this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025
196 points (97.6% liked)

politics

20365 readers
3339 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
all 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 52 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] singletona@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Why they don't include the cover confuses me.

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It's in the Twitter screenshot in the middle of the article. It's right after everyone laughed at Trump for pretending he didn't know Time was still around.

[–] Hubi@feddit.org 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You can’t, like, own a magazine cover, man.

[–] nokturne213@sopuli.xyz 48 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Time’s decision to feature Steve Bannon on the cover in the early days of Trump’s first term effectively ended his romance with his top strategist.

Maybe it will have the same effect with muskrat.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't think he could. Musk and the techbros alongside him likely saved the Trump campaign from financial ruin. Trump can't be rid of them if he wanted to.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Why? It's not like he has to worry about reelection.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I'll copy pasta something I wrote a while back in a similar thread. These guys have plenty of levers over Trump.

"Hey, Clarence, how you doing? Virgina doing OK? Good, good. Hey, I was just thinking, my wife and I were going to use the yacht this weekend, but we had something else come up. It’s all stocked and fueled, and it’d be a shame if it went to waste. Would you and Virginia like to get away? Ok, excellent, I’ll let the crew know.

“Oh, and Thomas, you know that big ruling on Trump’s boarder plan? Yeah, make sure it doesn’t go the President’s way. Yes, of course, I’ll make sure there’s plenty of eyebrow torture porn on the shipboard theater.”

[–] SmackemWittadic@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Given that one of those "tech bros" is currently setting up the system that trump NEEDS to reach the point of not worrying about reelection he HAS to brown nose them

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] SmackemWittadic@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I really hope they don't make any changes to term limits so that you're right and I'm wrong.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It's the 22nd Amendment. They don't have the support to change that until they're ready to just publicly ignore everything in the Constitution, and when that's the case the votes won't matter anyways.

[–] SmackemWittadic@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Fair point, but til then vote your hearts out!

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

Now show me where they're paying attention to what they can't do.

Like, how nobody can just access secure government systems without proper clearance, which the President can't actually just give without procedure.

Or even more simply, the fact that Trump is not in fact currently eligible to be President in the first place due to his part in the events of Jan. 6.

I do not have confidence that they will be stopped by the fact that something is not permitted, because they aren't being stopped by things that are not permitted, and if this continues for 4 years...there will be nothing left of the system that is supposed stop them.

[–] singletona@lemmy.world 28 points 2 weeks ago

Gooood.... Goooooood.

Let the Hate flow through you Donnie. See Elon as your enemy.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

Two narcissistic idiots will have a falling out over being narcissistic idiots.

[–] TheCriticalMember@aussie.zone 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

He won't get rid of musk as easily as he did bannon. He's already into pretty much everything. trump is chained to musk now, and so is the entire country.

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

But Trump's rabid followers don't really like Musk either. If Trump would declare him an enemy, he would be gone pretty quickly. Not without causing a lot of (further) damage in the process of course.

[–] DadVolante@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago

Trust me, plenty of them like him. I have a telegram strictly for the purpose of seeing the narrative being spun in a lot of MAGA groups, since they all like to convene there.

Musk is "eliminating fraud" and "exposing the deep state" like no one in history

Whatever Trump is fine with, his base is going to follow suit. Until Trump says something bad about Musk, the majority are going to think this is all part of what needs to be done

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago
[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 weeks ago

Maybe TIME can shitpost trump into having Elon arrested, or better yet just shot by the secret service.