this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2025
681 points (99.4% liked)

politics

24174 readers
2967 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PTSDwarrior@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 hours ago

It's no longer fun and games #resist bullshit. We are on the brink of a civil war/revolution. Many more people are realizing this.

[–] MITM0@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Meanwhiie you'll have to push back against lying bootlickers like Tim Pool & TheQuartering

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 12 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

So, I attended my local protest. 9/10 experience, had a blast and also realized that being anti-Trump and keeping our republic is a waaaaaaaay more popular position (even in my light red area) than I thought it was. The local police department has its priorities straight and they didn't show up to the protest at all, so there were zero problems with law enforcement. The only thing keeping it from being a 10/10 was what I didn't see:

  1. Clear demands. This was what happened with Occupy. It generated a lot of buzz and got tons of attention, and when they finally asked the protestors "what are your demands?", the answer was basically "idk, everything sucks. Make it stop sucking". We need some clear, hard, attainable demands or we're just going to repeat Occupy.

  2. Organizing. There was almost no organizing happening, no outreach or recruiting for or between political, advocacy, or support groups. People showed up and left with no additional contacts, commitments, or follow ups. That is a wasted opportunity.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Yeah, I love the no kings energy but we need to turn it into political action. Every politician who isn't on board needs to fear for their job. Both Republican and Democrat alike. David Hogg has the right idea.

[–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Initially, wasn't Occupy a protest about the post-recession bank bailouts? Then the production team for Good Morning America put a self-proclaimed representative of Occupy, a "female-presenting person" named Ketchup, in the studio to ask them questions about it, and they had no media coaching whatsoever.

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 27 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Now if only those same 4-6 million people would go on general strike until the government is forced to resign and trigger new elections.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Unrealistic. No politician is going to voluntarily give up their job. Instead aim for making them quake in their boots and afraid they will lose their job in a year and a half if they don't hold Trump accountable for his constitutional violations. Make them oust Mike Johnston as Speaker and elect someone less radical at the very least.

Edit: all that is needed is for a handful of Republicans to defect from the party line and it's kowtow to Trump. Oh, and for the Democrats to stop cowering in the corner and step up to do their fucking job. Not sure which is the harder prospect.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 26 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

The movement is getting larger and louder each cycle. Protests like this dont bring down the government directly, but are demonstration that a movement has support

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Agreed. I think a lot of people in light red and purple areas probably had my same experience of being really surprised at the amount of support there was. The occupy protest in my city was like three dudes in two tents. The No Kings protests stretched for three city blocks and we got a ton of enthusiastic responses (and only, like, three counter protests that I saw) from people driving through. I never ever would have imagined that kind of turnout and support in this town, and I found myself feeling really encouraged that there's a lot more local support for resisting this bullshit than I estimated.

[–] nuxi@lemmy.world 32 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

We gotta keep the momentum up. History suggests the threshold for achieving change is a turnout of 3.5% (roughly 12 million active participants)

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Way way too much stock is placed in that study.

For one, their total sample size was only 323 events, only 3 of which met the "3.5%" level. So the statement that change is inevitable based on only 3 instances is really crazy.

Further, none of those three instances had participants thinking that 3.5% was some sort of goal, it was a correlation. So now you have a lot of protestors treating 3.5% as a goal rather than some organic emergent property of the broader movement. Even if there was something inevitable about having a 3.5% participation rate when no one is aware of that metric, simply knowing of the metric can change a lot.

[–] ramenbelly@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 hours ago

Yea I think you can have 35% of the country at the steps of the White House , Trump ain’t stepping down

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago (8 children)

That number keeps getting thrown around but this admin dgaf. That number only works when the admin believes in human rights and when the admin cares about it’s popularity.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 7 hours ago

Would you say that Ferdinand Marcos believed in human rights and did not care for his popularity?

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 10 points 17 hours ago (10 children)

Turns out someone who looks like Luigi but is definitely not Luigi proved it takes only one death certificate to initiate change for scores of people

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 10 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

What do you suppose happens at this magic threshold? I'll give you a hint- it's nothing. We still have to do the work to actually make a difference. Protesting and building momentum is good, but we can't just wait until we hit this magic threshold and pretend that will fix everything and rest on our laurels.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 7 hours ago

This is the right take. There's more that goes into than just achieving that number. It is necessary, but not sufficient.

[–] QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

This

Anyone else remember how the Women's March saved reproductive rights? Of course not, and now women are dying in Texas because doctors are afraid they'll be arrested for murder if they treat them for life threatening conditions.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

Of course, that was well below the claimed "magical" 3.5% level.

[–] regedit@feddit.online 62 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

I attended my first protest yesterday, alone, while my wife watched my boy play at a park. Minus a couple of neckbeards in raised trucks sporting Confederate and tRump flags, it was a great experience. Lots of support from drivers as they passed by!

I was surprised at how many older people were there. No offense to anyone over 60 here, but until yesterday it felt like many older folks were fine with shit going down this way. I'm in a blue state, in a purple to blue location. I saw way more tRump shit last year than I had hoped to see.

I plan on making yesterday a regular event!

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

That's interesting, I'm in a red state, purple location, and it was the other way around. The first 2 protests I went to in April (Hands Off and another one), it seemed like over 80% were (myself included) 50+ yo white people. Then yesterday I was happy to see lots more younger people and more ethnic diversity (though still whiter compared to proportion of the population). I saw more couples with their kids there too, and there were twice as many people overall.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 66 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I sure hope its outpacing it. in 2017 he was a nuissance but now he is tearing apart out democracy.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

The fact that he can do all of this and face zero opposition within government and didn't even get punished once he was out of office (despite popular demand) kind of proves you didn't have a democracy to begin with.

Where was democracy when Bush's brother stole the election for him?

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 2 hours ago

patriot act, citizens united. we went from one man one vote to one dollar one vote.

[–] LadyButterfly@piefed.blahaj.zone 27 points 1 day ago (3 children)

This is a totally unfair and inaccurate comment. He already tore apart democracy when he deliberately incited jan 6th. Please give the megalomaniac appropriate credit in future

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] leadore@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

This is a bit OT from the main point of the article, but since they brought it up and used the standard "The worst ratings for any president!!!1! hype [always with qualifying statement like "at this point in their term"| "since some convenient year"]

Trump’s approval in our polling average is 44% today, the worst for any president at this point in their term (except Trump during his first term) going back to 1935.

It's 44% today, 44% yesterday, and 44% tomorrow. It's always in the low-mid forties (40-45%). It's steady as a rock, no matter what happens. Yet I'm continuously seeing articles titled "Trump's ratings nosedive/plummet/crash!" whenever it fluctuates down by a point or two (never "Trump's ratings skyrocket!" when it goes back up a point). It's all for feel-good propaganda.

This is just to say, don't depend on his followers to turn their backs on him--they won't. It's up to the rest of us.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

At the end of this term, George W Bush had around 30% approval. By that point, his administration had so obviously failed in multiple avenues that even Republicans were disowning him. By mid 2009, the Tea Party was pretending they weren't the same exact people who supported his every major action in the first place.

That 30% number can be taken as close to an absolute floor of support for any sitting President.

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Yep, and Trump has never been anywhere near that low or ever will be, no matter what he does. It's a cult of true believers. Only a tiny fraction of his voters have had misgivings since the 2nd term started, not enough to sway his approval ratings by more than a percentage point. IOW anyone who would stop supporting him because of his criminal behavior already did. The remainder are all in on what he's doing and love him. The fact that it's such a high percentage of our population is what bothers me as much as anything else about this.

load more comments
view more: next ›