this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
103 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19118 readers
2804 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence has sparked intense criticism over her lack of intelligence experience and perceived pro-Russia stance.

Critics, including intelligence officials and Democrats, fear Gabbard’s appointment reflects Trump’s prioritization of loyalty over competence, potentially politicizing the intelligence community and straining trust with foreign allies.

Gabbard, a former Democrat who left the party in 2022, is controversial for her isolationist views and criticism of U.S. support for Ukraine.

While her confirmation is likely given a Republican Senate majority, significant resistance is expected during hearings.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Well, while I agree with you, his term is also only 4 years. Maybe this will be a lesson to us and we can move on. I'm not saying that'll happen, I'm just being optimistic. Of course, there's just as high a chance we'll just keep voting in more and more braggadocios psychopaths' and truly bury this nation once and for all. And unfortunately I believe the odds are actually not in my favor. But we gotta hope right?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I abandoned hope years ago after fighting the good fight for a couple decades. Partly because hope and its close sibling fear are by far the easiest vectors bypass a person's reason and manipulate them, and partly because holding on to hope with increasingly dire data points and increasingly disappearing paths for a societal reformation just led to never ending anxiety and depression for me.

There is peace in understanding and acceptance, at least that's been my experience. I still vote out of harm reduction, but not out of hope. That's about who I am for me, you know, "to that starfish it mattered," not about hoping it will be effective, because in 24 years of voting, it's yet to do anything but perhaps slightly slow down our nation's and our species' march to avarice motivated self-destruction, and by slow down I mean we keep driving towards the capitalist made climate apocalypse cliff at 87 under someone like Obama instead of 90 like Bush or 110 like Trump.

If a candidate being taken seriously started talking about reducing manufacturing solely to medical, ecological housing materials, and food production and basically ending pointless consumerism and winding down to more reasonable, agricultural way of life for the sake of the habitability of Earth for humans, maybe I'd reconsider my stance on hope. Better chance of being struck by lighting 10 times in an hour though.