this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
645 points (99.2% liked)

politics

24800 readers
2893 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
[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I mean, who would think that independent branches of governments would WILLINGLY cede their power to other branches of government?

Our government is completely populated with cowards who don't even want the responsibility of the power of their positions. And our civics education is so poor that they know the only thing the masses pay attention to is the president. So everyone can collectively fuck off with their jobs and face no backlash.

[–] breecher@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

There are no "independent branches of government". They are all governed by people of the same party. Your assumption copies the beliefs of the original founders that some imaginary "civic duty" would overrule all partisanship, when all recorded political history going back to the earliest civilisations show us that partisanship is an inevitable phenomenon in human societies.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

When the person in charge puts people in those positions to hand the power to him. It’s not willfully ceding at that point, it’s a concerted effort.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

With Trump's staff and cabinet choices sure, but he didn't put Congress or the Senate together, the voters did. Unfortunately both are filled with Republicans who are all to happy to be hand over their power or Democrats who are too scared to use theirs.

Now it's too late, Trump has his own personal paramilitary with a budget that on par with military spending. At this point Jeffrey Epstein's ghost has a better chance of taking Trump and MAGA down then a Democrat.

Of course all that would do is put a Democrat in charge who would just slow the decline for four years.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 2 points 13 hours ago

He didn't put the House and Senate there. They're the ones ceding power.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works -3 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

I mean, who would think that independent branches of governments would WILLINGLY cede their power to other branches of government?

Anyone with any sense?

This is how political parties work. And, the "founding fathers" were aware of it too. They just thought that somehow the US was special and would magically avoid this problem.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

There's a difference between voting in a block, and literally passing/interpreting legislation to expand powers of another branch at the expense of your own.

If you vote in a block, you still have your vote. If you pass laws saying actually you can do whatever you want without a law saying you can, you just took your own vote out of the equation.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works -1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

There's a difference between voting in a block, and literally passing/interesting legislation to expand powers of another branch at the expense of your own.

Not really. As soon as people are told they have to vote for what the party wants instead of each person individually voting as they believe, then it's just a matter of where you draw the line. If your party's leader is president then why wouldn't you just fall in line and pass everything he wants. If you're a judge and your party's president is in office, why wouldn't you try to find legal justification for everything he wants. Why should there be party infighting between the president and the head of the house? Surely the house should just fall in line and let the President get his agenda passed.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Because parties change power? And you end up setting precedent that is used against you? Not to mention the voting part is literally part of the job they are paid and elected to do?

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 13 hours ago

So what? You can wait until the next election and undo whatever they did. Or you can use your power to adjust the system so your opponents can't win.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

This is how political parties work. And, the "founding fathers" were aware of it too. They just thought that somehow the US was special and would magically avoid this problem.

Well at least one of them tried to argue against having political parties in order to avoid this problem