this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2025
393 points (98.0% liked)

politics

22517 readers
3624 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 31 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

it’ll be illegal (or at least dangerous) to express disapproval, and Trump’s numbers will be right up there with Putin and Kim.

I don't see the problem as MAGA Republicans suddenly becoming popular on the "it's illegal not to like us" gambit. Bush Jr tried this in his second term - purging the White House press corps, leaning hard on conservative media for support, even prosecuting hostile journalists - and all he got out of it was Wikileaks and a robust anti-Bush media underground.

What we have to worry about is the Race To The Bottom

Trump doesn't have to be the most popular politician. He just has to be more popular than the opposition. And that's become downright trivial, given how the geriatric Dem Leadership has prostrated themselves before him.

[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You're largely spot on, but one thing I'd like to add is that Republicans in Walz's state have actually pushed forward a "Trump Derangement Syndrome" bill, which would classify openly speaking negatively about Trump as a mental illness that is valid justification for incarceration in a mental health facility, which is exactly what Russia did.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Republicans in Walz’s state have actually pushed forward a “Trump Derangement Syndrome” bill

Which won't pass their state house, certainly won't pass their state senate, and Walz isn't going to sign.

which is exactly what Russia did

The post-Soviet Russian state was the result of shock therapy more consistent with Musk's DOGE strategy than any kind of middling public censorship campaign. Rapid privatization of state assets for the benefit of sellout state actors and foreign investors/liquidators was what brought down the Russian government.

Putin's United Russia didn't come to power through petty proletariat censorship. It came to power when Putin and his allies mobilized what was left of the police state and used it to whip the newly minted billionaire oligarchy into an ideologically consistent nationalist project. We saw a similar transformation in China, in the immediate run up to the Xi Premiership. Both Xi and Putin had to wrestle power away from western-friendly kleptocrats intent on turning their states into the next Philippines or Honduras.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Slotkin, Newsom and Schumer are all ardent zionists.

[–] Iampossiblyatwork@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Slotkin? Really? This woman is pretty despised among left leaning Michigan Dems. Complete turn coat.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

She's got name recognition purely from the SotU rebuttal at the moment. I doubt she'd poll better than Schumer if she was allowed in front of a camera for too long.

[–] Iampossiblyatwork@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

https://www.mlive.com/news/2025/03/sen-elissa-slotkin-says-her-job-is-to-be-more-than-just-an-activist-against-trump.html

This was the article that made me lose faith in her.

Slotkin responded by saying she also serves Michigan residents who voted for Trump and that she is responding to the needs of residents who are impacted by changes at the federal level and executive orders from Trump.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Yeah, it's pretty bleak