#us politics Tumblr posts

  • I’m tired of seeing people complain about how Trump is “treated so unfairly” and that Conservatives/Republicans “did their time under Obama.”

    Obama didn’t tell people they couldn’t come to America because of their religion. Obama didn’t solicit foreign intereference in American elections. He didn’t lie to Congress or the American people. He didn’t get on TV and call Americans stupid and claiming that he could murder someone and still be elected. He never buddied up to dictators and tyrants like Putin and Kim Jong Un. He didn’t pull out of climate agreements or agreements to denuclearize countries that America doesn’t get along with. Barack Obama respected his office, did what he wanted to do within the means of his office, and tried to work with congressional Republicans and only used executive orders to do what he needed to do when left with no choice. There is no comparison between Trump and Obama. So don’t try to equate the two.

    So no, Trump isn’t treated unfairly unless being treated unfairly is the same as being held accountable for his actions and being called out for his lies.

    View Full
  • Today, the last public hearing as a part of the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump was held. This time Trump decided to be just quiet on Twitter and let the Republicans defend him during the hearing, although he retweeted that the Democrats are a disgrace and once again told people to read the transcripts. Well, at least Mike Pence tweeted that they had a productive day at the White House when they discussed empowering families with education choice. Also, Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, released a report that concluded that there was no direct evidence of political bias when the Federal Bureau of Investigation launched a probe to investigate whether Trump’s 2016 campaign had coordination with Russia, although they had made some errors. Trump has accused them of spying him, so his reaction to the report was to say that it still was an attempted overthrow…

    View Full
  • image

    We need to talk about this…

    View Full
  • Oh God an Original Post!

    Hi, my name is callmedeku and I’m a Marxist. Or as some would say a commie. However upon searching this website to find Socialist or communist posts, you will met with slews of people bringing to the ground every single private business owner in the world. Before I go any further I would like to state I am infact open for debates, civil discussion, and of course questions public or private. I would also like to say that before you make a criticism to know that just like the right wing, we have separate ideologies buried under the umbrella term. Their is Democratic Socialism, Classical Marxism, Centrist Marxism, Stalinism, Maoism, and Marxist Lenninism. These are the ones that I will be discussing

    First off, Democratic Socialism. Is a far cry from the authoritarianism of Lenninism, Maoism, and Stalinism. In fact this is considered an early step in the creation of a Marxist society a classic or centrist Marxist society, these are the communist ideas of Marx himself. A Democratic system of governence in a world where recreation isn’t annual thing where the workers by controlling the means of production are able to spend time relaxing and destressing due to the fact that money is irrelevant in this society and you make what you are able to while the community benefits from your abilities and vice versa.

    The authoritarianistic ones are basically what you see in China, and the USSR. A modified version of Marxism where the party not necessarily the workers are in charge. This description will earn me tons of hate but if you can contribute further please do, as I never cared enough to go down the rabbit hole of Mao and Stalins work.

    One last note if you are interested or simply want to Know what communism is read the works of, Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky (F Off, He was Lennin’s right hand man), and Vladimir Lennin. These are the basis of all communist ideologies, yes Trotsky and Lennin bleed over into classical Marxism and Stalinism, Maoism.

    Have a nice night. Remember that there’s more to ideologies then the most radical of them and infact the majority are more agreeable.

    View Full
  • image

    when texas cops are speaking the truth, you know something is truly screwed up. when will congress listen? when is enough enough?

    View Full
  • Inspector General Report on F.B.I. Russia Inquiry Finds Serious Errors But Debunks Anti-Trump Plot https://nyti.ms/355L9um

    FBI’s Wray vs. AG Barr on IG report is night and day.

    Wray: “I think it’s important that the Inspector General found that in this particular instance the investigation was opened with appropriate predication and authorization.”

    Barr: FBI’s counterintelligence investigation was launched on “the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.”

    Justice Dept inspector general: “Steele’s report played NO ROLE” in opening investigation of Russian election meddling in 2016

    Inspector General Report on F.B.I. Russia Inquiry Finds Serious Errors But Debunks Anti-Trump Plot

    A long-awaited report by the Justice Department’s inspector general delivers a scathing critique of the F.B.I.’s handling of a wiretap application but also punctures many conspiracy theories.

    By Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman | Published Dec. 9, 2019 Updated 2:30 PM ET | New York Times | Posted December 9, 2019 |

    WASHINGTON — A long-awaited report by the Justice Department’s inspector general released on Monday sharply criticized the F.B.I.’s handling of a wiretap application used in the early stages of its Russia investigation but debunked President Trump’s accusations that former bureau leaders engaged in a politicized conspiracy to sabotage him.

    Investigators uncovered “no documentary or testimonial evidence” that political bias affected how officials conducted the investigation, said the report, which totaled more than 400 pages. The F.B.I. had sufficient evidence in July 2016 to lawfully open the investigation, known as Crossfire Hurricane, and officials followed procedures in using informants to approach campaign aides, the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, determined.

    But Mr. Horowitz also uncovered substantial dysfunction, carelessness and serious errors in one part of the sprawling inquiry: the F.B.I.’s  applications for court orders approving a wiretap targeting Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser with ties to Russia. He found that one low-ranking F.B.I. lawyer altered a related document and referred the lawyer for possible prosecution.

    By puncturing conspiracy theories promoted by Mr. Trump and his allies, yet sharply criticizing law enforcement actions that have not been the subject of public debate, Mr. Horowitz’s mixed findings may offer vindication for both critics and allies of Mr. Trump. The exhaustive report by an independent official is likely to stand as a definitive accounting of the F.B.I.’s actions in the early stages of the Russia investigation.

    Attorney General William P. Barr, who was said to be skeptical of Mr. Horowitz’s conclusion that officials had a proper basis to open the Russia investigation, praised the inspector general but reiterated his longstanding complaints about the F.B.I. inquiry, saying the bureau’s “malfeasance and misfeasance” detailed in the report reflected a “clear abuse” of the wiretap application process.

    “The inspector general’s report now makes clear that the F.B.I. launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken,” Mr. Barr said in a statement that echoed his willingness to act as Mr. Trump’s defender at the end of the special counsel investigation that grew out of the Russia inquiry.

    Mr. Horowitz’s findings on the wiretap application showed that when it mattered most — with the stakes the greatest and no room for error — F.B.I. officials on various teams still made numerous and serious mistakes in wielding a powerful surveillance tool. The discovery calls into question the bureau’s surveillance practices in routine cases without such high-stakes political implications.

    “That so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, handpicked teams on one of the most sensitive F.B.I. investigations that was briefed to the highest levels within the F.B.I., and that F.B.I. officials expected would eventually be subjected to close scrutiny, raised significant questions regarding the F.B.I. chain of command’s management and supervision of the FISA process,” the report said.

    The report came on the same day that House Democrats moved forward with their impeachment inquiry into Mr. Trump, with a lawyer for the Judiciary Committee telling its members during a hearing that the president’s dealings with Ukraine were “so brazen” that there was no question that he had abused his power to advance his own political interests over the country’s.

    The report, as well as Mr. Barr’s criticism, is certain to extend the debate over the legitimacy of the F.B.I.’s inquiry. Mr. Barr has publicly said he thinks the Trump campaign was subjected to “spying” and tapped John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, to lead yet another investigation into the Russia investigation.

    Though the report largely exonerated F.B.I. officials of the president’s most inflammatory accusations, Mr. Trump’s persistent attacks have nonetheless already damaged the bureau’s reputation. Top officials were fired, while others left the bureau.

    Much of the report focused on the paperwork associated with the wiretapping of Mr. Page, who was first approved for targeting in October 2016, about a month after he had stepped down from the Trump campaign. The Justice Department obtained three renewals of court permission to eavesdrop on Mr. Page — two under the Trump administration.

    The four applications contained dozens of significant inaccuracies, material omissions or assertions that were not backed in supporting documents, according to the report, which grouped them in a chart. The applications for the wiretap relied on historical information about Mr. Page’s contacts before 2016, and claims about his 2016 interactions with Russians came from a notorious dossier of opposition research collected by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent paid by Democrats.

    For example, the F.B.I. never told the main Justice Department, which in turn never told the court, that Mr. Page had for years been providing information to the C.I.A. about his prior contacts with Russian intelligence officials, including an encounter cited in the application as a reason to be suspicious of him. That made his history less suspicious, Mr. Horowitz suggested.

    The F.B.I.’s omission of Mr. Page’s contacts with the C.I.A. relates to the criminal referral that Mr. Horowitz made about an F.B.I. lawyer assigned to assist the Russia investigation team. He found that the lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, altered an email from the C.I.A. to a colleague during a renewal application.

    An F.B.I. official who had to sign an affidavit attesting to the accuracy and completeness of a court filing had specifically asked about any relationship with the C.I.A. Mr. Clinesmith altered the email so that it stated that Mr. Page was “not a source,” contributing to the Justice Department’s failure to discuss his relationship with the C.I.A. in a renewal application.

    Mr. Horowitz has referred his findings about Mr. Clinesmith to prosecutors for a potential criminal investigation for making a false statement. Mr. Clinesmith left the Russia investigation in February 2018 after the inspector general identified him as one of a handful of F.B.I. officials who expressed animus toward Mr. Trump’s election as president in internal texts. He resigned from the bureau in September.

    In addition to the other issues with the wiretap application, the F.B.I. in January 2017 interviewed a primary source for important claims about Mr. Page in Mr. Steele’s dossier. In the interview, the source contradicted some of what Mr. Steele had written. But F.B.I. officials said only that they found the source “truthful and cooperative,” leaving the false impression in renewal applications that his account had confirmed rather than raised doubts about the dossier’s reporting.

    Indeed, as recently as July 2018, when the Justice Department sent a letter to the court discussing certain errors or omissions in its Page wiretap applications, the report said, it continued to defend the reliability of Mr. Steele’s reporting and the court filings by portraying Mr. Steele’s source has having corroborated his dossier.

    The report placed primary blame for the significant errors and omissions on sloppiness by F.B.I. case agents, including one unnamed investigator who mischaracterized information and failed to advise the Justice Department officials working on court filings of several important facts.

    The inspector general found that this pattern was not intentional, but that explanations offered in defense of the agents — such as that they were busy with the Russia investigation at the time and “the Carter Page FISA was a narrow aspect of their overall responsibilities” — were unsatisfactory.

    Mr. Horowitz took no position on whether the outcome would have been different — and the intelligence court would not have approved wiretapping Mr. Page or extending the surveillance for additional periods — without the misstatements and omissions.

    Still, notwithstanding now-famous text messages sent by several other F.B.I. officials that indicated a dislike for Mr. Trump, the bureau’s top counterintelligence official, Bill Priestap, made the decisions to open the investigation and scrutinize four Trump campaign figures with links to Russia, and Mr. Horowitz found that he had a sufficient and lawful basis to do so.

    “Priestap’s exercise of discretion in opening the investigation was in compliance with department and F.B.I. policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision,” the report said.

    Mr. Trump’s frequent F.B.I. targets participated in Mr. Horowitz’s investigation, sitting for hours of interviews. That list includes James B. Comey, the former director; Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy and acting director; James A. Baker, the former general counsel; Lisa Page, a former senior counsel to Mr. McCabe; and Peter Strzok, a former senior counterintelligence agent.

    Mr. Horowitz had previously uncovered text messages that Ms. Page and Mr. Strzok had exchanged on their work phones expressing hostility toward Mr. Trump, but his report found no evidence that any investigative steps were influenced by their personal political opinions. He made a similar finding about the Hillary Clinton email investigation, which involved many of the same law enforcement officials.

    A footnote cited other F.B.I. officials who supported Mr. Trump’s campaign and expressed hostility toward Mrs. Clinton. It quoted text messages celebrating his surprise electoral win, including one by an agent who later explained to the inspector general that he was glad Mrs. Clinton lost because “I didn’t want a criminal in the White House.” The report similarly does not accuse these officials of taking official actions based on their personal political opinions.

    Mr. Trump’s allies have argued that law enforcement officials abused their powers by using opposition research to get a wiretap and that the Justice Department should have done more to alert the court that Mr. Trump’s political opponents had funded Mr. Steele’s efforts.

    A lengthy footnote in the application told the court that the information was most likely opposition research but did not specifically name the funders: the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. Mr. Horowitz observed that is standard practice not to explicitly name Americans or American organizations in such sensitive documents; Mr. Trump, for example, is referred to as “Candidate #1.”

    “The Carter Page FISA application did not identify by name Steele’s clients or the presidential candidates, which is consistent with the department’s general practice of not disclosing the true identities of U.S. persons who are not the surveillance targets in FISA applications,” Mr. Horowitz wrote.

    Despite the particular attention it has received, the wiretap of Mr. Page was but a very small piece of a much larger, sprawling F.B.I. investigation into Russian interference. Investigators obtained nearly 500 search warrants and interviewed hundreds of witnesses, according to the special counsel’s report.

    The report found that Mr. Steele’s information was not used in the opening of the Russia investigation, as Mr. Trump’s allies have frequently but falsely suggested as part of their claim that the F.B.I. spied on the Trump campaign as part of a politicized plot.

    But the inspector general also determined that F.B.I. did not place informants or undercover agents in the campaign, and it did not ask them to “report on the Trump campaign.” Nor did the inspector general find evidence that undercover agents or informants were told to meet with Trump campaign officials before the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. Members told the inspector general that no investigative steps were before the actual opening of the investigation in late July 2016.

    Instead, it confirms that the F.B.I. opened the inquiry after WikiLeaks began publicly releasing hacked Democratic emails and officials learned that a Trump campaign aide had previously bragged to a pair of Australian diplomats of knowing that Russia had dirt on Mrs. Clinton in the form of hacked emails it was willing to release anonymously to help Mr. Trump.

    That campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, has subsequently accused the person who told him about Russia’s possession of those emails, a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud, of being an F.B.I. and C.I.A. asset engaged in a conspiracy to entrap the Trump campaign. But Mr. Horowitz is said to have found no evidence to corroborate that he worked for the F.B.I.

    The inspector general also noted that the F.B.I. apparently requested information from another agency but that portion remains blacked out. It was previously reported that Mr. Mifsud did not work for the C.I.A., either.

    Mr. Papadopoulos was later convicted of lying to the F.B.I. about his interactions with Mr. Mifsud. Mr. Trump has also raised the specter of a “deep state” conspiracy involving Mr. Mifsud.

    In addition, the inspector general looked at the role of a Justice Department official named Bruce G. Ohr, who has been vilified by Mr. Trump and his allies because he was in contact with Mr. Steele and because his wife worked for the political research firm that employed Mr. Steele.

    The inspector general criticized Mr. Ohr for failing to keep his supervisors informed of his actions, but does not accuse him of being part of a conspiracy. The inspector general described Mr. Ohr making “consequential errors in judgment,” requesting meetings with senior law enforcement officials outside his area of responsibility, by making himself “a witness” in the investigation.

    View Full
  • #koch brothers#us politics #us political financing #republicans #us domestic policy #capitalism#fascism
    View Full
  • On Monday, December 9, 2019, The Washington Post released an article and revealed that they had accessed more than 2,000 pages of documents that reveal the truth about the more than 18-year war campaign in Afghanistan.

    More than 775,000 U.S. troops were deployed, with 2,300 U.S. military personnel dying and 3,814 U.S. contractors dying, with another 20,000 wounded. The U.S. reports that 64,124 Afghan security forces, 42,100 Taliban insurgents and more than 43,000 Afghan civilians have been killed. In addition, 67 journalists, 424 humanitarian workers and 1,145 NATO and coalition troops have died. According to the U.S. military, 157,000 have died in total. And what for?

    In the article, At War with the Truth,” The Post accessed more than 400 interviews over the past several years to get to the bottom of the lies that have been pumped out over the United States’ longest war to date. It began in 2001 under George W. Bush and continues today. The war (or, as it has been spun, “conflict”) was declared after 9/11, which is noted was perpetrated by 15 Saudi Arabian nationals along with two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Lebanon and one from Egypt. No one from Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan.

    “With most speaking on the assumption that their remarks would not become public, U.S. officials acknowledged that their warfighting strategies were fatally flawed and that Washington wasted enormous sums of money trying to remake Afghanistan into a modern nation.”

    Roughly $1 trillion has been spent on this never-ending, bloody war (though the numbers are not all public).

    For 18 years, the three presidents (Bush, Obama and now Trump) of this war have asserted there was “progress” and that the war would be quick and we would withdraw.

    “Everyone at ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] just wanted to hear good news, so bad news was often stifled. There was more freedom to share bad news if it was small we’re running over kids with our MRAPs because those things could be changed with policy directives. But when we tried to air larger strategic concerns about the willingness, capacity or corruption of the Afghan government, it was clear it wasn’t welcome and the boss wouldn’t like it.” Bob Crowley, U.S. military adviser and retired Army colonel

    In the beginning, nearly three-quarters of Americans were in favor of the war as of March 19, when it officially started. Internally, though, it was much more bleak.

    Yet the interviews show that as the war dragged on, the goals and mission kept changing and a lack of faith in the U.S. strategy took root inside the Pentagon, the White House and the State Department.

    Bush’s Defense Secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, made more than 59,000 memos between 2001 and 2006 that were accessed by the National Security Archive, a nonprofit run out of George Washington University. These documents have been shared with The Post.

    On April 17, 2002, just six months into the war, Rumsfeld wrote:

    “We are never going to get the U.S. military out of Afghanistan unless we take care to see that there is something going on that will provide the stability that will be necessary for us to leave.” (x)

    On that same day, here is what the public was told:

    “The history of military conflict in Afghanistan [has] been one of initial success, followed by long years of floundering and ultimate failure. We’re not going to repeat that mistake.” — President George W. Bush, in a speech at the Virginia Military Institute

    Military leaders were not even made aware of who the “enemy” was. It appeared to be an ever-changing shadow. Troops were not sure who was friend or foe, and the Pentagon gave no answers. It appeared they themselves did not know who they were fighting.

    “I have no visibility into who the bad guys are. We are woefully deficient in human intelligence.” — Rumsfeld complained in a Sept. 8, 2003, memo.

    Obama Era

    “The days of providing a blank check are over…It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.” — President Barack Obama, in a speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. on Dec. 1, 2009

    Mass amounts of aid — in the hundreds of billions — was allocated by Congress during the peak of fighting in 2009-2012. These billions were spent recklessly, with little direction or plan in place. The rush to modernize failed, and led to an even more corrupt government that was stealing funds.

    Another issue was that of opium. Afghanistan produces 82% of the world’s supply of opium, and U.S. forces tried and failed at their many attempts to constrain the opium use and production.

    At first, Afghan poppy farmers were paid by the British to destroy their crops — which only encouraged them to grow more the next season. Later, the U.S. government eradicated poppy fields without compensation — which only infuriated farmers and encouraged them to side with the Taliban.

    The documents, public opinion and parallels to the Vietnam War

    These documents broadly resemble the Pentagon Papers, which The Post released to the public, detailing the Vietnam War and lack of reason for occupying.

    Unlike the Pentagon Papers, none of the Lessons Learned documents were originally classified as a government secret. Once The Post pushed to make them public, however, other federal agencies intervened and classified some material after the fact.

    The documents were majorly anonymous, but The Post was able to identify many through research and cross-referencing information and documents. Some of these interviewees included former foreign ambassadors, White House staff and generals.

    John Sopko, the head of the federal agency that conducted the interviews, acknowledged to The Post that the documents show “the American people have constantly been lied to.”

    Beginning in 2016, The Post had to take the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction to federal court twice to gain access to these previously unpublished documents and interviews. The Post finally won under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

    The Post is publishing the documents now, instead of waiting for a final ruling, to inform the public while the Trump administration is negotiating with the Taliban and considering whether to withdraw the 13,000 U.S. troops who remain in Afghanistan.

    The parallels drawn to the Vietnam War do not end with a long, expensive war with little direction or objective. Officials used tricks from Vietnam to manipulate public opinion.

    Over 18 years and three administrations, the talking points have remained consistent: progress is being made. In a seemingly endless war that has drained $1 trillion dollars and thousands of U.S. lives and one hundred thousand Afghani lives, progress is being made.

    “…We don’t invade poor countries to make them rich. We don’t invade authoritarian countries to make them democratic. We invade violent countries to make them peaceful and we clearly failed in Afghanistan and in Somalia and  in several others.” — James Dobbins, former U.S. diplomat to Afghanistan.

    During the Vietnam War, the Pentagon notoriously highlighted the number of enemies killed as a sign of progress. They even inflated the numbers of enemies killed.

    “It was impossible to create good metrics. We tried using troop numbers trained, violence levels, control of territory and none of it painted an accurate picture. The metrics were always manipulated for the duration of the war.” — Anonymous Senior National Security official interviewed in 2016

    The piece ends with a new spin, and some truth.

    “I do think the key benchmark is the one I’ve suggested, which is how many Afghans are getting killed,” James Dobbins, the former U.S. diplomat, told a Senate panel in 2009. “If the number’s going up, you’re losing. If the number’s going down, you’re winning. It’s as simple as that.”

    Last year, 3,804 Afghan civilians were killed in the war, according to the United Nations.

    That is the most in one year since the United Nations began tracking casualties a decade ago.

    #the afghanistan papers #washington post#news#world news#us news#politics#us politics#world politics#middle east#journalism #i wrote this in ap style and all #pls read and share #*wr#long post #this is over 1100 words phew
    View Full
  • This is one of the biggest questions I’ve had about the Republican defense. 

    I understand why they keep bringing up Putin’s misinformation talking points and giving them increased credence. 

    I understand why they are trying to throw every wrench into the works that they possibly can.

    Yet this argument continues to confuse me, as it seems to be an indictment of the President in and of itself. Particularly because these complaints were literally in response to the President saying that he thought Russia should keep Crimea, a territory Russia had invaded, and Ukraine was and still is actively fighting a war to retain as part of their country.

    I want to understand the GOPs arguments. I really really do. But I can’t even figure out the strategic benefit from this one. All it does is highlight that the conspiracy theory they are pushing has no factual basis?

    The above commentary is from the New York Times live analysis of the December 9th 2019 Impeachment Hearings, specifically the testimony of Republican Counsel for these hearings - Stephen Castor

    #US politics#news#current events#Impeachment Hearings #like I honestly do not understand #how this argument serves them strategically
    View Full
  • ‘President Trump’s persistent and continuing effort to coerce a foreign country to help him cheat to win an election is a clear and present danger to our free and fair elections and to our national security.’ — Democratic counsel for the House Intel Committee Daniel Goldman

    CREDIT: Now This @NowThis



    View Full
  • Reminder that Devin Nunes, a ranking member of the House Intelligence committee and Republican representative for a California’s 22nd Congressional District, sued a satirical Twitter account with the handle ‘Devin Nunes’ Cow’

    View Full
  • Mind your business.

    -If someone believes there are more than two genders. Let them.

    -if someone likes a certain type of clothing you hate. Let them.

    -if someone finds a certain show you don’t agree with. let them.

    ~People are allowed to enjoy things.~

    The world doesn’t revolve around you.

    View Full
  • So before, there ‘was no interferance in the 2016 election’ at all. Before, everything was on the up and up and 'them crazy petty dems were just pissy that they lost’… but now the narative that Ukraine interfered is being pushed as a clear Russian plant that’s been picked up by Republican politicians to throw the scent off Russia and god could only discern what other reasons but a huge takeaway is that NOW they’re willing to straight up admit there was interferance in US elections from outside sources… and that fucker Mitch McConnell is still sitting on legeslation that could help keep that from happening again in 2020.

    They all shat on the very idea that any interferance happened, but now admit yeah it did but somehow got it in their heads that because they claim it wasn’t Russia [it fucking was] it’s fine?

    Fuck man the DNC screwed over Bernie yeah, but for all the repub callouts on that they sure drag ass to call out shit on their own home turf.

    View Full
  • So I’ve been going to school for and telling people I want to go into political science for the past two years with the goal of being a politician but recently I’ve been really tired of politics. The past few weeks I’ve been wanting to just do something easy but idk… I used to be so passionate about politics. Anyone going through the same thing? Got advice or just stories to share?

    View Full
  • Does anybody else feel like there is a smear campaign against Elizabeth warren?

    Like, all the media outlets I look at (I work in progressive left right conservative neutral etc… to try and get a rounded look, or to know my enemy)… allllll are just very, very critical of her. Often times, they make the critical topic about something she called herself out on? Meanwhile, other contenders are not nearly scrutinized as much on the same subjects that they have no public opinion on, which I would consider worse.

    Hmmm just thinking out loud

    If anybody wants to enlighten me, I’m not opposed. I’m just noticing a trend.

    I also don’t have much of an opinion on these upcoming elections as long as it’s not trump…so, I don’t really have a dog in this race besides that.

    View Full