this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025
573 points (95.4% liked)

politics

23422 readers
2792 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
 

"But over time, the executive branch grew exceedingly powerful. Two world wars emphasized the president’s commander in chief role and removed constraints on its power. By the second half of the 20th century, the republic was routinely fighting wars without its legislative branch, Congress, declaring war, as the Constitution required. With Congress often paralyzed by political conflict, presidents increasingly governed by edicts."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] libra00@lemmy.world 140 points 1 week ago (42 children)

Aside from this being a little fucking melodramatic and defeatist, the thing that really bothers me is the implicit assumption that if only we'd all just vote blue no matter who we wouldn't have this problem, like the Democratic Party hasn't been kowtowing to and enabling those same oligarchs to undermine our democracy. It's like they're standing in the rubble of a bombing and saying, 'This is happening because you chose the short fuse on the bomb, if only you had chosen the long fuse we ~~wouldn't have noticed this happening quite so quickly~~ wouldn't be having this problem!'

Don't get me wrong, boom tomorrow is definitely better than boom today, but it's important to not forget that there was never not going to be a boom.

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 44 points 1 week ago (4 children)

The d’s had 50 years to come up with their own plan. And they did nothing. We had a choice of different sides of the same coin and here we are.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Even if they had the time frame that Republicans had with drafting and promoting Project 2025, they could have had their own. They knew it existed, only Trump pretended it never existed and was a hoax.

If the DNC had its own Project 2025, something like "Project End Fascism" it could have worked. Instead we got "Maybe 100K for new home owners. Not gonna go after the corporations buying every home."

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago

Yeah, reverting to the do-nothing corrupt situation before Trump will do nothing to prevent a resurgence of fascism. It was fertile ground for it before, and still would be.

[–] libra00@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago

Yup, they have no positive vision for the future anymore since they're so far up the oligarchs' asses they can't see past the end of their nose. And people still choose the 'lesser evil' and then act like they're somehow surprised that what they got was still evil.

[–] Auntievenim@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If we strip-mine all the social programs before Republicans get the chance we can do it in a way that keeps the most important part of the system in place. Checkmate fascists!

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If we strip-mine all the social programs before Republicans get the chance we can do it in a way that keeps the most important part of the system in place.

The cut taken by parasitic middlemen?

[–] Auntievenim@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

What we really need is MORE Middlemen to keep a closer eye on all those brokies and make sure they're not getting too much. That'll stop the waste, surely.

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Bullshit. If Gore won, there'd be compost powered cars and shit. Hilary was pushing for Obamacare since her husband was in office. Biden was all about stimulus to working families. We've been living if the New Deal over half a century.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 15 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Hilary was pushing for Obamacare since her husband was in office.

That part's mixing up two different plans. The healthcare plan that Hillary came up with when Bill Clinton was in office was overly complex, would have delivered even less than Obamacare (which was Romneycare rebranded, with a few tweaks-- Romneycare was a response to Hillary's disastrous plan), and didn't make it through Congress. It was a red flag that Hillary didn't have what it takes to lead any complex effort (such as the Presidency).

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago (12 children)

What I don't get from the American people, who have always portrait themselves as champions of everything with this attitude now of "there was no way to avoid it because we are legless turtles and all we can do is vote blue or red and hope our daddies do right by us"

True, the last election would not had saved you but anyone with a firing neuron saw this coming 40 years ago and you all did fuck all to avoid it while still making ignorant jokes about the French being cowards

[–] the_q@lemm.ee 10 points 1 week ago

Take North Korean propaganda, paint it red white and blue and give it a specific set of "freedoms" and you'll have any answer of "how". We're literally made to be this way. Even those of us with a "firing neuron" are a result of this propaganda, granted just not in the intended way. Drowning and understanding why we're drowning ends the same way.

[–] libra00@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Indeed, although anyone who says they knew what shape this would take 40 years ago was either a liar or a time traveler, I've been watching it go to shit for my entire life. I too tried voting blue for 30 years only to watch them unwind and fall apart when the chips were down. Now I favor rather more extreme measures, but most Americans are like 'waah, I keep choosing the lesser evil, why do we keep getting evil?!'

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Aside from this being a little fucking melodramatic and defeatist, the thing that really bothers me is the implicit assumption that if only we’d all just vote blue no matter who we wouldn’t have this problem, like the Democratic Party hasn’t been kowtowing to and enabling those same oligarchs to undermine our democracy. I

Reminder that Clinton pushed for Trump to be the nominee as she thought she would win easier with him. Trump is a non-zero amount of Clinton's fault.

Don’t get me wrong, boom tomorrow is definitely better than boom today, but it’s important to not forget that there was never not going to be a boom.

Playing hot potato with a bomb, passing it along between various administrations and congressional members, and none of them were going to get hurt. It was always going to explode with the victims being the 99%.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 20 points 1 week ago

Trump is a non-zero amount of Clinton’s fault.

Hillary should never have been the candidate. The only rationale for choosing her was that it was her turn. Anyone who expressed admiration for Henry Kissinger like she did is unfit for office.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

enabling those same oligarchs to undermine our democracy.

Oh you didn't hear? You can't say oligarchs because American simpletons need to hear "king" instead because we have a long history of fighting kings and definitely not because the term oligarch applies to more than just Trump but instead better describes the cozy relationship between money and power in this country and illustrates that the rich have captured the government.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

I've been hoping to hear some sort of glimmer of a thought from someone that when America does wrestle control back from the fascists, and history says you will, one way or another, that you don't just rebuild the same system that produced Trump and his techno-fascist mates in the first place.

This interview was the first time I've actually heard it.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Buttigieg is establishment democrat. Actually listen to him instead of doing what most people do, which is stare at him and wait for him to "say something gay" and then be impressed that he's such a great orator. He's never advocated for the social and financial overhaul that the US needs. He's argued that the system is sufficient for our best outcomes, the same system that is currently on fire.

This reminds me of Obama so much. On one hand it would be nice to have another leader who unites the country, but Obama wasn't necessarily good for our nation's long-term future. He was not a leftist or advocate for the poor, he was also establishment Dem/Liberal who passed every opportunity to create real and lasting change in the country.

Buttigieg is currently touring the right-wing spaces and dropping his messages there without resistance because he's advocating for preserving the wealth in the country. He's tacitly being endorsed by the billionaire class. They want a return to normalcy, and Buttigieg may have exactly what the country needs to get there, which is clear messaging, hypnotic blue eyes and an appeal to many men's latent curiosity about what what a strong homosexual male even looks like... or if nothing else, an avenue for libs and neo-libs to feel performatively progressive by dropping his name. It's enthralling to the masses and we should all be terrified.

He is going to be a strong candidate if we have elections again, and I would take him over Trump, but we need to understand what he is. He is NOT our leftist savior, he's barely more progressive than a liberal savior.

I want to make it clear, if he's the final candidate against like, Mecha Trump or Don JR or Vance or someone equally absurd, we all better push Buttigieg's booty up that hill and I will wave that rainbow flag along with everyone else. But we have to understand that it's a band-aid on a massive infected wound that's bleeding out.

[–] Wilco@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago

Yep, we now basically have a one party system. Both sides are controlled by the 1%. We need a party that will get rid of the 1%, but that will never happen. They learned their lesson with FDR and watch for someone like him just to make sure he doesn't get in to office.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] libra00@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I.. I'm conflicted. Buttigieg talks a great game, I like much of what he has to say, but at the same time when he was in the 2020 primary I read an article that talked about how he had the most corporate/PAC support of any candidate and I wonder.. does he actually believe what he's saying, or is he just charismatic enough to pull off seeming like he does and he's just like every other career politician? And also even if he's 100% sincere and he wins the white house in 2028, he doesn't have a free hand because the money required to win a national election comes with rather sturdy strings attached, so I don't think he can accomplish what he claims to want.

But it is, I will admit, rather refreshing to find a Democrat who does in fact have some good-sounding ideas about how to make things better instead of just 'vote for me or the world will literally blow up!11'

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Watch his messaging when he tours FOX and other right-wing podcasts and youtube channels. He talks to the right without without resistance or pushback from the hosts because he's advocating preservation of existing systems instead of actual overhaul to our nation's policies and financial systems.

He is likely going to be our next Obama. Charming and beloved by many, but secretly propped up by the billionaire class who want to keep feasting from the table of status-quo. Obama was a great leader, but as a president, he passed on very real opportunities to make lasting change over and over. He didn't exercise his power in any remotely overreaching way even when he had house and senate. He didn't pack the Supreme Court and didn't enshrine rights in any way that would protect people. He could have rammed single-payer healthcare through and been hated and loved by many, probably impeached, but we would have had something great from it.

We really need to do better as a nation understanding the different between leadership and management. And we need to pick people for our local and community elections that have these qualities. They are the ones who prop up the larger system and the ones who largely run unopposed because people are far more fascinated with Buttigieg's dazzling blue eyes than what their local comptroller believes.

[–] libra00@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Yeah, I just watched the ~hour long interview he did with Jon Stewart that someone posted, and like it was all good-sounding ideas that may do some good but don't meaningfully challenge the status quo. Which is a pretty good summary of Democratic policy for the last 40 years. I'll give it to him though, he's definitely charismatic (I can't help but like him even though I think he's not very far left of, say, Hillary Clinton who is a full-on neoliberal) and he could probably win and be a damned sight better than the current administration. But also that's maybe not the best long-term because we need the system to fail messily as it is right now to wake people up to the alternatives. I hate advocating for accelerationism because even if the harm caused in the short term is outweighed by the harm prevented long-term, I still have a hard time advocating for things that I know will definitely cause harm.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (37 replies)
[–] Allemaniac@lemmy.world 44 points 1 week ago (1 children)

time to flee to the old world from prosecution and religious pressure lol

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 42 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It differs by state but America only became a democracy by modern standards in the 1960’s. There was arguably a brief period after the Civil War before Reconstruction ended but women couldn’t vote so I give it a C- on my Democracy-O-Meter (patent pending).

Also, a Gentleman’s C is a term for a reason. That’d be an F at a commuter school. Only private schools put up with polite rich kids who are dumbasses but come from a “good” family.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Imagine counting the first four score and seven years as democratic.

[–] Forester@pawb.social 22 points 1 week ago (6 children)

By contrast to literally every other country. Yes very much in that time period. Believe it or not, most monarchies were also completely fine with slavery and plantations. And their citizens had even less political power.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

By contrast to literally every other country.

One of the proximate causes of the American Revolution was British abolitionism leaking into colonial politics.

You had ex-military ultra-wealth planation owners defecting to the revolution in drovers following Dunmore's Proclamation.

most monarchies were also completely fine with slavery and plantations

They were completely fine with collecting rents off their subjects - slave or free. But quite a few of them had strong reservations against chattel slavery (the Spanish Catholics, most notably). And more simply could not stomach the expense of policing transatlantic trade from piracy.

That is what ultimately lead to the outlawing of the practice across Europe.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 17 points 1 week ago (9 children)

we count ancient Greece as a democracy, don't we?

Last I checked, democracy didn't mean "fair," it ment that the leaders were voted into power.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 week ago

Only recently has everyone above the 18 had the ability to vote, excluding those who are slaves as per the 13th amendment. For most of American history, women couldn't vote. Black people weren't considered people. We kicked out anyone Chinese. We locked away Japanese Americans because they were ethnically Japanese.

America was maybe a democracy for 56 years, since the Voting Rights Act of 1968. That's a stretch at best, as the country never healed for being an Apartheid for 200 years.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago (7 children)

This article must be written by naive children. The moment "American Democracy" died would be with the Patriot Act after 911.

Snowden, Assange and all that.

[–] blackbearjesus27@lemm.ee 20 points 1 week ago (3 children)

You sure it wasn’t when we had the balls to write that all men are created equal while simultaneously denying the rights of anyone who wasn’t a rich man?

Like I know it was a different time but the plot was lost long ago.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] scottrepreneur@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Citizens United has entered the chat

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The moment “American Democracy” died would be with the Patriot Act after 911.

American Democracy flourished from 1864 to 1877, only to be killed by The Corrupt Bargain of Rutherford B. Hayes. It enjoyed a brief resuscitation following the 19th Amendment in 1919 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, before once again becoming moribund and unresponsive under the Nixon Administration of 1972. By the election of 2000 the institution barely demonstrated a pulse, enjoying one of the lowest turnouts in the nation's history. Still, it was the Brooks Brother's Riot that officially pulled the plug, with the democracy formally being pronounced dead on December 12th, twenty days later.

The Patriot Act was effectively just putting bullet holes into a corpse.

Subsequent gerrymandering in 2005, the ACORN controversy of 2009, and the 2016, 2020, and 2024 primaries were effectively just ritualized defacement of the grave.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (2 children)

In a couple thousand years historians will call us the Merkin Empire

[–] imsufferableninja@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That's exactly what he means. An artifice, a facade.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

Yep... it was good run, but we need to renew the plant of freedom with the blood of tyrants

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Inch by inch, in play at little games.

If you're not good at US history: 1789 was when the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.

load more comments
view more: next ›