this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2026
133 points (98.5% liked)

politics

31112 readers
2668 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A wave of Republican attacks against two Muslim Democrats has ended with one of the most prominent right-wing commentators in the country endorsing Abdul El-Sayed for Senate.

Tucker Carlson wrote in his newsletter on Friday that El-Sayed’s opponent, Mike Rogers, was unfit for office and defended him over his past criticism of the war on terror.

The Michigan Democrat emerged from this past week after a wave of attacks were hurled at him and Zohran Mamdani, the first elected Muslim mayor of New York, around the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Both men were the subject of intense focus from media organizations on the right and even some mainstream outlets as the two faced differing but related accusations of anti-American sentiment impossible to separate from their Muslim faith.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Tucker Carlson has always, and I do mean always (for practical purposes) has one of the best reads of the direction of travel in national politics. He was one of the first to get on the America First wagon, and saw the potential Trump represented in national politics in 2015. They understood this because they had the ability to read the room with regard to the latent frustration people had with **both** Republicans and Democrats in that time period.

Tucker Carlson propagates Kremlin propaganda that has been used to shape American politics.

I point out that the only reason he has “the best reads of the direction of travel in national politics” is because the Kremlin has actively been shaping national politics using propagandist like Tucker.

The only thing Tucker is reading is Kremlin talking points and you are trying to claim otherwise.

You are trying to claim Tucker’s Kremlin propaganda to is not Kremlin propaganda but instead it is “the best reads of the direction of travel in national politics” and to convince others in this thread that we should not be put off by the Kremlins support for this candidate.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago

Are you like, actually intellectually disabled?

Because I'll be nicer if you are. At least then your idiocy would make sense.

I'm not making any claims about Tuckers relationship with anyone shit for brains. Use your fucking eye balls and rub them on the screen. Use them to take the lights emitted by the screen and convert them to letters and then words in your mind.

Stop arguing with your imagination of what I'm saying.