this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
234 points (99.6% liked)

politics

28716 readers
3307 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
 

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., tore into the homeland security secretary at a hearing, saying he will hold up Trump's nominees until he gets answers from her department.

During a tense public hearing Tuesday, Republican Sen. Thom Tillis called on Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign over her handling of the deadly Minneapolis immigration operation.

And he blasted her for killing her dog, which she had described in her memoir as "untrainable," as well as a goat. Tillis, of North Carolina, argued that killing the animals reflected bad judgment and compared it to DHS’ fatal shootings of two American citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, in Minneapolis.

Then he senator threatened to block many of Donald Trump’s nominees until he gets answers to questions he has posed to the administration about Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Charlotte.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cmbabul@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Right? He’s not wrong that it was fucked up for her to kill said dog but that’s hardly the point

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

It is extremely relevant that she was known to have horrible deadly judgement before being given this role and that's obviously his point. And it is a good point.