this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2026
156 points (97.6% liked)

politics

30135 readers
1915 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
 

President Trump insisted there are “no limits” to his power when asked in a new interview about his takeaways from the Iran war.

The president was pressed by Axios’s Marc Caputo during an interview about whether he learned there are bounds to his power during the Middle East conflict.

“I haven’t learned that lesson yet,” he replied. “I know there are, but there are no limits. We defeated them totally militarily.”

all 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 29 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Term limits are a pretty good limit.

His power ends in 2028, and then he's OURS.

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 2 points 11 hours ago

Life expectancy is a pretty good limit. He thought he was going to somehow end wars and spend years and years in retirement. Let's see what happens. Certainly Jimmy Carter was smarter.

[–] paranoia@feddit.dk 40 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Here's hoping that the law stops the guy who has never been stopped by the law

[–] shittydwarf@piefed.ca 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Surely this time he will be held accountable!

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No one said surely. Who the fuck is saying surely about that? They sure as shit aren't on Lemmy.

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

Surely you don't know for sure

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It’s bad taste to make a former president accountable for their actions.

Remember Nixon and Ford?

[–] Fishnoodle@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We won't make him accountable. We'll fucking tear him apart, and his kids will be held accountable.

By that I mean we're going to throw them in a cia black site and use some highly enhanced techniques to get every bit of Intel they have, they stole, and they sold. At which point they would be too much of a security risk to ever release. Keep them in solitary until their execution for treason.

Then do the same for the billionaires that bought his power.

Better yet, strip their citizenship, declare them nation states because of their wealth, then declare war on them, place sanctions on them, etc.

They want to act like countries, treat them like one

[–] Montagge@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Lol I'll believe it when I see it

[–] Damage@feddit.it 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

dude just eat them and be done with it. cleaner and easier

[–] Damage@feddit.it 2 points 11 hours ago (2 children)
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 1 points 6 hours ago

Lobsters are just the bottom-feeding cockroaches of the sea, when you think about it, and they're super tasty.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

i mean, we could feed them to people we don't like. i get it though. my body is a temple and i am the god to which it is dedicated. i am very picky about what enters its doors.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 2 points 8 hours ago

I'm not picky but I won't eat toxic stuff

[–] Goun@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Context for the outsiders?

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Ford was Nixon’s VP and after it was clear that Nixon would be impeached he resigned and Ford became president and he completely pardoned Nixon.

Ford became VP after Nixon’s original VP Agnew resigned and since he was the speaker of the house Ford got the job.

So Ford was VP and president without being voted in for either role.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

TL;DR: Gerald Ford is the only president who was not elected by the voters.

[–] radiofreebc@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

George W. Bush wasn't elected by voters in 2000 either. He was installed by the Florida Supreme Court, who stopped the recount before Gore could win.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The most basic check on the pardon power would be it cannot be used for anyone who is part of or formerly part of the executive branch. These pardons would have to come from Congress.

At this point the Presidential pardon power should be removed, it has been used for so many corrupt acts it is not funny.

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

These pardons would have to come from Congress.

And maybe make some rule about how the same party cannot count as much. Because Republicans.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Seeing the wealthy people pretend Trump did nothing wrong during Trumps last two impeachments was ridiculous. The Senate is truly an institution that knows no low.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 11 points 23 hours ago

What about his power to hold his bowels? We all know his limits there.

[–] kmartburrito@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Except for the failure part. It should read there's no limits to his failure. I'm going to go eat my trump steak now and study for my trump university class. Oh wait, those things failed.

The rest of the article is correct, he hasn't learned his lesson yet. Malignant narcissists never do.

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Trump Coin

Trump Phone

Trump NFT

Trump Shoes

Trump Care

Trump Rx

[–] unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 21 hours ago

Reminds me of when some dingbat on reddit sent me a longass list of companies ("businesses") allegedly started by Trump and I was like, oh, a handy little list of his grifts

[–] lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

Can’t open the Straight without begging and paying up

Powerful as a bitch beggin for bitch snacks

[–] AmbientDread@piefed.social 9 points 1 day ago

A legend in his own mind. 😱

[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago

You surrendered.

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

But the emails.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago

I love this part in Wuxia movies.

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

The limit will basically be if the right wing people turn on him because you guys aren't doing shit fuck all. The best that the left can hope for is for people on the right having a "come to Jesus" moment and wanting to stop him cause they will. Lemmy users can post about it when it happens

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

He said before that it was his own morality that limited him. This statement is just further clarifying the previous one.

[–] fibojoly@sh.itjust.works 2 points 21 hours ago

That sounds like something out of a horror movie, or perhaps Berserk. What a human being.

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Its maintaining the appearance of morality that was holding him back. Now he isn't even trying.

[–] MastKalandar@feddit.online 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

What's the meaning of probably unconditional surrender by Tehran ??

My native language isn't English. Kindly be patient with me and explain it to me in an eli5 style. Thank you.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 3 points 1 day ago

"Unconditional surrender" is when there is an end to hostilities, and one side is so completely defeated that they agree to stop fighting without receiving anything in exchange. Then the winning side gets to make all sorts of demands on the loser and they must agree.

The Treaty of Versailles that ended World War One is an example of this. Germany got punished hard in that document, which is widely believed to have set the stage for World War Two some twenty years later.

In this case, though, the US agreed to also end hostilities in Lebanon (including and especially by Israel) and arrange for a whole lot of reparations to be paid. Those are concessions. The winning side in an unconditional surrender doesn't make concessions.