this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
134 points (97.2% liked)

politics

20393 readers
3285 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
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cranium@infosec.pub 7 points 10 hours ago

Fire all the Trump supporters first. There are a lot of them.

[–] Nursery2787@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 hours ago

Needs to be a FAFO for UPS/Fedex. How do we rebuild the postal system? 👻nationalize 👻

[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 50 points 22 hours ago (6 children)

No. It’s in our Constitution. It can’t be whisked away unless it is approved through Congress.

You're right about it not going anywhere, but its because Amazon uses USPS as a subcontractor to deliver packages that they can't deliver reliably. Not because any of the current administration give a shit about the Constitution or what it has to say about the USPS.

[–] Rookwood@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

It can be systematically deconstructed and defunded until it no longer works and is non-functional and frustrating to use and then that used as an excuse to eliminate it.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It can't be defunded as it's not funded in the first place.

[–] Rookwood@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 7 hours ago

Brother, than can always drain it even more.

[–] aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

yeah, but convicted felons can't run for president, yet here we are.

[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

Where in our law does it say they can’t? I don’t like our situation and that it is possible.

[–] Azal@pawb.social 81 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

You have more confidence than I in the Constitution at this point.

[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Who said I had confidence?

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

You said "no", like the constitution would prevent the end of USPS.

[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

It does, unless Congress changes law in our current system.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I think the states would have to agree to it first, wouldn’t they? Congress can’t unilaterally modify the Constitution (thank Christ).

[–] Placebonickname@lemmy.world 12 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I think there needs to be a senate & congress vote AND a majority of states need to ratify the amendment after which the Supreme court does a review.

Elon Musk and Donald Trump are so out of touch with the basic American citizen today that I’m sure they think the Postal Service is the organization that puts up road signs and highway barriers or something

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I think there needs to be a senate & congress vote AND a majority of states need to ratify the amendment after which the Supreme court does a review.

I’m not sure a Supreme Court review is an official part of the process—the SC can review the constitutionality of ordinary laws, but amendments are constitutional by definition.

[–] Placebonickname@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Wouldn’t the Supreme Court need to review to make sure 1 new amendment doesn’t include wording that conflicts with other amendments thought? Just asking, not sure about any of these, in fact I cannot even remember any amendment ratified after the Women’s right to vote in the 1920s.

[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 11 points 22 hours ago

Don't challenge him, he will EO it and nobody will challenge it so it will become real.