this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2025
185 points (97.0% liked)

politics

24320 readers
2790 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.”

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 39 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

For fucks sake leave Biden alone.

Bringing him up only hurts the Dem party.

It doesn't matter if Biden is slightly better than trump. There's no gentleman's agreement that when Republicans run a shitty candidate the majority of Americans hate, that Dems need to do the same.

Progressive policy is overwhelming popular, and we got a good number of politicians who authentically support those popular positions.

That's who we need to be talking about. Not running PR for a geriatric that fucked us over and probably bears more personal responsibility for trump being president than anyone else in the country

If Biden's old ass would have let a fair primary happen, whoever won it would have easily beaten trump. But he put himself over the country, like countless neoliberals have before him.

Quick edit:

Thought this was the first time I'd disagree with the new chair, but bringing up Biden was all the author, Martin doesn't mention him once:

“In January — speaking to the entire nation at his Inauguration – Donald Trump proclaimed ‘We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.’

Today, against his own words, the president sent bombers into Iran.

Americans overwhelmingly do not want to go to war.

Americans do not want to risk the safety of our troops abroad.

Americans do not want a president who bypasses our constitution and pulls us towards war without Congressional approval.

Donald Trump needs to bring his case to Congress immediately.”

https://democrats.org/news/dnc-chair-ken-martin-statement-on-trumps-unilateral-act-of-war-with-iran/

Eventually I'll disagree with Martin on something, but he's killing it so far. I'm even optimistic enough to see this part:

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 18 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

For fucks sake leave Biden alone.

My man had four years to put a very obvious, comically easy to convict, serial murderer behind bars. And he dragged his feet because he thought Trump 2 would be easier to win against than Trump 1.

That's before you get into the genocides he backed or the pandemic responses he defunded or the insurance reforms he quashed or the fucking Clarence Thomas SCOTUS nomination. Dude should be crucified for that last one alone.

There are so many, many, many reasons to hate Joe Biden. We could be living in a golden new age of peace and prosperity in 2025 and we would still have ample reason to damn that piece of shit to hell for ten lifetimes.

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

Martin did phenomenal work in MN. I was genuinely surprised he got through the gauntlet.

We need seismic change within the Democratic party to show people they are worthy of their vote. You can't lie to and disenfranchise voters for decades, then make the argument "but we're not as bad as the other guy" and have it land.

[–] candyman337@lemmy.world 16 points 3 hours ago

How about they do something about trump rather than just complaining and doing nothing

[–] distantsounds@lemmy.world 20 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

He enabled Israel by continuing to supply their genocide. The US was getting roped into Israel’s war either way. Both are senile assholes. Kamala never had a chance because Biden’s hubris

[–] chortle_tortle@mander.xyz 25 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (4 children)

She might have had a chance, but at every turn she chose to say she would be no different from Biden. The fundamental reality is that people are disgusted by the status quo and don't show up for those that say nothing will change.

I was so hopefully after she picked Walz. And then she fucking chained herself to Biden and all my hope faded.

[–] arrow74@lemm.ee 18 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

I still swallowed my pride and voted for her anyway, but I've never been so insulted as when I heard the "greatest economy ever" line over and over.

[–] SaltySalamander@fedia.io 4 points 1 hour ago

I still swallowed my pride and voted for her anyway

Any reasonable voter did.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It was great, just not for the regular working people that normal economic barometer's used by governments ignore.

[–] arrow74@lemm.ee 11 points 3 hours ago

That's exactly why it was insulting. It's basically saying "I'm sorry you can't afford a house, but the stock market is great!"

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world -1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

but I’ve never been so insulted as when I heard the “greatest economy ever” line

Why?

[–] arrow74@lemm.ee 14 points 3 hours ago

The economy was/is abysmal for the average American. School is unaffordable, housing is unaffordable, and food is becoming increasingly unaffordable.

When they were saying the economy was good, they were saying stocks were up. Which mostly benefits the wealthiest.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 10 points 3 hours ago

don’t show up

They did show up. Kamala Harris won more votes than Barack Obama.

People talk like the Democrats didn't successfully twist arms and browbeat supporters into showing up for them in droves. 75,017,613 people voted for Kamala Harris, despite her vile stench.

Trump simply brought in more.

[–] distantsounds@lemmy.world 8 points 3 hours ago

I agree 100%. She would have been better in that she’s coherent, but just another neolib failing to address systemic problems.