this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2025
1454 points (99.1% liked)

politics

20563 readers
3858 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
 

Summary

Trump and Zelenskyy's confrontational Oval Office meeting advanced "mob boss foreign policy" serving Russian interests.

Trump and Vance bullied Zelenskyy when he refused their "extortionate" minerals deal or to thank them despite Trump's stated intent to reduce support for Ukraine.

Zelenskyy effectively countered their claims by noting Russia's 2014 invasion and correcting historical inaccuracies, which angered the Americans.

This represents the first openly “anti-US, anti-Western, anti-democracy foreign policy in American history.” Russians embraced it, and Putin ally and former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev celebrated the exchange.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bob_lemon@feddit.org 37 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The US always had terribly low resilience in the way their government is structured. The "checks and balances" were pretty great in the late 18th century, but their protections are paper thin and assume good faith.

Several countries have iterated upon their constitutions in the last 300 years, often to close exactly the kind of vulnerabilities we can see exploited in the US right now. For example, because of what the Weimar republic's article 48 was used for in 1933, the German president no longer has those powers.

I understand that the US constitutions had had amendments, but as far as I can tell, the fundamental flaws across several core institutions have never been addressed. Until they are, the US can not be a trustworthy partner for any endeavor longer than the next election cycle.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago

I understand that the US constitutions had had amendments, but as far as I can tell, the fundamental flaws across several core institutions have never been addressed. Until they are, the US can not be a trustworthy partner for any endeavor longer than the next election cycle.

Ah, that gets to a different part of our problem: our Conservatives' fetish for our founders. A majority of our Supreme Court literally uses "What would George Washington think of all this" as justification for rulings. It is very hard (on purpose) to get amendments passed, they need broad consensus not only at the Federal level, but at the State level. That will be impossible to get when half the country uses "what did the founders think" as the benchmark for all rulings. It makes it impossible to update anything.