Mitch McConnell voted no. His last term. Now he can vote his conscience and what is best for the country vs fealty to Trump.
So which country do you think will decide the value the US intelligence provides will be worth less then what they are able to provide?
Rather than absolutely refusing to share intelligence with the US our allies will be much more selective as to what they're willing to share.
Denying reality by posting a humorous GIF. How Tulsi Gabbard Became a Favorite of Russia’s State Media Tulsi Gabbard as US intelligence chief would undermine efforts against the spread of chemical and biological weapons Gabbard’s sympathetic views toward Russia cause alarm as Trump’s pick to lead intelligence services
You guys are funny. I am not sure any president has had so much trouble with his own party supporting his confirmations. This is supposed to be a rubber stamp and the fact you guys are celebrating her squeaking by shows how weak Trump will be as President. If he cant get these done easily USAid is in fine position to survive a legislative attack.
Willing to give her a chance. She will need competent people behind her. Her Sec 702 and Snowden answers are very libertarian. Surprised she got through.
Not a huge fan of the Tulsi, RFK, or Matt Gaetz picks. At least Gaetz fell through. And Trump so far has been overzealous with some good policy sprinkled in. Lots of good Trump and lots of bad Trump. Feels like his first term dialed to 11. Sometimes I feel like he does something so good and that nobody else could’ve done it. Others I’m left shaking/scratching my head.
So the only comments from the right are: 1) Cartoons 2) "Owning da libz" / "winning" 3) Nonsense about "misogyny" 4) Spock memes No comments about her legitimate lack of qualifications? No comments about her pretty clear sympathies for Russia? No serious comments from the right whatsoever? Not even about McConnell voting against her? Are you guys just sulking in your shame pit, only taking your fingers out of your ears for "own libz" comments, or on the once-in-a-blue moon events where your leaders don't act in a fashion that's criminal, un-American or moronic?
Why should she have ever been given the chance? No specific related experience and she’s long had concerning ties/views to Russia. Tulsi Gabbard’s history with Russia is even more concerning than you think
And for you hypocrites to show your hypocrisy. I'm sure you were a big fan when she was on team Sanders. What a bunch of lapdogs. If he appointed Hillary to some position, I assume you clowns would just fall in line like good little lemmings.
Not a fan of the selection and if I had a vote I would have voted no but based on my experience, there will be no impact to the five eyes.
I can fully agree with this. The guy is not without interesting ideas. If he could just control himself a bit more he might actually be a decent president. The problem is he often gives in to what appear to be some of his worst impulses and he hires people around him that don't check those impulses.
