politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Compare the way he talks about Putin with the way he talks about Zelenskyy.
With Putin, we have to see what he wants, we have to try to work with him and understand his position, we can't do anything that might make him uncomfortable so he doesn't decide he doesn't want to talk to us, and his broken agreements are in the past while we need to be moving forward.
On the other hand, he repeatedly states that they've "explained this" to Ukraine, that we can't discuss what they want or what their concerns are, we need to focus on getting peace first, and Zelenskyy is at fault because was disrespectful which apparently we can't ignore for the sake of peace the way we can ignore a history of Putin violating peace deals.
If they actually meant what they are saying and this was all about diplomacy and achieving peace, they wouldn't be picking a fight with Ukraine, they wouldn't be publicly undermining them and trying to coerce them, and they wouldn't be refusing to acknowledge any of their concerns. These motherfuckers think that it's a good look for them to be throwing a tantrum about the way Zelenskyy dresses and getting pissy about him not being thankful enough for the way they are so generously pursuing a peace that carves up Ukraine and comes without security of any kind. That's the way they want to spin this. Because apparently they think acting like thrid grade bullies who try to pick on the smaller kids is admirable, that people will see it and think they look smart and tough.
The only thing I even find remotely believable in this interview is Rubio's mantra of "I don't understand." Just in general I think it's pretty clear that there's a hell of a lot he doesn't understand. Things like human decency, geopolitics, basic negotiation tactics, and parables about riding tigers and giving rides to scorpions. But I think he probably does understand that his position is pure bullshit and that his only job here is to try and tow the line while defending the indefensible. That's why he got so panicked when a tweet from a fellow republican came up, because his strategy was to avoid details and try to frame the backlash as partisan politics, so he can't really respond to Republican criticism.
Well said. Username also checks out