this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
74 points (93.0% liked)

politics

19239 readers
2598 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 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.
  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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 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

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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world 74 points 1 month ago (3 children)

So... another Putin puppet. Awesome!

I like it when I don't know who the people are when chosen for these positions. It means they are probably qualified. Not this reality shitshow contest.

We are definitely heading towards Idiocracy... if we're not annihilated first.

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I would take President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho over Trump though.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sure, he was looking for solutions and allowed smarter people to steer the research. He also allowed the smarter man to take his place in office.

[–] riverSpirit@thelemmy.club 5 points 1 month ago

Did he really though?

He let someone else do all the hard work for him, while he relaxed. History remembers President Dwayne elizondo mountain dew herbert camacho, no one remembers the name of the guy who came after him.

Clearly he was the smarter man.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not just Putin, she's been tight with Modi's party in India (outside of any role she had as a legislator) and went on that stupid trip to Syria with Syrian regime handlers. This is well beyond Trump putting loyalist goons into positions of power and closer to actively compromising our country. Hard to believe Gabbard could even get a security clearance.

[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

She couldn't, unless the requirements have changed dramatically over the last 2 years.

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 month ago

The guy who was elected overruled the requirements to get his ineligible family clearances. She won't have a problem.

[–] semperverus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Numenor@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] DeLacue@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Project sundial was a cold war American project to build a bomb so big it wouldn't matter where it was detonated It was a true doomsday weapon

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago

A Russian asset in charge of every department, what could possibly go wrong?

(answer: everything. every fucking thing.)

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

what's next? space lasers greene as nasa administrator?

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP! DON'T GIVE THEM IDEAS!

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

Nah, they’ll just kill NASA outright and transition to SpaceX.

I expect Madge to get the Dept of Homeland Security.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Seriously... it's the Mirror Universe West Wing.

[–] Nasan@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 month ago

Guess we're gonna be out of not just NATO, but five eyes too

[–] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

In charge of going to find some?

Drill baby, drill.

[–] Blackout@fedia.io 4 points 1 month ago

Duh, no intelligence here, uhhhhhhh

[–] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Why is the headline former democratic representative? Does that matter? She has been transitioning to republican for a while now and is currently full R.

[–] goodgame@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

National Intelligence! Oxymoron shenanigans, I've called it.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Well, you need a certain lack of intelligence to switch from Dem to Rep, so it fits perfectly.

It also fits with Trumps desire not to look to closely at Russian interference.

[–] throwawayqwerty@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

All of y'all freaking out over this are tripping so hard it's nuts.

See any of her debates, speeches, interviews, whatever else. She is a patriot who puts the good of the American people and the lives of her fellow service members above loyalty to a party of individual. She can acknowledge when she's made a mistake and explain why her thinking changed. She's everything Kamala wasn't and would've had my vote over trump if she was a contender in this election.