this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2026
127 points (96.4% liked)

politics

30015 readers
2437 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 8 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

They have people who keep claiming they should be in charge, but the Dem voters hate them because they are Corporate Establishment Democrats, not much different from Republicans. Despite 12 years of Democrat rule in this century, they haven't made even the slightest attempt to give us anything resembling decent health care, or anything else for that matter. It doesn't matter who's in charge, the rich keep getting tax breaks, and the workers have to pay for everything, despite minimum wage not being increased since 2009.

MAGAs are traitors and pedophiles, but Dems are just losers, who are obsessed with being polite to them.

[–] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Revolution, the only solution. And Serj said it back in 1998, so it's not a new problem. We just need a strong leader, and those don't exist. Or aren't allowed to exist.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 46 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Sure they do, it's called money. Like all US politicians (and many in other countries as well) they vote as they're paid to vote.

Priority one in any attempt to fix the US needs to be overturning citizens united. There's an admittedly long list of other things that need to be done as well, but getting corporate money out of the equation is a significant force multiplier.

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

The only long term way to permenantly prevent corporate money from corrupting a political system is to prevent that kind of individual wealth from existing in the first place and to transfer ownership of corporations to a larger group of people, such as the employees, which will then spread out the wealth of those corporations such that no individual will have the kind of money needed to buy politicians and judges/justices.

What will happen if corruption is simply regulated without preventing mass wealth accumilation is the regulations will just slowly be eroded over time again as greed will ultimately prevail since it is ultimately allowed to prevail. We've seen this happen throughout history, where powerful people will do anything possible to gain more power. Therefore, we need to eliminate that kind of power from existing in the first place, which in our current society is wealth.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 6 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

We could also just kill the rich. It may not be the ideal solution but it is definitely a potential solution. I think we negotiate from a weaker position when we act like that isn't an option. Taxation, wealth redistribution, and caps on political donations should be seen as the preferable option to public beheadings, which is how the masses used to settle these kinds of grievances when pushed far enough. I say we frame it that way instead of "please don't do mean stuff anymore Mr. CEO", which is what they hear when we talk about more civilized solutions.

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

If we kill the rich, then new ones will rise out of their ashes. That is a temporary solution that wouldn't actually fix the real rot in the system.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

There is no permanent fix. Those with wealth and power inevitably seek more of it. All of history is an endless cycle of that kind of behavior.

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

The permenant fix is to have a society where no human has power over another. That idea is the basis for Anarchist idiology, which, contrary to the literal definition of the word, doesn't always mean "no government/governance". Just because modern history (outside of Native Americans and tribal societies) didn't have an example to follow doesn't mean we can't try new things.

[–] YoureHotCupCake@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Wdym its not an ideal solution? I think its the best way to quickly fix most of our issues.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I think it's fair to say that the ideal solution doesn't involve death at all. It is a simple solution though.

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

We are already past your ideal solution as death is already involved, the rich have been killing working class folks for a long ass time and I don't believe we should forget that.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 9 points 15 hours ago

Will Rogers said it about a century ago.

"The census taker asked if I was a member of any organized political party? No, sir, I am a Democrat."

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 10 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

They have the same bosses as the republicans, so they can’t criticize what republicans are doing. So there’s no surface area for a potential (liberal) democrat to latch onto.

The good news is that progressives will gladly fill that void.

[–] TheStrongestBoy@sh.itjust.works -4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Progressives have had forty years to fill that void and didn’t. Reform is not happening ever.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 2 points 10 hours ago

Take your pity party elsewhere.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social -1 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

Nope.

'Progressives' were getting on Mamdani for not disbanding the NYPD on Day 1.

[–] QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

This, the progressive branch simply isn't realistic.

The goal should be medicare for all and trans rights

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 1 points 1 hour ago

I always tell people to look at Frederick Douglas and Bayard Rustin.

Douglas backed Lincoln over a full on abolition candidate because Douglas knew Lincoln had the better chance.

Rustin was a gay man who never once pushed MLK to talk about gay rights.

But we must have perfection right now!

[–] mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 1 points 1 hour ago

Look at the numbers.

Trump lost New York by 80% of the vote.

Mamdani was running against Adams [indicted], Cuomo [resigned because of a sex scandal], and Silwa [a shock jock]

Mamdani got a little over 51% of the vote.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)
[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social -2 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/aoc-wrestles-with-left-wing-dems-as-2028-decision-looms/ar-AA20I7az

Zoom in: In recent weeks, Ocasio-Cortez has tried to repair her relationship with Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Many members of the group opposed her support for giving Israel defensive weapons, including the Iron Dome missile system, during the war in Gaza — which she has called a "genocide." In July 2024, national DSA leaders withdrew their endorsement of her for the elections that year, arguing that she'd conflated "anti-Zionism with antisemitism and condemned boycotting Zionist institutions," which the group considered a "deep betrayal." In a virtual DSA forum last month with New York City members, AOC — who's also considering a bid for U.S. Senate in 2028 — changed her position on Israel by committing to vote against any U.S. funding to that nation, including for defensive weapons, City and State New York first reported. During the forum, she said her record on Israel had been distorted, which "does not benefit us as a movement."

[–] mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

The critisism was valid. Israel should not get defensive weapons. When she changed her position on the issue, the dsa reconciliated with her. You will get nothing for acting like a cultist to any politician.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 1 points 1 hour ago

I always tell people to look at Frederick Douglas and Bayard Rustin.

Douglas backed Lincoln over a full on abolition candidate because Douglas knew Lincoln had the better chance.

Rustin was a gay man who never once pushed MLK to talk about gay rights.

But we must have perfection right now!

cut and pasted.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)
[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social -1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks for helping me prove my point.

It's probably the last time you'll help in this election cycle.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Are you AI or are you having a stroke?

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 1 points 1 hour ago

I always tell people to look at Frederick Douglas and Bayard Rustin.

Douglas backed Lincoln over a full on abolition candidate because Douglas knew Lincoln had the better chance.

Rustin was a gay man who never once pushed MLK to talk about gay rights.

But we must have perfection right now!

copy paste because you aren't worth the effort of anything else.

[–] Wakmrow@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

He should fire the commissioner

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 1 points 1 hour ago

Thanks for proving my point.

[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 13 points 19 hours ago

To be fair, that is the left. A myriad of ideas thrown in a sack, and, like a bag of wet cats, there’s going to be little agreement.

Everyone has a different definition of what Liberal is. Like cats, frenemies at best, just for elections.

Ideally, aside from the money, no more lawyers. Lawyers live in a place where it’s not about right and wrong, legal or illegal, but how you can pick things apart and compromise, on everything, while making a pretty argument.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 12 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Anyone that thinks the DNC should be involved in a Governor's race shouldn't be listened to about anything political.

They're either woefully uninformed, or want the neoliberal top down structure that fucked us for generations.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 3 points 17 hours ago

Yeah I feel like people are just upvoting the headline here. If they read what it actually meant they might not like it so much.

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 10 points 19 hours ago

The DNC hasn't had a real leader since Obama. Explains why Trump is so obsessed with him.

[–] Akh@lemmy.world 8 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Yes they do, it is called the electorate

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 1 points 12 hours ago

In theory, anyway, but certainly not in practice.

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

"Don't pick our candidates, DNC!"

"DNC, come pick our candidates!"

[–] panthera_@lemmy.today -1 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

This would be the ideal leader for Democrats, articulate, a veteran, a family man, and attractive. John F. Kennedy is a good example. Prince Harry is a good example but he's not a US citizen. Of course, this is ideal. The candidate might only have some of the qualities. Democrats should try recruiting Jonny Kim to run for office. Andy Beshear might be a possible leader.

[–] Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Why would we want a murderer as a leader?

[–] panthera_@lemmy.today 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I assume you're talking about Prince Harry. He fought in Afghanistan as a co-pilot and gunner aboard an Apache helicopter. Killing an enemy soldier in combat is not considered murder.

[–] Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I'm talking about veterans in general. They're murderers, just allowed to get away with it cause they did it for the government instead of for personal reasons. Unless we're gonna be fine with people committing murder then I better not see more libs talk about how murdering conservatives and the rich as "too radical".

[–] panthera_@lemmy.today 1 points 5 hours ago

You're talking about war veterans. Killing an enemy combatant is not murder. From https://www.military.com/feature/2025/12/13/who-counts-combatant-law-governing-lawful-military-targets.html

The cornerstone of the law governing combatant status is the principle of distinction. Customary international humanitarian law requires parties to an armed conflict to distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants and to direct operations only against combatants and other lawful military objectives.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] panthera_@lemmy.today 1 points 5 hours ago

It indicates service to one's country. A war veteran would even be better. It would indicate courage.