedly, he wanted to go to Venezuela, transiting through Havana, but I knew that if the Cubans aided Snowden, any rapprochement between our countries would prove impossible. I pulled Alejandro Castro aside and said I had a message that came from President Obama. I reminded him that the Cubans had said they wanted to give Obama “political space” so that he could take steps to improve relations. “If you take in Snowden,” I said, “that political space will be gone.”
i wouldnt "stand tall" in whatever dubious trial would be put on if i were snowden either - id be in russia in a heartbeat. dude blew up his entire life to let american citizens know about the erosion of their rights and privacy and im supposed to think he is cowardly for not facing almost certain life in prison over some sense of national allegiance and patriotism? come on. if any of you losers had a choice between living in russia and life spent at florence adx you'd be slurping borscht and have a little pet bear with a funny hat in no time flat.
imo its pretty likely that if she'd said the words "snowden isnt a traitor" in almost any context she wouldnt have gotten thru. edward snowden himself, on twitter, told tulsi that she SHOULD outright call him a traitor in order to secure the nomination. im far more disappointed in her changing her position on sec 702, but again, i get it. if she were to hold as fast on these issues as id like and lost the confirmation, its not as if trump would just say "oh ok time to pick the next dni candidate with deep critiques of the military industrial complex and surveillance state", it would just be some neocon like marco rubio.
It’s not just Trump’s movement toward Oligarchy and authoritarianism here in the United States that we’re fighting. We, and our allies, must fight the Oligarchs globally. Right now, whether it is in Russia, Saudi Arabia, Europe or Latin America there are a growing number of multi-billionaires who are trying to undermine democracy, break unions, avoid paying their taxes and rejecting the rule of law.
Attached is an op-ed on that subject that I wrote for today’s Guardian. - Bernie
America must not surrender its democratic values
Together, we must fight for our long-held values and work with people around the world who share them
Bernie Sanders
Fri 28 Feb 2025
For 250 years, the United States has held itself up as a symbol of democracy – an example of freedom and self-governance to which the rest of the world could aspire. People have long looked to our declaration of independence and constitution as blueprints for how to guarantee those human rights and freedoms.
Tragically, all of that is changing. As Donald Trump moves this country towards authoritarianism, he is aligning himself with dictators and despots who share his disdain for democracy and the rule of law.
This week, in a radical departure from longstanding US policy, the Trump administration voted against a United Nations resolution which clearly stated that Russia began the horrific war with Ukraine. That resolution also called on Russia to withdraw its forces from occupied Ukraine, in line with international law. The resolution was brought forward by our closest allies, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and dozens more democratic nations. And 93 countries voted “yes”.
Rather than side with our longstanding allies to preserve democracy and uphold international law, the president voted with authoritarian countries such as Russia, North Korea, Iran and Belarus to oppose the resolution. Many of the other opponents of that resolution are undemocratic nations propped up by Russian military aid.
Let’s be clear: this was not just another UN vote. This was the president of the United States turning his back on 250 years of our history and openly aligning himself with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. This was the president of the United States undermining the independence of Ukraine.
And let us not forget who Putin is. He is the man who crushed Russia’s movement towards democracy after the end of the cold war. He steals elections, murders political dissidents and crushes freedom of the press. He has maintained control in Russia by offering the oligarchs there a simple deal: if you give me absolute power, I will let you steal as much as you want from the Russian people. He sparked the bloodiest war in Europe since the second world war.
It has been three years since Russia’s brutal, unprovoked, full-scale invasion of Ukraine. More than 1 million people have been killed or injured because of Putin’s aggression. Every single day, Russia rains down hundreds of missiles and drones on Ukrainian cities. Putin’s forces have massacred civilians and kidnapped thousands of Ukrainian children, bringing them back to Russian “re-education” camps. These atrocities led the international criminal court to issue an arrest warrant for Putin in 2023 as a war criminal.
Not only is Trump aligning himself with Putin’s Russia, he is prepared to extort Ukraine for its natural resources. While a proud nation desperately fights for its life, Trump is focused on helping his billionaire friends make a fortune excavating rare earths and other minerals.
But Trump’s turn toward authoritarianism and rejection of international law goes well beyond Ukraine.
The president sees the world’s dictators as his friends, our democratic allies as his enemies and the use of military force as the way to achieve his goals. Disgracefully, he wants to push 2.2 million Palestinians out of their homeland in order to build a billionaire’s playground in Gaza. He talks openly about annexing Greenland from Denmark. He says the United States should take back the Panama canal. And he ruptures our friendship with our Canadian neighbors by telling them they should become the 51st state in the union.
Alongside his fellow oligarchs in Russia, Saudi Arabia and around the globe, Trump wants a world ruled by authoritarians in which might makes right, and where democracy and moral values cease to exist.
Just over a century ago, a handful of monarchs, emperors and tsars ruled most of the world. Sitting in extreme opulence, they claimed that absolute power was their “divine right”. But ordinary people disagreed.
Slowly and painfully, in countries throughout the world, they clawed their way toward democracy and rejected colonialism.
At our best, the US has played a key role in the movement toward freedom. From Gettysburg to Normandy, millions of Americans have fought – and many have died – to defend democracy, often alongside brave men and women from other nations.
This is a turning point – a moment of enormous consequence in world history. Do we go forward toward a more democratic, just and humane world? Or do we retreat back into oligarchy, authoritarianism, colonialism and the rejection of international law?
As Americans, we cannot stay quiet as Trump abandons centuries of our commitment to democracy. Together, we must fight for our long-held values and work with people around the world who share them.
Dr, do your research --- Gabbard and her family are active members of a super homophobic, misogynist, whacko cult with a scary, manipulative power-hungry Hawaiian guru. She doesn't care what party she belongs to, she wants power for her "teacher," her family (her father) and her group. She is an A1 bullshitter. She is 100% unqualified to be leader of any US government organization.
Russia knows how to play such folks (aspiring politicians, corrupt businessmen, idealists, etc.) like a fiddle. They have a long and successful history of collecting foreign "assets."
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week ordered U.S. Cyber Command to stand down from all planning against Russia, including offensive digital actions, according to three people familiar with the matter.
Hegseth gave the instruction to Cyber Command chief Gen. Timothy Haugh, who then informed the organization's outgoing director of operations, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Ryan Heritage, of the new guidance, according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity
Kremlin Says US Foreign Policy Shift Aligns With Its Vision
The new administration is rapidly changing all foreign policy configurations. This largely coincides with our vision," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told a reporter from state television.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week ordered U.S. Cyber Command to stand down from all planning against Russia, including offensive digital actions,
i wonder what exactly is meant by "offensive digital actions". when i think of the term "offensive digital actions" alongside russia, the first thing that comes to mind for me are the well documented cases of propaganda and influence operations carried out by the russian intelligence backed Internet Research Agency.
The agency employed fake accounts registered on major social networking sites,[5] discussion boards, online newspaper sites, and video hosting services to promote the Kremlin's interests in domestic and foreign policy including Ukraine and the Middle East as well as attempting to influence the 2016 United States presidential election. More than 1,000 employees reportedly worked in a single building of the agency in 2015.
most americans, and certainly our national security and intelligence agencies, are highly concerned by, and strongly opposed to these kinds of digital influence campaigns being waged by foreign governments against american citizens.
but wouldn't that mean that if we are opposed to russia running those kinds of covert influence campaigns in the US, than doesnt that mean we should also refrain from running those kinds of influence campaigns and "offensive digital actions" against russia? i dont see how we can be all gung-ho about organizing destabalizing influence campaigns against foreign governments and then get our panties all in a wad when another country does it to us.
TBH, normalizing relations with russia feels like something that coincides with my vision as well, which mostly begins and ends with me, dying of natural causes in my old age and not in the midst ofa nuclear holocaust.
Trump to revoke legal status for 240,000 Ukrainians as US steps up deportations
WASHINGTON, March 6 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
No, we're not. Trump and his toadies have gone over to the dark side, but there are a lot of us pledged to resistance. Do what you can to keep hope alive. The tide will turn.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: treat island
Thanks for the link. Such a
Thanks for the link. Such a calm and clear presentation of what sound like truths. No chaos.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ice Blue Rose
Ditto Judit, thank you, I
Ditto Judit, thank you, I hope Republicans in Congress are listening.
John Lennon's Gimme Some Truth is below, I wish he was here today, his songs still so relevant ❤️
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1A7FcjTKha/?mibextid=wwXIfr
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: OO
Trump did say that from day
Trump did say that from day one he would be a dictator. He also told evangelicals that if they vote for him they would never have to vote again.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: treat island
710, yes, he said that. I
710, yes, he said that. I guess I should have known better than to think he was just saying it. I heard it.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: MarkD
Gabbard has been a putin
Gabbard has been a putin whore forever, and she is now in charge of our intelligence community.
Why are the dems(or anyone that is intelligent) not screaming about this?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ken D.
They are. Problem is they
They are. Problem is they don't have a majority in the Senate and these goofy nominees are getting confirmed 51-49.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: MarkD
She is far beyond goofy.
She is far beyond goofy.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: fishcane
Bernie's explanation is nice
Bernie's explanation is nice but I guess my British heritage shines through...
nsfw and pure gold imho
https://youtu.be/Jk0nUUqG_Ag?si=x_eHRkJIFvj5d9JG
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: billionyearoldcarbon
Fishcane thank you for the
Fishcane thank you for the above link. I needed a good laugh and that was absolutely my cup of tea. Great stuff.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dr. Benway
Why are the dems(or anyone
probably because there is not a single shred of evidence that gabbard has any ties to russia, and if they really dug in on this, they would wind up looking silly because ALL of the "russian asset" claims surrounding gabbard stem from one or two accusations coming from high level establishment dems like hillary, with no evidence or in depth explanation having ever been provided.
she has a handful of opinions on foreign policy that differ from the bipartisan foreign policy consensus, which apparently makes her some kind of russian asset. its the EXACT same line of thinking as "youre either with us or with the terrorists" stuff that was so common in the years following 9/11.
worst case scenario, gabbard is wrong about some foreign policy stuff.
personally, i trust the process by which she has had her security clearance renewed time and time again by the US military, or the 5 FBI background checks she has gone thru, than claims made by hillary clinton for which no evidence exists.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Floating Flasher
thankfully we've got a
thankfully we've got a cultist around to illuminate everything we say about reality
also; that Brit ain't wrong
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: r n
Doctor that's not the worst
Doctor that's not the worst case scenario
Also I need some prescriptions renewed
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
Alexander Dugin is a big fan.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: An organ grinder’s tune
where are all the hillary
where are all the hillary people?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
Clinton hasn't been relevant since 2016. Try to keep up, Turtle
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dr. Benway
where are all the hillary
preparing for the trump concentration camps probably
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
“The only thing that matters is power. Power. That is all that matters. A system of checks and balances? Haha! That’s a good one.”
Dan Bongino
United States Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: fishcane
https://www.newsweek.com/more
https://www.newsweek.com/more-20-doge-staffers-quit-over-musk-trump-gove...
More than 20 civil service employees resigned Tuesday from Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, citing their refusal to use their technical expertise to "dismantle critical public services." Musk, a billionaire and adviser to former President Trump, faced backlash as the departing staffers voiced concerns over the department's mission.
"We swore to serve the American people and uphold our oath to the Constitution across presidential administrations," the 21 staffers wrote in a joint resignation letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press. "However, it has become clear that we can no longer honor those commitments."
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
"We want the bureaucrats to
"We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work, because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down … We want to put them in trauma.”
Russell Vought
Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
Is Erik Prince one of Clinton's people?
Trump allies circulate mass deportation plan calling for ‘processing camps’ and a private citizen ‘army’
A group of prominent military contractors, including former Blackwater CEO Erik Prince, has pitched the Trump White House on a proposal to carry out mass deportations through a network of “processing camps” on military bases, a private fleet of 100 planes, and a “small army” of private citizens empowered to make arrests.
The blueprint — laid out in a 26-page document President Donald Trump’s advisers received before the inauguration — carries an estimated price tag of $25 billion and recommends a range of aggressive tactics to rapidly deport 12 million people before the 2026 midterms, including some that would likely face legal and operational challenges
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/25/documents-military-contractors-...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: aiq
>>>not a single shred of
>>>not a single shred of evidence that gabbard has any ties to russia,
Child, please.
https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-solovyov-russia-ukraine-fox-tucke...
https://meidasnews.com/news/russian-state-t-v-host-calls-kash-patel-and-...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dr. Benway
its very easy to draw find
its very easy to draw find commonalities between critics of US power and adversaries of US power. its the same for most any US adversary - there will be things they have in common with critics of US power. as a country, we have already been through this kind of thing with the mccarthy era - idk why we're insisting we go thru this again.
as a critic of US power, some of tulsi's ideas will appeal to people who are adversaries of the US. duh.
the links you provided are not "evidence" of ties to russia. tulsi has a different opinion on the situation in ukraine, its an opinion that many in russia share, and IMO, there are strong arguments in favor of this position if you give it an honest listen instead of freaking about about russian propaganda or whatever. because tulsi is one of the only US politicians to have a different view of the ukraine situation, , obviously russian political commentators will pay some attention to her and will speak positively of her, that doesnt mean she is some kind of spy or is working for russia or some craziness like that. she has different opinions on foreign policy than the bipartisan blob, and it pretty much begins and ends there. its the exact same thought process that was behind accusations of "helping the terrorists" leveled at people who, despite being patriotic americans and disliking islamist terrorists, didnt want to go to war in iraq or afghanistan.
foreign policy wrongthink = youre working for our enemies
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: billionyearoldcarbon
It really doesn't matter
It really doesn't matter about Gabbard when the POTUS is pro Putin. And everyone knew that when they cast their vote. Amerika voted for this.
Did anyone see that a former KGB agent is coming out and saying Trump was flipped and became a Russian asset on his 1987 trip to Russia. This former KGB agent worked in the unit that attempted to turn wealthy U.S. businessmen into Russian assets. Not agents, just assets. It is the long term game that the intelligence services play. Just entice influential citizens of your enemy with some quid pro quo and then send them on their way.
My God we are voting in agreement with Russia and North Korea now in the U.N.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: aiq
Wow.
Wow.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dr. Benway
but you can you trust the
but you can you trust the former kgb agent?
i think they have ties to russia
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
^Trump behaves as a Russian asset would.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: MarkD
WTF daylight? You gotta thing
WTF daylight? You gotta thing for that bitch? She is now in charge of our entire spy community.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: treat island
"that bitch"? What the fuck,
"that bitch"? What the fuck, Mark?
Maybe - incompetent lying scum? Maybe that Russian dependent? Or something...
I don't get daylight's defense of her, either, but really.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dr. Benway
its pretty simple judit - i
its pretty simple judit - i find that a lot of the criticisms the mainstream media levies against her are criticisms of foreign policy views i support - a good example is that she is commonly cast as some kind of assad supporter/sympathizer simply because she met with him in 2017. i strongly disagree with the modern american ideal that we "dont negotiate with terrorists", meaning we often dont talk to our staunchest enemies, like how biden did not speak with putin for most of his term. i disagree with this. i think we should be attempting to communicate and negotiate with all of our enemies - assad, bin laden, putin, hitler, even mike love of the beach boys, so i think its great that during a time when we were at war in that country and not really communicating with assad at all, that she did so.
based on her confirmation hearings, it seems like a lot of these "russian asset" claims come from her views on civil liberties issues that the foreign policy blob feels will weaken america, like repealing section 230, a variety of other criticisms she has against warrantless surveillance, or her support of snowden. im generally with her on this stuff, i dont agree with any of this draconian patriot act stuff and am a supporter of snowden.
its the same kind of "youre with us or with the terrorists" mentality that ive mentioned a few times here - if you dont toe the line on american foreign policy, its assumed that your perspective and your interests are fully aligned with some enemy of america or another - no discussion on all the different complex reasons someone might take a specific viewpoint, just "you must love al-queada" or "youre a russian asset". this thread is an example - nobody has even articulated a single substantive reason *why* they dislike tulsis foreign policy views or what their disagreements with them are - just accusations that she is a russian spy or asset. why is she a russian spy or asset?
often it comes back to her views on nato enlargement being a primary reason for the russia/ukraine conflict, and when ive heard this viewpoint explained in depth by people like jeffery sachs or john mearsheimer, it seems pretty reasonable. i dont really know enough about the history of the region and the conflict to have some kind of passionate concrete opinion here, but as far as i know, the general idea is just that the US has been influencing ukrainian politics for a long time now, and we have been on a path of nato enlargement that russia dislikes, and ukraine joining nato was a red line for them, and maybe in order to avoid the conflict we could have respected that. if mexico were to join some kind of military alliance against western aggression with russia, the USA would lose our shit.
as far as i know, that is pretty much the russian perspective on why they invaded ukraine...so yeah, duh, its a russian talking point. if you want to consider the perspective of your enemies, and want to try and negotiate or debate the issue, youre going to have to speak about and address the talking points of your opposition. i dont have a problem with that.
is this view correct? i dont really know. i dont have enough faith in either side of the debate to really feel sure without devoting a huge amount of time to really in depth research, and to be honest, im probably not going to do that, im just going to listen to all sides(including, gasp, russians!), and see how the situation plays out in time. i just do not beleive that people who hold these opinions or question official foreign policy narratives should be cast as some kind of foreign asset or enemy of the state. wong? sure. stupid? by all means, go for it. but the whole "russian asset" narrative just seems like something that's pulled directly out of the same playbook that was used against the left and antiwar movements during the mccarthy era, vietnam and the war on terror - that people with viewpoints contrary to the state must "hate america", or they're supporting the terrorists, or that theyre secret communists, or whatever. its just part of a political playbook that i hate and disagree with.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: treat island
daylight, you and I share
daylight, you and I share some sensibilities, more than you might think. I think people should be able to talk to whomever they want to, without others assuming their intent. Information (and knowledge) is power, more to the point, know what others know. Listen. I also think change should be expected, we find out more about ourselves as we get more information.
You and I differ in that I'm only intuitively analytical, if analytical at all. My feelings about Gabbard are that I don't like or trust people who want to support Trump and she is one. It's simple; he's scum. He doesn't care for the well-being of the rest of us.
Actually, I wasn't calling her >>> incompetent lying scum? Maybe that Russian dependent? Or something... <<<. I was saying that calling her those things was more acceptable than "that bitch" to me.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Def. High
Invading other countries is
Invading other countries is wrong, OK?
It was wrong when Hitler et al did it to start WWII, wrong when the US did it in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, and so many other places, wrong when the USSR did it, wrong when Israel did it in Gaza, and it was wrong when Putin did it in Ukraine.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dr. Benway
You and I differ in that I'm
im right there with you judit. i totally get why she wanted to burn ties with the dnc, but i dont really understand why that propelled her into supporting trump or accepting some of the right wing ideas she has accepted over the past year or so. for me, the final straw was her repeating the "post birth abortion" conspiracy. the easiest answer might just be that she is pandering to the side she thinks will garner her the most power or career advancement, but what i heard during her senate confirmation hearing doesnt really jive with that - she was grilled over things like her support for snowden, and several times it was implied that her confirmation would hinge on her calling snowden a "traitor", which she refused to do. i would have expected an outright grifter to ust acquiesce on this, especially considering that the 1st trump administration was staunchly opposed to snowden. she didnt need to hold fast in her support of snowden and risk her confirmation in order to show allegiance to trump.
the answer that seems more likely to me is that she is a religious nut who, during her time in the DNC, focused on things like civil liberties and foreign policy, where she could keep her religious nuttery under wraps, and after leaving the dnc, these religious ideals had her well primed to accept ideas that are rooted in the religious nuttery of the christian right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_Identity_Foundation
when i speak in defense of gabbard against these kinds of "russian asset" comments, i dont feel like i am defending gabbard specifically, although obviously thats how its interpreted. i am defending the foreign policy/civil liberties ideals that, despite everything else, i still STRONGLY share with tulsi, like her support of snowden, distrust of the national security state, and opposition to regime change wars. because i believe that accusations that gabbard is a "russian asset" stem not from any real evidence, but because she supports ideas that are contrary to the consensus of the national security state, i will always feel the need to rebutt those accusations. its not an out and out defense of gabbard as a whole human being, its a defense of my own political ideals that i share with gabbard, as well as a defense of the idea that american citizens should be able to explore and hold ideas that are contrary to our national security state or that happen to align with our adversaries without being labeled as "the enemy within" without additional evidence to support that claim.
for sure. this doesnt make it ok for russia to have invaded ukraine, but if we could have avoided the invasion by simply treating other countries as our equals and respecting the national interests of our adversaries, maybe we should have tried that. again, if mexico were to join a nato-like military alliance with russia, and russian weapons were stationed in mexico on our border, the US would lose its shit. feels like we could have at least tried to be more diplomatic and understanding rather than taking the approach that the US/western EU rules the world and can do what it wants, pushing forward an agenda to bring a military alliance to russias borders when we would never allow that same thing to happen to us.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014 because he views it as part of Russia. He wants the port access and their natural resources. He opposes NATO membership for Ukraine because that would thwart his goal.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Mice elf
When a potential intelligence
When a potential intelligence director flatly refuses (via silence) to take a principled stand on any one particular side of a very important national security issue (Snowden), and especially while under oath;
Is it intelligence they lack, or direction?
or both?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: An organ grinder’s tune
how was i to know, she was
how was i to know, she was with the russians too!
huh!
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: An organ grinder’s tune
how was i to know, she was
how was i to know, she was with the russians too!
huh!
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: aiq
Nice little televised meeting
Nice little televised meeting today.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ken D.
Absolute disaster for
Absolute disaster for American foreign policy. All those past presidents staring down from the walls of the Oval Office in utter disgust on how we betray our allies and coddle dictators.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
A reporter from the Times(uk) asked if Trump is a Russian asset
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Semolina Pilchard
That's kinda funny since he's
That's almost funny since he's such a liability for everyone else.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Mice elf
"Snowden isn't a traitor
"Snowden isn't a traitor because he divulged an illegal government spying program that violated the rights of 325 million Americans
(although technically I'm pretty sure he was charged with espionage anyways, not treason)
He's a coward because he fled to the security of our adversary rather than stand tall in front of a jury of his peers."
see how easy that is?
jesus fuck; who balks at a softball?
is she not allowed to verbalize that Russia is our adversary?
or that now she is actually cool with illegal domestic government spying programs?
total fuckin puppet
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dr. Benway
He's a coward because he fled
thats a little disingenuous. snowden's plan was to fly from hong kong, through russia, to cuba, and on to a south american country such as ecuador where he would seek political asylum. snowden's passport was then canceled by the state dept under john kerry after leaving hong kong, and cuba was threatened with an end to the political normalizations happening under obama if they allowed him safe passage into latin america - he was intentionally trapped in russia by the obama state department, directly admitted to by ben rohdes in his book "the world as it is, a memoir of the obama white house".
the journey to russia in his own words - https://www.democracynow.org/2019/9/30/how_edward_snowden_avoided_extrad...
i wouldnt "stand tall" in whatever dubious trial would be put on if i were snowden either - id be in russia in a heartbeat. dude blew up his entire life to let american citizens know about the erosion of their rights and privacy and im supposed to think he is cowardly for not facing almost certain life in prison over some sense of national allegiance and patriotism? come on. if any of you losers had a choice between living in russia and life spent at florence adx you'd be slurping borscht and have a little pet bear with a funny hat in no time flat.
imo its pretty likely that if she'd said the words "snowden isnt a traitor" in almost any context she wouldnt have gotten thru. edward snowden himself, on twitter, told tulsi that she SHOULD outright call him a traitor in order to secure the nomination. im far more disappointed in her changing her position on sec 702, but again, i get it. if she were to hold as fast on these issues as id like and lost the confirmation, its not as if trump would just say "oh ok time to pick the next dni candidate with deep critiques of the military industrial complex and surveillance state", it would just be some neocon like marco rubio.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: MarkD
Got this Email from Bernie
Got this Email from Bernie today:
Dear Mark,
It’s not just Trump’s movement toward Oligarchy and authoritarianism here in the United States that we’re fighting. We, and our allies, must fight the Oligarchs globally. Right now, whether it is in Russia, Saudi Arabia, Europe or Latin America there are a growing number of multi-billionaires who are trying to undermine democracy, break unions, avoid paying their taxes and rejecting the rule of law.
Attached is an op-ed on that subject that I wrote for today’s Guardian. - Bernie
America must not surrender its democratic values
Together, we must fight for our long-held values and work with people around the world who share them
Bernie Sanders
Fri 28 Feb 2025
For 250 years, the United States has held itself up as a symbol of democracy – an example of freedom and self-governance to which the rest of the world could aspire. People have long looked to our declaration of independence and constitution as blueprints for how to guarantee those human rights and freedoms.
Tragically, all of that is changing. As Donald Trump moves this country towards authoritarianism, he is aligning himself with dictators and despots who share his disdain for democracy and the rule of law.
This week, in a radical departure from longstanding US policy, the Trump administration voted against a United Nations resolution which clearly stated that Russia began the horrific war with Ukraine. That resolution also called on Russia to withdraw its forces from occupied Ukraine, in line with international law. The resolution was brought forward by our closest allies, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and dozens more democratic nations. And 93 countries voted “yes”.
Rather than side with our longstanding allies to preserve democracy and uphold international law, the president voted with authoritarian countries such as Russia, North Korea, Iran and Belarus to oppose the resolution. Many of the other opponents of that resolution are undemocratic nations propped up by Russian military aid.
Let’s be clear: this was not just another UN vote. This was the president of the United States turning his back on 250 years of our history and openly aligning himself with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. This was the president of the United States undermining the independence of Ukraine.
And let us not forget who Putin is. He is the man who crushed Russia’s movement towards democracy after the end of the cold war. He steals elections, murders political dissidents and crushes freedom of the press. He has maintained control in Russia by offering the oligarchs there a simple deal: if you give me absolute power, I will let you steal as much as you want from the Russian people. He sparked the bloodiest war in Europe since the second world war.
It has been three years since Russia’s brutal, unprovoked, full-scale invasion of Ukraine. More than 1 million people have been killed or injured because of Putin’s aggression. Every single day, Russia rains down hundreds of missiles and drones on Ukrainian cities. Putin’s forces have massacred civilians and kidnapped thousands of Ukrainian children, bringing them back to Russian “re-education” camps. These atrocities led the international criminal court to issue an arrest warrant for Putin in 2023 as a war criminal.
Not only is Trump aligning himself with Putin’s Russia, he is prepared to extort Ukraine for its natural resources. While a proud nation desperately fights for its life, Trump is focused on helping his billionaire friends make a fortune excavating rare earths and other minerals.
But Trump’s turn toward authoritarianism and rejection of international law goes well beyond Ukraine.
The president sees the world’s dictators as his friends, our democratic allies as his enemies and the use of military force as the way to achieve his goals. Disgracefully, he wants to push 2.2 million Palestinians out of their homeland in order to build a billionaire’s playground in Gaza. He talks openly about annexing Greenland from Denmark. He says the United States should take back the Panama canal. And he ruptures our friendship with our Canadian neighbors by telling them they should become the 51st state in the union.
Alongside his fellow oligarchs in Russia, Saudi Arabia and around the globe, Trump wants a world ruled by authoritarians in which might makes right, and where democracy and moral values cease to exist.
Just over a century ago, a handful of monarchs, emperors and tsars ruled most of the world. Sitting in extreme opulence, they claimed that absolute power was their “divine right”. But ordinary people disagreed.
Slowly and painfully, in countries throughout the world, they clawed their way toward democracy and rejected colonialism.
At our best, the US has played a key role in the movement toward freedom. From Gettysburg to Normandy, millions of Americans have fought – and many have died – to defend democracy, often alongside brave men and women from other nations.
This is a turning point – a moment of enormous consequence in world history. Do we go forward toward a more democratic, just and humane world? Or do we retreat back into oligarchy, authoritarianism, colonialism and the rejection of international law?
As Americans, we cannot stay quiet as Trump abandons centuries of our commitment to democracy. Together, we must fight for our long-held values and work with people around the world who share them.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Mice elf
He's an astute dude who could
He's an astute dude who could have won a jury. We'll probably never know.
Apparently also picked a real dumb time to decide to become a world traveler
Putin will probably draft him soon anyways
Dying in admax might actually taste better than dying maimed in some mud puddle somewhere in crotchovich idk
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Alan R
Dr, do your research ---
Dr, do your research --- Gabbard and her family are active members of a super homophobic, misogynist, whacko cult with a scary, manipulative power-hungry Hawaiian guru. She doesn't care what party she belongs to, she wants power for her "teacher," her family (her father) and her group. She is an A1 bullshitter. She is 100% unqualified to be leader of any US government organization.
Russia knows how to play such folks (aspiring politicians, corrupt businessmen, idealists, etc.) like a fiddle. They have a long and successful history of collecting foreign "assets."
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week ordered U.S. Cyber Command to stand down from all planning against Russia, including offensive digital actions, according to three people familiar with the matter.
Hegseth gave the instruction to Cyber Command chief Gen. Timothy Haugh, who then informed the organization's outgoing director of operations, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Ryan Heritage, of the new guidance, according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity
https://therecord.media/hegseth-orders-cyber-command-stand-down-russia-p...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
Kremlin Says US Foreign Policy Shift Aligns With Its Vision
The new administration is rapidly changing all foreign policy configurations. This largely coincides with our vision," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told a reporter from state television.
https://www.barrons.com/news/kremlin-says-us-foreign-policy-shift-aligns...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dr. Benway
Defense Secretary Pete
i wonder what exactly is meant by "offensive digital actions". when i think of the term "offensive digital actions" alongside russia, the first thing that comes to mind for me are the well documented cases of propaganda and influence operations carried out by the russian intelligence backed Internet Research Agency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency
most americans, and certainly our national security and intelligence agencies, are highly concerned by, and strongly opposed to these kinds of digital influence campaigns being waged by foreign governments against american citizens.
but wouldn't that mean that if we are opposed to russia running those kinds of covert influence campaigns in the US, than doesnt that mean we should also refrain from running those kinds of influence campaigns and "offensive digital actions" against russia? i dont see how we can be all gung-ho about organizing destabalizing influence campaigns against foreign governments and then get our panties all in a wad when another country does it to us.
TBH, normalizing relations with russia feels like something that coincides with my vision as well, which mostly begins and ends with me, dying of natural causes in my old age and not in the midst ofa nuclear holocaust.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
^ ordered U.S. Cyber Command to stand down from all planning against Russia, including...
All planning. Including does not mean limited to.
And I assumed you were ok with normalizing relations with Putin's kleptocracy.
Just another thing a Russian asset would do.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
Trump halts all U.S. military aid to Ukraine, White House official says
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-halts-all-us-military-aid-ukr...
Totally not a Russian asset
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: billionyearoldcarbon
I get a pit in my stomach
I get a pit in my stomach knowing we are now allies with Putin. Kinda just makes me ill. All so predictable and yet Amerika voted for this pos.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: aiq
Come on, "high level
Come on, "high level establishment dems" are obviously the problem. The Supreme Court would be so much worse if Hillary Clinton had won.
Also, Turncat Tulsi looks cute in the bikini surfing photos which really warms up the middle-aged hippie libertarians.
Have you ever watched the liberatrian convention on CSPAN? Q-Anon prelude.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
Trump to revoke legal status for 240,000 Ukrainians as US steps up deportations
WASHINGTON, March 6 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-plans-revoke-legal-status-ukraini...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Def. High
>>>>>The Supreme Court would
>>>>>The Supreme Court would be so much worse if Hillary Clinton had won.
How so?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: aiq
Sarcasm undetected.
Sarcasm undetected.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Semolina Pilchard
> we are now allies with
> we are now allies with Putin
No, we're not. Trump and his toadies have gone over to the dark side, but there are a lot of us pledged to resistance. Do what you can to keep hope alive. The tide will turn.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Semolina Pilchard
https://www.youtube.com/live
https://www.youtube.com/live/6eG0aV-WB-o?t=1502s