this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025
565 points (95.2% liked)

politics

23226 readers
4445 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
 

"But over time, the executive branch grew exceedingly powerful. Two world wars emphasized the president’s commander in chief role and removed constraints on its power. By the second half of the 20th century, the republic was routinely fighting wars without its legislative branch, Congress, declaring war, as the Constitution required. With Congress often paralyzed by political conflict, presidents increasingly governed by edicts."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I.. I'm conflicted. Buttigieg talks a great game, I like much of what he has to say, but at the same time when he was in the 2020 primary I read an article that talked about how he had the most corporate/PAC support of any candidate and I wonder.. does he actually believe what he's saying, or is he just charismatic enough to pull off seeming like he does and he's just like every other career politician? And also even if he's 100% sincere and he wins the white house in 2028, he doesn't have a free hand because the money required to win a national election comes with rather sturdy strings attached, so I don't think he can accomplish what he claims to want.

But it is, I will admit, rather refreshing to find a Democrat who does in fact have some good-sounding ideas about how to make things better instead of just 'vote for me or the world will literally blow up!11'

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Watch his messaging when he tours FOX and other right-wing podcasts and youtube channels. He talks to the right without without resistance or pushback from the hosts because he's advocating preservation of existing systems instead of actual overhaul to our nation's policies and financial systems.

He is likely going to be our next Obama. Charming and beloved by many, but secretly propped up by the billionaire class who want to keep feasting from the table of status-quo. Obama was a great leader, but as a president, he passed on very real opportunities to make lasting change over and over. He didn't exercise his power in any remotely overreaching way even when he had house and senate. He didn't pack the Supreme Court and didn't enshrine rights in any way that would protect people. He could have rammed single-payer healthcare through and been hated and loved by many, probably impeached, but we would have had something great from it.

We really need to do better as a nation understanding the different between leadership and management. And we need to pick people for our local and community elections that have these qualities. They are the ones who prop up the larger system and the ones who largely run unopposed because people are far more fascinated with Buttigieg's dazzling blue eyes than what their local comptroller believes.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, I just watched the ~hour long interview he did with Jon Stewart that someone posted, and like it was all good-sounding ideas that may do some good but don't meaningfully challenge the status quo. Which is a pretty good summary of Democratic policy for the last 40 years. I'll give it to him though, he's definitely charismatic (I can't help but like him even though I think he's not very far left of, say, Hillary Clinton who is a full-on neoliberal) and he could probably win and be a damned sight better than the current administration. But also that's maybe not the best long-term because we need the system to fail messily as it is right now to wake people up to the alternatives. I hate advocating for accelerationism because even if the harm caused in the short term is outweighed by the harm prevented long-term, I still have a hard time advocating for things that I know will definitely cause harm.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm exactly where you are, assessments included.

I was never an accelerationist and thought at one time it was the laziest of ideals, but now I'm seeing my whole nation dissolve into the investment portfolios of a small handful of people and wondering exactly what kind of consequences my countrymen actually need to experience before they realize how incredibly important it is to take part in, and be aware of, how motherfucking democracy ~~works~~ worked. Our people here have the memory of goldfish, and either didn't remember the last time they got screwed by republicans broadly, or were so distressed by the contention and gravitas of the election cycle that they tuned out and stayed home... with the rest of the 45% of eligible, registered voters who stayed home.

To say nothing of the weakest, flimsiest excuses people gave for being lazy about taking part in democracy. You saw tons of it right here on Lemmy. "I cannot in good conscious vote for anyone who won't take a stand against Israel." Uh huh, sure buddy, your post history is entirely video games, I am having a hard time believing you're regularly out there on the Gaza strip handing out aid and food.

Our country really needs a hard slap across the face, and sadly I don't even think this current situation is doing the trick. The slap that will be hard enough to get people out of their couches will be a real bad one that I don't wish on anyone, but I feel like it's inevitable either way. One way is boiling to death slowly, the other is jumping into the fire. I can't decide which is worse, but the outcome will be the same.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, too many people in the US are still fat and comfortable with their lot in life, not even dreaming of what could be but stuck in the daily grind.

And I mean I made the same argument many times re:Israel - my standard for whether or not I can vote for someone has been reduced to a binary 'supports the Israeli genocide in Palestine, yes/no'; it's an extremely low bar, but both major candidates still managed to ooze under it somehow - but I did at least vote for not-fascism (for what good it did me living in a deep red state) which is more than I can say for most of those folks.

But yeah, we need something to wake people up, and my estimation of what that will take grows increasingly dire as the country goes to shit around us and still people are like 'No this is fine, we can fix this by voting!' Nah, the days of voting fixing a damned thing have been over for 20 years at least. And yeah, while the outcome will be the same, one of those is unfortunately going to hurt a lot more than the other, so I'm still reluctant..

[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

I just keep repeating to myself and others, "Nobody is coming." Even if people made better choices last November, it would have only been delaying the inevitable consumption of the nation that we're seeing in full mouthful right now.

Even if we got the biggest, boldest grass-roots movement started, it would immediately be swallowed by the existing political Machine & Spectacle, which would either digest it (Remembering that time Tim Waltz was forbidden from calling Republicans "weird" anymore) or they would destroy it with the same old "amplify both sides to the point which reasonable followers tune out" tactic that the KGB pioneered.

Somehow all arrows point to a future where the constitution has become a nifty relic somewhere, everything is privatized, climate change is in full-swing and people are really feeling the shift, while America is suffering through a catastrophic but slow, steady decline to the point that President/CEO Baron has to install a firewall around the US so the citizens don't see news from Europe or China and how their quality of life is. This could be in 10 - 15 years.

Put away gold I guess, I dunno man, I'm tired.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 20 hours ago

Yeah. It's sad to finally give up the last shred of hope that maybe this will all sort itself and somehow get back on track, but the track is now a smoking crater and there's nowhere to even build new track 'til we fill that back in.

install a firewall around the US so the citizens don’t see news from Europe or China and how their quality of life is. This could be in 10 - 15 years.

The US has been doing this for the entirety of my life at the very least, and I'm in my 50s. They did it with the USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Venezuela, etc (not saying all of those places had great quality of life tho.) That was the whole thing with Domino Theory and containment - not just containing the spread, but containing the ideas behind propaganda and sanctions so thick that Americans couldn't even access the truth of the matter, that way they wouldn't get any bright ideas about eating the rich and nationalizing industries over here.

It's definitely exhausting.