this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2026
357 points (98.6% liked)

politics

30117 readers
2724 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 81 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It’s crazy to me that I'm a year older than JD. When we were younger we probably watched the same show on tv. Ate the same snacks, listened to the same songs. Yet I grew up to be well adjusted and open minded to the world and different people and their identities. And JD grew up to be a POS racist, pedophile protector, and couch fucker.

[–] Bbbbbbbbbbb@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Im an identical twin. I lean anarchy, he leans fascist. How does that happen? Probably has something to do with the people surrounding you as you grow up. Not necessarily your family, but your classmates, teachers, friends, etc.

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I understand fascists to mostly be opposed to introspection as a core unifying rule. Having the opinion that therapy is bad, or that self help should be entirely uninformed by empathy for yourself and others more specifically.

[–] grahamja@reddthat.com 30 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Dude sounds like he had normal human values, then he got some power as a politician and now he is just living a persona to appease certain people. I still can't believe he is a Marine.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You don't really hold values if you abandon them like that

[–] FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

He was a marine, he is a ex-marine

[–] grahamja@reddthat.com 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I am a Marine and even after I retire I will still be a Marine. The Vice President left active duty and they served honorabley, so they are still a Marine. To be called an Ex-Marine is a derogatory comment typically reserved for those that were forced out or basically have been determined can no longer claim the title.

[–] Digestive_Biscuit@feddit.uk 7 points 17 hours ago

Honest question, why do people who are not active call themselves a marine? Let's say you're retired, too old to be in service, would you refer to yourself as being a marine or was once a marine?

[–] rethnor@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He would probably say he grew up to be well adjust and open minded as well.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] evenglow@lemmy.world 189 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Pressed on specifics, he said: “There are things that are false and things that are true.” The segment was especially tense, with Vance at one point saying, “I have to defend my boss — I know you guys don’t always appreciate that,” and then ending up at: “Let’s talk about the book! I’m here to sell books, please!” Presumably, that part was supposed to be funny — but no one was laughing.

JD's job is to protect the people. Not to defend Trump.

The people are JD's boss. JD is a public servant. He is not Trump's servant.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 hours ago

The people are JD's boss. JD is a public servant. He is not Trump's servant.

I caught that too. Trump can't fire JD right? He is elected by the people, he can be impeached and removed similarly to the president, he can't be fired by Trump.

[–] dmtalon@infosec.pub 55 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (12 children)

It's funny, not funny how much these people (the vast majority of politicians on both sides) have forgotten that. And that's because money rules. Until it is no longer lucrative to be in politics nothing will change. Reduce the financial wins of becoming a politician and the people gravitating towards that career will change.

And maybe that's a little harsh, some of them probably started out with good intentions to fix something local to them or their community, but power corrupts all. (power = money here). Reduce the money, and reduce the functional lifetime appointments (term limits) things would get better.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

This is maybe going about things backwards. We definitely need to get bribes out of politics, particularly those coming from corporations (aka PACs) because they make it more profitable to hold specific opinions hence it's paramount to overturn citizens united. On the other hand if you reduce overall pay for politicians (I.E. money not tied to particular political stances) then that discourages anybody who actually needs money from holding political office thereby turning it into a game exclusively for the rich to play when they're bored.

What we need is regular people holding political offices so ironically we probably want to make it more profitable to hold the office not less, but we definitely need to make that the only money politicians earn while in office. The tricky part here is how to kill the usual corporate lobbyist loophole where some corporation promises a politician a cushy job doing essentially nothing for high pay in exchange for voting a specific way.

[–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think you're the one who's got it backwards. you think $174,000/yr isn't enough to motivate the average Joe? you think someone making a million a year is gonna take an 83% pay cut if they can't take bribes and do insider trading on the side? closing the loopholes and leaving ordinary pay as-is seems like a great way to get rich people out and ordinary people in

[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 day ago

I see both of your points. But in defense of politicians getting paid, I've considered running for my town council but it would be a huge pay cut with a massive workload.

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

I think every single elected representative needs to be under the direct scrutiny of a panel of seven people from their own constituency, made up of ordinary citizens from all walks of life. This panel has the mandate to scrutinize every expense, investigate every "donation", question every vote that representative has made in the house/senate/etc... and ask "Does this representative continue to work for our district's interest?"

If the answer ever becomes no, they have the authority to oust him immediately and have a recall election.

And yes, I'm fully aware that this was the original Marxist ideal of the concept of the Soviet before Stalinism purged that all away and went full authoritarian.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

I went to a rich kids high school. Their philosophy was that "you are the leaders of men because you come from influential families". They didn't sugar coat how the world works, even at that tender developmental age. Some people have a different fundamental view of how the world works and why, although I like yours.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] tigermountain@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Isn't this the same guy that got caught in a lie and basically said something like 'sometimes I lie to make a point'?

[–] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Yes, a lie about immigrants literally kidnapping and eating family pets.

Edit: typo

[–] Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And during the debate his response was something like I was told there wouldn't be fact checking

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

He serves Peter Theil

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why does this guy denegrate trans people while never skipping the eyeliner himself?

[–] cheat700000007@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Look up "jd Vance in drag"

Lookup projection.

[–] borax451@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Are we supposed to be baffled adult women can carry intellectual discourse?

[–] LadyButterfly@reddthat.com 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But these are OLD woman. Middle aged women are unattractive and often barren. They therefore have zero value

load more comments (1 replies)

If you're a right-winger...yes. they've always seen women as inferior, irrational damsels.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

That's what JD and handlers were expecting... why do you think he agreed to this sitting?

[–] ieatpwns@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago (3 children)

He’s gonna go home and beat his couch

[–] errer@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

When you get into an argument with your couch, where do you sleep?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago

The problem is that Vance’s knee-jerk reaction to being challenged by a woman is to patronize or dismiss, and an all-female panel in front of an all-female studio audience wasn’t going to allow that. He’s also terrible at being, or even seeming, off-the-cuff and candid. When he said that Trump’s economic policies were going to “pay serious dividends” and Behar immediately asked, “When?” his smile began to wear thin as he hit back: “Well, Joy, what happens is that construction jobs build the factories and people go back to work.” It was condescending and weak all at once.

[–] jasoman@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

If it was a couch he would have done a better showing.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, that title is hyperbole.

[–] RattlerSix@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The "middle aged" part definitely is

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I was talking more about the "shreds" part.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] itrealgood@mander.xyz 28 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Oh they were critical of him. They didn't actually tear him to shreds

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago

To shreds, you say?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Heikki2@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago

Not to kink shame but that couch is gonna be fucked so hard after this humiliation

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 22 points 1 day ago

Show me the pile of shreds or stop teasing me.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 12 points 1 day ago

And the broadcast network loses their license renewal in, oh wait, that already happened. They don't lose the broadcast license but it's a big thing, it's locked in for a long time or something but they have to fight a big long legal battle or something I forget.

[–] LadyButterfly@reddthat.com 9 points 1 day ago

Middle aged women for the win!

[–] usernametbd@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Who wants to bet they use this as an example to justify their categorizing The View as a news show to force their interpretation of the equal time rules.

https://apnews.com/article/view-fcc-stephen-colbert-abc-cbs-4fd679462e08de2cdc340071f48a83a9

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They already did, I read about this like a week or two ago in reuters. They are trying not to renew their broadcasting license saying the view is news and not giving equal time to republicans or something.

[–] usernametbd@lemmy.zip 2 points 18 hours ago

I meant this specific interview being used as an example to “prove their case.”

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Too bad Reagan and Rush Limbaugh worked hard to kill the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, releasing the Conservative Propaganda Machine from any restrictions. Now, 40 years later, he thinks it should only apply to the Left?

That's not how it works, unless you are another incompetently arrogant MAGA, who is frequently wrong, but never in doubt.

MAGAs never figure out that the swords they pull out to attack The Libz, always have two edges, and can be used against them, too.

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago
load more comments
view more: next ›