this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2025
634 points (98.8% liked)

politics

24190 readers
3002 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
 

Donald Trump was unhappy with his sparsely attended military parade over the weekend and blamed it on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, biographer Michael Wolff revealed.

Wolff told The Daily Beast Podcast that Trump wanted a “menacing” show of force to celebrate the Army’s 250th anniversary and his 79th birthday on Saturday—but got a “festive” parade instead.

“He’s p---ed off at the soldiers,” Wolff said. “He’s accusing them of hamming it up, and by that, he seems to mean that they were having a good time, that they were waving, that they were enjoying themselves and showing a convivial face rather than a military face.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee 0 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not attacking people that join. I'm critizing people that have joined, served, and still advocate for it because it "pays for college". Like, serving a military that causes the deaths countless innocents and disrupts the stability of entire nations is somehow ok because of that?

No. I respect those that served, learned, and advocate against it wholeheartedly.

[–] arrow74@lemm.ee 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

You are seriously underestimating cyclical poverty. It's not just about "paying for college". There are a lot of places in this country where you'll struggle your whole life and will then statistically die much younger than your better off peers.

We as a society have generally failed to provide solutions to this kind of poverty. For many the military is the only choice. For many it's not even about college, it's about having a meal tomorrow.

You speak as someone that's never expirenced the worst of poverty.

I can agree it's not the best solution, but people will take it because our society offers little else. I won't critize them for taking it.

We should focus on the systematic issues that lead to this type of poverty and maybe adress all the other problems surrounding the military industrial complex before we critize poor kids

[–] LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee -2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I guess the only people in poverty are in the west. I guess all the people in the poorest countries in the world are ok with getting bombed for decades so we can have a jobs program.

We can have a jobs program without bombing poor and impoverished countries mate.

The irony of saying I'm disconnected from poverty. I'm literally advocating to stop murdering the poorest countries and people on our planet.

[–] arrow74@lemm.ee 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

It's amazing how you get so close to the issue and then push the blame down to the impoverished.

The reason not to address poverty is to make people desperate so they then join the military. Therefore they are now volunteers and "chose" this path. So "we" don't have to feel bad for them, instead the American people are generally thankful for their service or in your case angry with them. This is all intentional. Their deaths now becomes acceptable.

If the US government addressed cyclical poverty they would lose military recruitment. Then they could turn to conscription, but that would make their conflicts less tolerable to the general public.

So they dont address these issues. It's intentional, and by pushing blame down instead if up where it belongs you're just playing into their plan

[–] LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee 0 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Do you have reading comprehension problems? I don't disagree with that. I put the blame on the ruling class of our country. That's literally what my original comment was explaining. Doesn't mean I'm not going to point out the class traitors along the way. Police and military are welcome when they step down from their positions of violence on the working class of this world. Until then. They actively work to hurt the most impoverished people in the world and I will always call them out for it.

The vast vast majority of poor people in this world do not make a conscious decision to hurt others even if it would benefit them. But you seem to be focused on defending the police and military of the US that actively cause harm to those in poverty.

You're advocating for the continuing of the very systems of violence that keep people in poverty in the first place.