this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
1261 points (98.2% liked)

politics

24355 readers
3689 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
 

Useless. Time for the Social Democrats to form their own party.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago

Make no mistake. This is a game of politics. Nothing more. They're not doing anything other than playing a wicked and degenerate game of human chess. They don't care about anything other than their bottom line. They're basically saying fuck the American people how can I personally benefit from this!

[–] madjo@feddit.nl 11 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

128 senators show their true republican colours…

[–] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

House reps. There are only 100 senators total

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

But still, even when you go to more politically aware places (like lemmy), you'll get mocked for suggesting America is rules by a uniparty when it comes to American inperialism. It's unbelievably fucking stupid.

[–] SpaceShort@feddit.uk 8 points 4 hours ago

Primary them all.

[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 3 points 3 hours ago

This is what you get when you vOtE bLuE nO mAtTeR wHo

[–] aaron@infosec.pub 7 points 4 hours ago

This is the democrats a certain class of moron thinks that people not voting for - not giving consent to - gave Trump power.

[–] Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca 21 points 7 hours ago (4 children)

Unpopular opinion here; but there's no way an impeachment would succeed and a failed impeachment strengthens Trump's position with his base.

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

It seems really unlikely that any of them seriously believed impeachment proceedings could happen from this, even if every Democrat in the House voted yes. They knew it was going to fail from the start so it seems like the intent of it was to make a statement.

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 24 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Everything Trump does strengthen his position with his base.

He could probably eat dog poo on live television and his base would cheer him for a dumb reason.

[–] nthavoc@lemmy.today 9 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

"The liberals forced him into a choice to eat dog poo. Their fault. " -all maga logic at this point as they also start to eat dog poo.

[–] bufalo1973@europe.pub 1 points 3 hours ago

Not a bad outcome.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 9 points 5 hours ago

I'll go a bit further and say this particular hill is not the best one to choose, as presidents have long unilaterally launched military operations and it's been broadly declared legal, even if it makes no sense. Changing the law would be good, but as the law stands, it's a hard argument to make that Trump should be impeached because of his unilateral decision to strike Iran but every other president in recent history shouldn't have been impeached over their unilateral strikes.

Need to select some way in which he has behaved illegally, in a way that looks corrupt, and in a way that is different than other presidents that have been given free passes. He seems to give such circumstances pretty routinely, so I don't know why you'd go for this one.

[–] chosensilence@pawb.social 13 points 7 hours ago

that is exactly why the Dems had nothing to lose. you are not winning over MAGA folks. who cares? they are not the group a symbolic appeal of impeachment would work for. the Dems should've taken the risk to demonstrate solidarity but they can't be fucked to do anything even remotely suggestive they are working for their constituents.

[–] MetalMachine@feddit.nl 5 points 6 hours ago

Just remember many liberals try to tell the democratic party is different than the republican party. Just remember both are bought by PACS and oligarchs

[–] based_raven@lemm.ee 56 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

God your country is fucked.

[–] lmuel@sopuli.xyz 5 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

I don't think God wants anything to do with them tbh

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 hours ago

"Because god" is one of the excuses these bastards use to try and excuse their shitty behavior .

[–] jasoman@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

They created this mess, and they should clean it up.

[–] nthavoc@lemmy.today 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Pretty much. How much room you got over there?

[–] Coolkat@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 hours ago

A lot, but our own idiot overlords prevent us from letting you through

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 27 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

AOC might be testing the party. She should know who is going to vote for impeachment before the vote.
Apparently there are still majority of congress critters who will ride the horse of greed right into the ground then think they can call a cab.

[–] SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world 10 points 9 hours ago

She's certainly testing them and shining the light on them for who they are - rotten to the core.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Despicable. The Democrats are a shell of what they used to be. How fucking pathetic, but also expected.

Time to vote 'em out, folks! Eyes on 2026 & 2028, if we make it that far!

[–] 10001110101@lemm.ee 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Curious about what time you were referring to when Democrats were better. I suppose they were OK during Obama (ACA was a corporate-friendly solution, there was a huge wealth transfer from the government to financial institutions and corporations, there were tons of drone strikes, and anti-immigration ramped up though). During Clinton they cut social programs significantly, and implemented the draconian three-strikes law.

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 hours ago

Oh I'm talking about Democrats like FDR

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I hope you mean primaries, because voting them out at the general election doesn't exactly get you better results.

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 hours ago

That's what I meant ya

[–] nthavoc@lemmy.today 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

That would require people attend all Democrat primaries for all positions otherwise you end up voting more magats in. For example, Beto is up again for Texas governor. Please don't vote him in to run again. That would be yet another guaranteed win for Greg Abbott. Literally pick anyone else to run against Greg.

load more comments
view more: next ›