this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
1223 points (98.2% liked)

politics

24366 readers
3962 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (2 children)

First of all, this is bullshit - every one of the 128 Democrats needs to be primaried out asap. (which of them are up in midterms?)

Second of all, this is another deliberate swipe at AOC and this will not stand, man.

Thirdly - however. We did this with Gee Dubz in early 2000s. Launching a missile strike without Congress' input was already hashed out, and the president can do it. They did it by some bullshit where "going to war" is a whole seal, stamp, and magic incantation hullaballoo. If you remember Hillary voting for the Iraq War II, that was what that was about - they got to a point where Gee Dubz time had run out and he would either have to cut the shit or Congress would have to let him do it. Yes, Dems ate shit back then too, yes. NOT ALL - we had AOCs back then too. But the old ones were "only" sixty back then.

Fourthly - this was never going to go anywhere because we'd need 20 House republiQans to give up their lucrative careers to join in the effort which would then die in the Senate again.

And Lastly - I don't know what 128 Democrats got for what will be costly to them personally, but it was something. Was it worth it? Let's make sure it was not.

[–] thespcicifcocean@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

all of them are up in the midterms, these are congressmen, they only serve 2 year terms. fuck them, primary out these asshats.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

You are correct - including 33 Senate seats (including Susan Collins).

Know Your Primaries! If this doesn't get you to look up who's running, what will?

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I think your fourth point is what frustrates me the most. This was a symbolic vote and they couldn't even do that.

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

This was a symbolic vote and they couldn’t even do that.

You're wrong. They did vote symbolically. They voted to support Trump and his actions.

They are not on your side.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

And rightfully so. My question is - what did they get for it? Did the DNC ask for it in exchange for something, or did the republiQans ask for it in exchange for something? Or, because we are where we are, did they just do it because they're that awful?

I think the prevailing sentiment is the latter on here, but in the world of politics every vote is a bartering tool.