535

Summary

JD Vance claimed pro-Ukraine protesters harassed him and his daughter in Cincinnati, but demonstrators say they merely passed him en route to a protest.

Video shows a civil exchange where Vance defended U.S. withdrawal from Ukraine aid, contradicting Trump’s stance on Russia’s invasion.

Critics accused Vance of using his child to deflect backlash over his role in a heated Oval Office meeting with Zelensky.

Protests against his Ukraine policy continue as Russia escalates attacks, with demonstrations held in Washington, D.C., and Europe.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] NimdaQA@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Despite my… unpopular view regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

I’d like to say that this is nonsense. His street was closed off with massive police presence yet he deliberately took his kid to confront the protesters when he had many other options.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

This reminds of the way Klan Mom and her pedo side-kick Gaetz acted when they were followed around and asked questions. The way they think it should work is that they get to call liberals [1] any and all names in the book. Also they get to defend the J6 terrorists that they call "political prisoners", and others should not even be able to be heard in their response to these monsters. And if the opposition IS heard, and they are shouted down, they'll cry endlessly about it and talk about their "free speech". Even when assholes like this can get on the likes of Faux "News" nearly any time with one phone call, while their opposition cannot.

[1] "Liberals", meaning, anyone that doesn't have their lips around the shaft of the mini-mushroom.

this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
535 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30930 readers
1686 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