this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2026
559 points (98.6% liked)

politics

31220 readers
2807 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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
 

Social and news media commenters seize on senator’s gaffe, with some characterizing it as a Freudian slip

With speculation about whether he may defect from the Democratic party swirling around him, US senator John Fetterman described himself seemingly unintentionally as a “lifelong Republican” during a fireside chat in Texas over the weekend.

Fetterman made the comment when someone listening to him speak with CBS News political correspondent Major Garrett at the Texas Tribune Festival on Saturday asked the Pennsylvania senator why he had not become an independent.

“Because I’m a lifelong Republican,” Fetterman replied. Garrett promptly corrected him by saying, “Democrat,” as Fetterman raised a hand and shook his head in disbelief.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 12 points 1 day ago

You are correct about this. The key problem for him specifically is actions are not reflecting what the majority of his voters wanted. But this does also address another problem (not so much for senators but for representatives in the House), the number of people they represent.

We need an expansion of the House and redistricting so that each seat only represents a limit of people, so they can actually talk to those people and know what their interests are. Too large a chuck of population and that becomes muddled, and so party lines is far simpler to manage, assuming the votes still stand. But for local issues, which are often what bills are about, how can party line always be the best option, or even matter? Some things are politically bounded, they're what's best for the people in that region, and if the rep doesn't even really know who that is or what they want...

Granted, they have a staff to do a lot of this, but the population number per is still too high.

Oh, and Fetterman is damaged goods, they need a new senator. Of course, look at Kentucky, they didn't even have one of the senators for 90+ days (and I still have doubts).