this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2025
464 points (99.8% liked)

politics

26422 readers
2602 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
 

One federal employee said in a court filing that they "cannot in good conscience pretend to agree with President Trump’s policies."

Government employees asked a federal judge Wednesday to block the Trump administration from encouraging job applicants to demonstrate their loyalty to the president’s agenda.

In a lawsuit filed earlier this month, a group of federal labor unions argues that the White House’s “merit hiring plan” violates applicants’ First Amendment rights. The plan, put forth by the Office of Personnel Management, includes the following short essay question: 

“How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

But collecting wouldn’t just have some hoops for a stupid lawsuit not recognized to have any merit by the country of the defendant - it would be entirely impossible.

That would be nice. Wouldn't it?

In a fair system you'd be 100% correct, and I'd be happy.

But that's not the world we live in.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

It's not a matter of being fair. You can't forcefully extract funds from an entity outside of your jurisdiction. Countries that have agreements on inter federal law enforcement will never persecute someone in their own borders for another country if the charges or suit would have no merit in their country.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

You can’t forcefully extract funds from an entity outside of your jurisdiction.

...

Who said anything about that?

It's a civil judgement and I legitimately can't tell if you typo'd prosecute or think this is persecution.

But if it was a substantial judgement you may see stuff like sanctions that could happen even without the other countries cooperation

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

Who's going to sanction who? This thread was talking about lying on a resume. You think a country will impose sanctions on another for something as menial and stupid as that? Countries don't use sanctions unless it's billions of dollars or many lives involved.

[–] syreus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

You are misunderstanding what they mean by sanction. In this case it's just a penalty that could threaten you if you were ever within the courts jurisdiction. They don't mean that the US would impose a sanction on your home country.

The courts could rule you in contempt and have a warrant issued in your name. If you ever were inside of the jurisdiction you would then be potentially arrested and held until you could face criminal charges for contempt. Extradition is a thing as well but that really doesn't happen unless it's a major crime both countries recognize.