this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
91 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2539 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The incoming chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee has pledged to severely cut the powers of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency or eliminate it entirely.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 9 points 10 hours ago

Can someone please remind me exactly why Republicans are trying to speedrun the collapse of, well, everything?

[–] teh_shame@infosec.pub 42 points 15 hours ago

“we survived for what, 248 years without them”

Ahhh yes, 200 years ago was the golden age of the internet

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Every single pick he has made so far has made our nation less safe. Like outright, not even trying to hide it.

And now this clown is chair of such a vital committee?

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Every single pick he has made so far has made our nation less safe. Like outright, not even trying to hide it.

Look at it this way. Outside of long-term cocksuckers like Gaetz, do you honestly think Trump even knows who 95% of these people are? Or for that matter cares? Do you think that the crayon-eaters Trump has advising him has a clue who 95% of these people are?

Trump has his orders. Get these people into these positions, come hell or high water. And Trump is passing those orders down the chain of command. The only "question" is who's giving Trump the orders. And if you want the answer, give it a few months and then follow the money. It's not like the trail of breadcrumbs is hard to follow. The crumbs they throw down are the size of a loaf.

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 45 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Lol given there are a good number of countries who engage in constant increasingly sophisticated cyber-attacks, this might be the stupidest one yet

I hope you guys aren't too attached to having money stay in your bank accounts and your utilities working reliability

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 34 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Russian tool. Republicans are traitors.

[–] pigup@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago

Yep this only benefits adversaries

[–] hombre_fundido@lemmy.world 40 points 18 hours ago

We literally just had China hack our telecommunications and this guy wants to eliminate the agency countering overseas nation-state hacking. It's almost like Trump's cabinet is not really on our team...

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 8 points 13 hours ago

Lol Rambling Rand trying so hard to be fuckin relevant again

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 8 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

There are few places where I agree with Rand Paul, but the abolishment of “Homeland Security” is one of them. We got this shit because of 9/11. It greatly expanded the power and control of government over our lives and we weakened our constitutional rights (e.g. illegal search and seizure) because of it.

I completely understand that weak cybersecurity is a threat, but we already have the Department of Defense, Department of National Intelligence and Department of State covering it, so there is already built in redundancy, why do we need DHHS doing it too?

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

I completely understand that weak cybersecurity is a threat, but we already have the Department of Defense, Department of National Intelligence and Department of State covering it, so there is already built in redundancy, why do we need DHHS doing it too?

Given the fact that Trump is going out of his way to install the worst candidates for every possible government position in existence, I'm actually glad for all the redundancy. With any luck, Trump won't notice that at least one of these departments exists, leaves someone with more than 3 functioning brain cells in charge, and gives us at least some semblance of cybersecurity.