this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2025
277 points (96.3% liked)

politics

24320 readers
2879 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
 

In the wake of the U.S. airstrikes on Iran, Democrats are pointing to Trump's own promises that he wouldn't ensnare the country in foreign conflicts.

Democrats are seizing on Donald Trump’s surprise attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities to make the case that the world is becoming more dangerous on his watch, not less, and that he is reneging on a promise to avoid foreign military interventions.

The argument strikes at Trump’s contention that his blend of negotiating skills and toughness is enough to keep the United States safe.

In the space of a few days, Trump has made the United States a combatant in another Middle East war that exposes soldiers to potential deadly reprisals, Democrats contend.

In a statement, Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin pointed to Trump's inaugural address, in which he said he would measure his success by “the wars we never get into.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SaltySalamander@fedia.io 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I still swallowed my pride and voted for her anyway

Any reasonable voter did.

[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Tell yourself that all you want buddy. I wish I hadn't voted for her, it was stupid voting for someone who clearly gives no shits about fighting fascism or preventing genocide, and I won't be voting for blue presidents ever again bc they're only going to get further and further right

[–] arrow74@lemm.ee 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

Because it makes so much more sense to abstain from voting so now your vote is for fascism as opposed to picking the non-fascist.

It's peak denial of reality

[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR

QUIT EXCUSING YOUR UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR LIBERALS

Just say you love killing gazans and getting fascists into office, there's no other explanation for thinking democrats are even remotely decent

[–] SereneSadie@lemmy.myserv.one -2 points 1 hour ago

Delete your account. Seriously. Dumb fuck.

[–] arrow74@lemm.ee -1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

All caps doesn't make you right buddy. I hate it, but until we can reform our fundamentally flawed system there are two options. Especially for president. If you split a state to a progressive canidate you almost garuntee a Fascist/Republican victory. The system itself is flawed. I'm sorry it's a harsh reality to accept. I was like you once. I made this very mistake back in 2016, and I vowed to never be such a fool again.

Don't chose fascism friend.

Just say you love killing gazans

Save the weak and overdone character attacks. The apartheid state of Israel has no right to exist. Unfortunately that wasn't on my ballot and no torching my vote didn't put it on the ballot either.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

So what have you done in the previous nine years to reform the voting system?

[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

"as opposed to picking the non-fascist" Liberals are fascists. They have done nothing at all to oppose trump. When they stop siding with fascists over progressives literally every single time, maybe you'll have something remotely resembling a point

When there's 9 people at a table and a fascist sits, etc etc

[–] arrow74@lemm.ee 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Liberals I'd say are to the immediate left of fascism. They definently enable policies that allow fascists to exist. While never taking that power themselves.

What people like you seem to forget is that our voting system is fundamentally broken and flawed. It limits our voice so short of a revolution we have to pick damage contol.

Funnily enough the only people that have tried to fix it are the democrats. Plenty of states under democratic control have pushed for a popular vote for president. It's not going to fix the voting system, but it would be a big improvement and then you would actually have a significantly better chance to get a third party canidate elected. Then you would have a point.

[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

I'm cool with fighting for some things liberals also fight for, especially those kinda of voting reforms, bc along with ensuring conservatives lose every election, i bet it'd force liberals to actually appeal to the left to not risk losing to real progressives. Sadly they'll prob stop supporting that the moment it actually threatens to change the status quo at all