246
Senate confirms Tulsi Gabbard as Trump’s director of national intelligence
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
246 points (98.4% liked)
politics
20457 readers
4700 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The Republicans had no problems with her gender, her race, not her position. They voted for her almost unanimously. Not sure why you said the best defense is what she said aren't illegal. Have you even heard why Republican senators voted for her?
Your best defense is, "She is free to speak on the point of view that you don’t like," which is another way of saying, "The things she's said aren't illegal." That, and, "If you don't like her you're a racist and sexist." Absolutely pathetic, lazy, and stupid arguments.
Nope that was not what I meant. I like her positions and what she said.
You haven't said a word about her positions or what she said.
You don't know her positions? What?
I know her positions. The point is that you haven't said a word defending her based on those positions or any other relevant quality. All you can say in her defense is that her positions aren't illegal to hold and that she's a minority. That's literally it.
By the way, I still haven't heard you say that the Democrats should've been more hawkish in the Middle East like Tulsi wanted, so I assume you're aware that you're full of shit.
I asked them whether they felt the same about Hillary Clinton and Ketanji Brown Jackson. I bet they don't.
Democrats had no problem with Hillary Clinton's gender when she was overwhelmingly confirmed by them as Secretary of State. I assume you called anyone who criticized her sexist, right? How about anyone who criticized Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, also overwhelmingly confirmed by Demcocrats. So you are definitely a sexist, racist person if you were against her becoming a SCOTUS justice.
Hillary Clinton and Judge Jackson thank you for your support of them.
Ok. That's fine. Using Hilary, Jackson, and Tulsi as examples, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are racist or sexist.
Not when it comes to confirming people for office. Why do you think that is the only measure of racism or sexism? Do you really not think people can be racist or sexist in other ways? Also, do you think I will tell you that there are no racist or sexist Democrats? I am not a partisan.