this post was submitted on 23 May 2026
102 points (100.0% liked)

politics

29859 readers
2062 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Trump has hinted in the past at differences with Gabbard on their approach to Iran, saying in March that she was “softer” than him on curbing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

In April, several sources told Reuters that Gabbard could lose her role in a broader cabinet shakeup.

A senior White House official said then that Trump had expressed displeasure with Gabbard in recent months. Another source with direct knowledge of the matter said the president had asked allies for their thoughts on potential replacements for his intelligence chief.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TryingToBeGood@reddthat.com 23 points 1 day ago (4 children)

So has she actually done her job at all?

Protecting the pedophile in chief? Yes.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago (2 children)

None of them are doing their jobs...

They don't even understand what their jobs are supposed to be. Any actual business dead ends before it gets to them from below on the chain, they just fuck around and grift till Trump tells them to do something, and then they have no fucking clue how to do it.

So they throw tantrums and yell at the people who have been allowing the agency to limp on, but that just makes things worse because now those people can't keep things afloat.

Things quickly nosedive and then agency heads get replaced, process repeats, but will always be less effective than last time. Like how a bouncy ball always bounces a little less high on every subsequent bounce.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 3 points 22 hours ago

They don’t even understand what their jobs are…

This is the part that blows my mind the most. I’d like to believe that if you dropped a normal person in one of those jobs, theyd at least make an attempt and probably do somewhat better than these people are.

It’s like they ran the title of the job through a couple AI passes and are slightly sticking to it.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago

Eventually it rolls under the couch and is consumed by hair.

[–] Addition@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 day ago

Of course she did! Her job was to disseminate US military and government secrets to all of our foreign adversaries and she did a flawless job. Now Putin has all the US intelligence he needs, Trump has permission to fire her for being a woman.

[–] Pulsar@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

There is only one job, and it is pleasing the king.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Ew, imagine having to put your head that close to his

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

This Natalie Harp girl is almost certainly having an affair with him currently, she even got put on the China Trip instead of $melania. Read up on some of the stories about her and the worries from secret service.

Girl is likely smelling that diapey while she goes down on him.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 2 points 3 hours ago

Hmm, who does she remind me of?

[–] Wytch@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago

I feel like just being in the same room with him would cause me to projectile vomit

[–] BillyClark@piefed.social 6 points 1 day ago

Considering people have the benefit of looking at what Trump did in his first term, I still think it's weird that anyone would accept an appointment from Trump into a position where Trump can also fire them.

Only the most braindead, incompetent people would accept a position where they upend their lives for a position where they get blamed for their boss's failures and then get fired in a year.

And so indeed you do see that Trump hires only the most braindead incompetent people.

[–] chilldrivenspade@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

duh, as soon as the iran war began, it became clear she does literally nothing

[–] pr0xy_prime@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Too bad she wasn't pushed put of a window

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Let the woman purge continue...

/s 🙃