this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2026
946 points (99.6% liked)

politics

29384 readers
2454 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

as an aussie that has a parliamentary system, and in that system has had a period where we frequently ousted the PM, it’s not that great of an idea

you want governments to be able to plan for the long term. really, even 4y is not great for long term planning because it kinda implies you need to show results before the term is up

we had a bunch of policy flip-flops during that period, which is very inefficient

i guess it doesn’t really matter if you get 2y no matter what: there’s no more after your 2y, but i think that’d lead to leaders doing a bunch of the “fuck it” last term stuff because they have no reason to make a good impression for their potential reelection

[–] yakko@feddit.uk 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I think the US has failed to plan for the long term enough that it no longer has to 🫠

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

that was certainly in the back of my head the whole time… policy flip flop and lack of long term planning in modern politics is pretty much the norm anyway… but i think to encode that into a kind of standard way of operating is perhaps not a good thing… adding an extra layer that’s hard to undo before fixing the core problem is how the US got to where it is now

[–] yakko@feddit.uk 1 points 1 hour ago

I totally get where you're coming from. It's hard for me not to view the US (being a recovering seppo myself) as an empire doomed to walk the path of all empires. I still really love the idea of a country based on rule of law by the consent of the governed and all that jazz. But, at some point I stopped believing the US government is even able to reform itself adequately in its current form. Too much of that apparatus is of no interest to anyone who could have a positive impact. The sheer un-coolness of local politics means only the deeply uncool get involved. To say nothing of the bad campaign finance laws!

I wish I knew enough about Australian politics to make a worthwhile comparison. For what it's worth, I think the main thing that makes a government unfit to be reformed is sheer size - your government could never be so large as the US one, so at least there I'm hopeful for positive change towards more stability. Just don't let them build empires!