Yeah, and it shows.
this post was submitted on 10 May 2025
465 points (99.8% liked)
politics
23526 readers
2306 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
We have no intelligence!
I'm certain that his cronies are relieved when he doesn't show up. They are executing project 2025 according to plan. He just gets in the way with his ego.
Or… they’re just saying, “don’t worry Mr. President. We’re doing all the work… you just keep foaming those MAGA’s mouths; and we’ll win.
I imagine that Trump feels like he doesn't need them. He's just going to wing it.
i bet he does this with his lips everytime hes in a briefing, moving his fingers quickly up and down on a duck lips.
Unironically probably for the best, anything top secret he would learn in those meetings would be in the hands of his autocratic handlers before the meeting was concluded.
Which really runs against the "Everything Trump does is actually Russia!" line that gets posted around here incessantly. There's nothing Putin would want more than to have access to those briefings, but his useful idiot is too much of an idiot to be useful here. Trump is on Putin's side, sure, but most of what he does, especially in this term, is the result of home-grown American authoritarianism, not orders from Russia.
Why would Putin need Trump to pass that sort of thing along anymore? That's literally Tulsi Gabbard's job, passing along info the Putin.
She was literally a known Russian spy even before the got confirmed.
Would you trust Trump to accuratly repeat what he heard?
He's too demented to understand them anyway. He wouldn't care even if he could.
That's optimistic. The handlers are probably still at (or even orchestrating) the briefings.
Honestly, at this point I'd be willing to bet that those officials who actually still give half a shit about national security don't give Trump anything that isn't essentially public information already. Or at the very least, largely harmless if it does become public. It's not like Trump would know or care about the difference.
Remember that multiple sources have said that during his first term, the Presidential Daily Briefings were largely little more than fluff pieces with pretty pictures, easy to understand words, and random references to him just to keep his attention, much like trying to keep a 3 year old occupied with a coloring book and a handful of crayons.
he was like this his first term too.
Not sure, he is probably getting his intelligence from Russia at this point
his krasnov: briefing for the week, is ignore all other intelligence briefing from the us, and allies, and also shout "my putins talking points" once a while to make noise and distract the news.
Wait, I got one!
Let's see... Trump. Intelligence. Trump lacking intelligence...
Nah, I got nothing.
"I wouldn't say I've been missing them, Bob."
Did you get the memo?
PC load letter? the fuck does that mean?
If he were to attend, wouldn't it be an "Intelligence + 1 guest" briefing?
Never seems to miss the Stupidity Briefings, though.
Intelligence has skipped Trump since the beginning…
He doesn't need to attend to pass on the important stuff to Vlad. Tulsi does that for him now.
Tulski*
Call her by her birth name.
Best news in a while.
Well, "intelligence" hadn't featured so far, so this shouldn't be a surprise...
And Nero chose to play a fiddle.
He should hire Obama to go to intelligence briefings in his place
Everything is going according to plan for Krasnov.
It's time for Canada to detach from NORAD, and get our own nukes.
They don't even have to be long range ICBMs.
I don't trust these fuckers any more.
This is not a good idea for Canada. Canada is not able to handle logistics, nor the cost of running Northern defense.
Solidify national security, solidify international agreements, then re-evaluate insider divorce.
We have an unstable ex living below us. If Canada were to be invaded, the US wouldn't come to our aid. They would drag their feet and demand 75% of our natural resources before considering coming to the table. And since Trump can't keep a promise or a trade deal, he can not be trusted to flip on a deal any moment. The USA is NOT our friend.
We need nukes.
We need them yesterday.
We need to fortify the southern border.
We need a larger military budget.
Trump is already talking about making Canada part of the USA. We're living next to a serious threat right now. The USA is a failing country slipping into an authoritative regime. We need to deal with it RIGHT NOW.
Everything you said in a correct, but it will take time.
Well, he's not an intelligent person, so...
We've known for a while that he only cares if they're about him. The CIA is running out of ideas to shoehorn his name into the text.
Trump during intelligence briefing:
"I'll close my eyes a bit while you are talking, so I can better concentrate on what you are saying, carry on..."
"rrrrr rrrr rrrrr"
Of course, they contradict his delusional world view.
I love this man('s incompetence as the leader of American imperialism).
Sure, but there’s also the intelligence concerning Russian and Chinese aggression. Not that that would matter to him, now that he’s making the US an aggressor too.
now that he’s making the US an aggressor too.
... Now? The US has been an aggressor for a good eighty years at this point. The only thing Trump is doing different is that he's pissing off white people.
He’s actively being aggressive to allies, now. Big(ger) difference. Before there may have been overt trade negotiation in favor of the US, now there’s active trade aggression and talks of possible military force if needed.
load more comments
(1 replies)