this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
261 points (97.5% liked)

politics

18904 readers
3051 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] farcaster@lemmy.world 88 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Blocking promotions of critical military roles over an unrelated social issue. Really. Why are there so many examples of how today's Republicans would rather burn the country to the ground than concede anything to representatives for roughly the half of the population..

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 42 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I think that there are a lot of Republicans right now who only care about not getting a primary challenger and it's a race to the "pure" right.

Tuberville beat incumbent Doug Jones with just over 60% of the vote. He isn't concerned about a Democrat beating him but a more extreme Republican could beat him in a primary.

[–] cowpowered@lemm.ee 21 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Once upon a time, it seemed like being an advocate for their constituents and a competent administrator of the country as a whole got politicians reelected. Maybe I have rose-tinted history glasses tho..

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There's always been mud slinging and dirty politics. You can learn more about American mudslinging here. WWII changed American politics a lot. We had just come through the depression and the war and now America was a superpower. A lot of the politicians were veterans who respected each other because many of them served in some capacity. They also had a common enemy in the USSR. That spirit of comity has been steadily eroding and without an external enemy I think too many Americans see their political opposition as the enemy now.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We do still have external enemies, the only difference is that they go beyond simply having nukes trained at us, now they fund our political campaigns too.

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Very true. I think the perception was different during the cold war though.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Well. Yeah, during the Cold War the other side was a bunch of godless Communists.

Now the other side is a hyper-capitalist oligarchy, and a good chunk of our politicians openly embrace that. The Republican party is just a bunch of Oligarchs-in-training.

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

They want those positions vacant so when trump wins in 2024 he can place their lackeys and have more successful coup next time.

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago
[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

They want these positions open so they can be filled with extremists who will go along with the next coup.

The social issue is just a cover.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 11 months ago

The GOP platform is effectively to make sure nothing operates so that they can point at the government they constantly fuck up and say "look! Government doesn't work."

[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 7 points 11 months ago

Because they want to burn down the country. Simple as that.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago

They believe thier job is too prevent the government from working. And that's probably why angry people keep voting them in.

Lots of people just want it to burn down that only have a highschool understanding of politics.

[–] Djtecha@lemm.ee 47 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This has really gotta piss you off if you risked your life for this country just for some pissant turd senator to block your promotion. Nothing to do with you, no, it's for "reasons" fuck these dudes.

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

I was lucky enough to have an air force general come to a history of strategic thought class and she spent time in the Clinton administration. She definitely wasn't forthcoming about it but reading between the lines you could tell that there's a cultural difference between the brass and the politicians. I think some are probably disappointed and frustrated but they deal with politicians on a somewhat regular basis and expect politicians to showboat. Others are probably very conservative and completely agree with tuberville and his tactics.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 19 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How about also fuck sinema?

Sure this is going a same way now, but at least tuberville is predictable. She is much more toxic and dangerous in the long run.

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 27 points 11 months ago

If you want to help get rid of Sinema the Democrat running against her is Ruben Gallego

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Just to be clear his entire motivation is controlling young women’s bodies.

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It's 100% important to remember that this is the issue. Good on Biden & the DOD for not capitulating.

[–] Xziz@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Why has it taken them so long to find this rare procedural rule?

If the country wasn’t run by relics they would be using machine learning models filled with these procedures to ask a chatbot WTF to do.

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It still requires 60 votes there are 48 Democrats and 3 independents and 49 Republicans. 9 republicans have to go along. I think this is about optics, Republicans finally getting frustrated with tuberville, and the Israeli\Hamas conflict.

[–] knotthatone@lemmy.one 7 points 11 months ago

It hasn't. If there are 60 votes, they can do just about whatever they want. They really only need 51, but that would be rude and "nuclear" because of silly rules they made up for themselves.