this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2025
180 points (98.4% liked)

politics

26889 readers
2132 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
 

Rule allows minority party to block legislation, but GOP is reluctant to scrap it as they could lose majority

Donald Trump has floated the idea of ending the filibuster – a procedural technique in Congress that allows a minority of senators to block legislation from passing – which would make pushing through his political agenda in 2026 much easier.

In an interview with Politico, Trump urged Republicans in the Senate to scrap the filibuster, saying it had become an obstacle to effective governing and removing it would prevent another government shutdown and pave the way for his party to push through its legislative priorities.

Scraping the arcane-sounding legislative device is sometimes favored by the party with a majority in the Senate, but opposed by the other because it allows them to use their minority status to block legislation from passing

Senators typically back off from proposals to end it, because they don’t want to get steamrolled by a simple majority when the balance of power shifts again. Centrists in both parties typically oppose ending the filibuster as a way to defend against partisan political excesses.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

How do you suggest we do that?

[–] Stabbitha@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We might look to France for inspiration

Brutal colonialism and installing an emperor within a couple of decades of demanding an end to authoritarianism? Slaughtering proto-socialists when they establish a commune in the capital? Treating Brown people with disdain and like perpetual foreigners? Demanding that African nations keep the bulk of their specie in our central bank? Cooperating with CIA operations where innocent people black bagged and tortured because they might have information on communism?

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

In a way that will realistically never happen in such a large country that arms it's police like they're military.

I'll happily arm up, call the people I train with, and get to work. unfortunately without large scale organization that simply isn't allowed by the alphabet squads because "domestic terrorism" or any number of made up bullshit claims (any leftist/progressive group. see also: black Panthers) the only thing that would result is 1-15 people dead in the street. Or more likely their beds, because they got raided at 2am and the cops just dropped grenades on their houses/apartments.

I do love how much I've been seeing ".ca" users clearly advocating that the US go through another revolution/civil war/domestic disturbance that causes the deaths of thousands, if not millions.

[–] Typhoon@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Why do Americans always jump to guns and shooting the place up? The next step to a disagreement with the government is hard protest, strikes, disruptions and disobedience. You either sit there doing nothing and whining that you don't like it or you think you have to go on a murder rampage. Neither of those are appropriate, but it does explain why there are so many mass shootings. You're brainwashed by your movies and media to think that's the next logical step.

Protest. ACTUAL protest. Not two No Kings parades in 11 months. Sustained pressure on the government is the way forward. Put down your guns and do what the rest of the world does.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

We are protesting. There are continuous protests at ICE facilities all over the US. I personally have been going to the one in Otay Mesa. I can't go every day, but I'm there at least 3 days a week, and I managed 5 days a week over the holidays. The media isn't covering them. They are also severely undercounting the large protests.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Strikes require a strike fund or they fizzle once the strikers run out of savings, and who has savings these days? There's already a general strike ready to trigger once enough people commit.

Protests take time to organize. More frequent protests will be much smaller, and therefore easily ignored.

It turns out, organizing millions of people takes a substantial amount of time, effort, and resources.

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"You have to protest!"

"no, not like that"

[–] Typhoon@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Many countries protest without guns and are very effective with it. I know you've been brainwashed your entire life to think guns are the solution but they're not.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I challenge the effectiveness of protesting in general. Doesn't seem like it has been effective at all since the 1960s.

Take the Just Stop Oil protests for example: all they have actually achieved is harsher punishments for jaywalking.