this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
326 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19080 readers
3529 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 93 points 1 year ago (4 children)

If I were Biden, I'd draft an executive order, go on national TV, and explain the reason why I have to use emergency authorization to use an EO to make sure our military has the leaders it needs to be ready.

They want to play around? Chuck the ball immediately into their face full force and give Tubby another concussion.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I agree, but they won't because they'd rather have the talking point for the next election. "Conservatives are anti-armed forces" will be the spin. Something about interrupting your enemy when they are making a mistake.

It's dangerously stupid, of course, and conservative voters don't actually give a shit about the military.

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Great. During next fascist government, republicans will use the exact same executive order to install ultra-MAGA goons on key military leadership positions.

In fact trump already tried something similar: remember how many senior positions in his administration were just “acting” traitors? Many times he replaced one acting person with other acting person. DHS leadership during his admin comes to mind as a great example of that.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 56 points 1 year ago (1 children)

republicans will use the exact same executive order to install ultra-MAGA goons

Because the thing holding them back now is norms? They're going to do it already. Why do you think they're creating so many vacancies. It's in preparation for 2024.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Dems will continue to play by the rules and lose. But hey, at least they have the moral high ground while we slip into fascism.

It's infuriating 😠

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 year ago

Im sick of this 'if Dems do it Republicans will too.' Because if the Republicans could have already done that they would have already done it. The fact that the Dems have not done something yet is stopping zero Republicans from considering or attempting it. Its strange that you imagine a fascist government that wouldn't try to install maga goons simply because the ladt Dem president didn't install his goons. I just don't see that as plausible. So why not at least try to do something?

[–] WheeGeetheCat@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

You argued against yourself.

You pointed out that the GOP doesn't wait for dems to do a thing before they do it, which is true. There's no reason for Biden to refrain from doing something that trump has done already

[–] dudinax@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago

No the Republicans would not because the Senate can actually vote them down if they want to.

IMHO, if the president makes an appointment, the Senate is constitutionally required to give their opinion, or they forfeit the right for that appointment.

[–] gastationsushi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Moves like that would be good for everyone except the bad faith actors in government. It just takes politicians like Biden admitting how broken their neo liberal order is. And working under a new paradigm focused on solving problems, not leaving problems in place so they can pretend they want to fix things through their inspirational speeches and donation drives.

[–] TooLameForLemmy@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If I were Biden, I'd draft an executive order, go on national TV, and explain the reason why I have to use emergency authorization to use an EO to make sure our military has the leaders it needs to be ready.

I mean I hate Tubby as much as anyone and he is a piece of shit but that step is not necessary at all. Our military has the military leaders it needs and they're doing those jobs, they just don't have the requisite rank. It happens more often than you'd think.

Edit: If anyone disagrees with what I've said I'd love to discuss it with them.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 62 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Instead of constantly saying how "Tommy Tubervile" is blocking nominations, we should call out the conservatives entirely. They are 100% complicit. Stop letting them create internal scapegoats.

We need to be reminding voters that conservatives are doing this together.

[–] graycube@kbin.social 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can't they just remove Tuberville from that committee? The fact they don't shows they are complicit.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They should remove him from the Senate entirely, since he's violating his oath of office on the daily.

[–] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can he be removed from Earth?

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Fhek@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Jewish space laser.

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

For better or worse, removing a Senator is hard to do. The Senate would need two thirds of Senators to agree with this removal. Even if every Democrat agreed (and I'm even including Sinema and Manchin here), you'd still need 17 Republicans to vote for it.

Of course, it's a good thing that it's hard to do this. Otherwise, the next time Republicans controlled the Senate, they'd start kicking out Democrats one after another for the most idiotic of reasons.

[–] greenskye@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Honestly I think it's worse. I'd be fine with the occasional good senator being removed if it was equally easy to remove the bad. More turnover in general wouldn't be a bad thing for Congress, especially if it's in response to something specific. That indicates a somewhat healthy democracy where senators are held accountable to something

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

honestly I don't think it would be hard to get 17 Republicans to support the military

[–] tory@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ah, you think they still have morals and haven't sacrificed them all on the altar of bad faith? I'm jealous of your worldview.

[–] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Maybe not but they love the military industrial complex even more than the Democrats do

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I just don't believe that all of them in their entirety are against the military, most people support the military and it is one of the unifying things about all the parties in the political landscape

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

It would take zero hours of floor time if they stopped letting individual senators have holds like we live in an era of serious, good faith governance.

[–] luckyhunter@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

18 weeks of work, with zero overtime or weekends. The horror.

[–] Grayox@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

Wonder what dirt Putin has on him. . .

[–] Overzeetop@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, what else are they doing? Grilling Zuck and Musk on AI? Might as well be talking to the head of the CEO of the American Medical Association about neurosurgery techniques. There's 2087 federal work hours in a year; put those 700 hours between now and the new year to use and get it done.

[–] Pringles@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I also think they could at least spend like 15 workdays to get at least the most urgent ones nominated. It's an obstacle, sure, but that doesn't mean you have to be complacent.