Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
For all the dipshit fake leftists who still openly brag that they "refused to vote for genocide" by boycotting Kamala in 2024,
Think of all the millions of additional deaths this asshole's rampage of all working class protections is gonna cause.
And that's in addition to Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, brown Americans, Americans with disabilities, everyone who relied on US foreign AID, etc.
You objectively chose the pro-genocide option.
I get being disenchanted with only being able to choose harm reduction, but prioritizing self-righteousness over harm reduction isn't the flex some people think it is.
Where's that lady that ran green for president now?
Oh she'll mysteriously reappear when it's time to fuck over another Democratic candidate.
Because this is exactly what good third party leaders do, they vanish for four years and do absolutely nothing to build an actual party at the local and state levels. Only to reappear just in time to run a doomed presidential campaign.
Bingo
I think she's working on an organic gardening cookbook with mostly borscht and vodka recipes.
That sounds important
She should stay on that instead of running for president again.
Back to sucking Putin's toes.
"We can take votes away from Kamala Harris."
No mention of Trump. Green MAGA.
And the folks throwing away their votes in protest of the two-party system are shooting themselves and all of us in the collective foot.
So a candidate doesn't tickle their tummy enough, too bad. Should still choose them over a candidate that wants to kill brown people, and LGBTQ people, and the poor, and the disabled, etc.
I mean I get it, the two party system sucks, but it is something that can only be changed with time and influence, and a lot of it. It's a slow and gradual thing. The only way out of the system is to go through it.
Sucks that the Democrats couldn’t do some bare ass minimum ‘genocide is bad’ messaging if they wanted those votes.
Not that I think it deters anyone who is here to crash out over criticism of the Democratic party, but I voted Harris and live in a blue county in a blue state. I can control literally nothing that [general you] are mad about.
I've fallen for it three times now. Was promised that Hillary was the only one who could win. Was promised that Biden was a stop gap and they were working on finding better candidates. But then Kamala had to be candidate because whatever. On and on and on.
Democrat voters are finally waking up, and the DSA is making strides and hopefully we will have different party by the 2028.
Otherwise, with the VRA and climate collapse, I mean really looks like things HAVE to get worse before they can get better.
I've fallen for it three times now. Was promised that Hillary was the only one who could win.
What do you think elections are? You're upset because someone promised you a person would win an election, and then they didn't?
Grow the fuck up. Get used to it.
We have a king. You think Republicans are just going to meekly leave power?
They didn't last time.
Yay, More tax dollars for Supreme Court security details!!! USA USA USA!!!!
So let me get this straight. An independent agency can now be swayed by administration? As is now they are not considered independent agency. SCOTUS is literally rewriting the dictionary.
This is what I don't understand either. John Roberts said:
Subordinates who exercise the President's power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people
Like, what? What sense does this make? Does this not objectively make it NOT independent? Does this not objectively destroy the separation of powers? Why is an independent agency accountable to the president? Aren't they there to serve the people only and not one person in the white house? How are they exercising the "presidents power?" The president(very purposefully) is not supposed to have that power. They do. That's... kinda the point. Isn't that like the definition of an independent agency? I don't understand what he's even trying to say here.
Of course it makes no sense, it’s just a word salad to make it look like there’s some justification behind it, when in reality it’s just another step into autocracy.
Not quite. The court’s position is that there cannot exist an independent agency. They don’t see any provision for such a thing in the constitution. And if you take a purely literal originalist interpretation of the constitution, they’re right. Nothing in there says anything about “independent agencies”. Such independence was established ~140 years ago by precedent. So they’re not rewriting the dictionary, but they’re certainly rewriting a core legal doctrine that has been in place for >50% of the nations existence.
In my opinion, assuming there’s ever actually an opportunity to fix this mess, a key change we’ll need to make is that there needs to be a higher standard for the supreme court to overturn its own precedent. Like, maybe the vote needs to be unanimous or something. This activist court has been decades in the making, and is radically rewriting much of the foundational doctrine under which the country has operated for generations.
So this means the next Democrat is going to immediately fire every Trump appointee right?
... right?
Basically that's now what can happen. Any agency under the Executive Branch. But seems like Congress f'ed up by putting so many branches under the Executive branch to begin with. Time for Congress to fix that, lol but that's never going to happen.
Its the constitution or the supreme court, not Congress that fucked up. The president "executes the laws", the Supreme Court has basically stated that because it's up to the president to "execute the law" it's within his purview to not execute the law, as he sees fit. Which means any agency, any law all gets filtered through the president.
This is basically the essence of the Unitiary Executive Theory these project 2025 assholes are spouting, and why it was so quickly identified as dangerous to our country and democracy, but people didn't listen or care.
Alternative to CBS.
Here's one from NPR also. Do we not like CBS here? It was just the first I saw reported.
CBS is owned by David Ellison, Larry Ellison's son, and they have been systematically purging anything remotely critical of Trump or conservatism/Nazi ideology from the network. They are not to be relied upon or trusted as a news source and should be categorized right next to Fox News.
Ellison canceled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, the number one late night show, and we shall not forget. I regularly pass over everything CBS now.
Ah, thanks. Noted.
While CBS isn't as much of a propaganda mill as Fox News or Newsmax yet, there's a few reasons why a source such as NPR, BBC, ABC, NBC, or Reuters is preferable whenever possible:
In 2024, Paramount (the owner of CBS) announced its intention to merge with Skydance, a media company majority-owned by David and Larry Ellison, right-wing Trump supporters.
After the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Trump sued Paramount, claiming that the 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris intentionally cast her in a favorable light with the goal of influencing the election (despite it being no different to how they had edited candidate interviews for prior elections). To ensure the merger would be approved under the second Trump administration, Paramount paid Trump $16 million. When Steven Colbert called out the settlement as being a bribe on his show, CBS cancelled ~~The Colbert Report~~ The Late Show in retaliation.
In October 2025, Paramount Skydance bought the newsletter of right-wing journalist Bari Weiss for $150 million as a talent acquisition, installing her as the new editor-in-chief of CBS News with the goal of making CBS more right-wing.
In December, she delayed the release of a 60 Minutes episode about the mega prison in El Salvador for the purpose of adding more pro-Trump content to it. She has also pushed for content at the network to be more "balanced" by including more pro-government content, such as by asking for the 60 Minutes episode on the Minnesota ICE raids to contain more depictions of protestor violence. Additional details on her tenure at the network are listed with sources in her Wikipedia article.
When also accounting for firings at CBS of journalists not willing to adjust their reporting, it's a clear sign that the network's output is being deliberately manipulated to expand right-wing influence. As Paramount Skydance is about to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, CNN will also be at risk of reporting interference in favor of Trump.
Can the President remove SCOTUS justices now? Just asking for the next Democrat president.
Look at you thinking there will be a "next Democrat president"
I know right? Maybe a non-Republican in the next 100 years.
After all the 1000 year Reich only lasted 12 years.
Assuming there will be a Democratic president, I doubt they will undo anything. What administration would be willing to give up power?
They all (6) believe there will never be another non Republican president.
They know that if there is another Democrat president, they won't have the guts to use their power to do what needs to be done.
Like say agencies that insure the integrity of voting... ☠️
Lemme guess, the 6-3 regular?
The justices, in a 6-3 decision powered by the court's conservative majority, invalidated tenure protections for FTC members enacted by Congress more than a century ago. In doing so, the justices overruled the court's pivotal decision in a case called Humphrey's Executor v. United States. Trump last year dismissed the FTC's Rebecca Slaughter over policy differences
Yup.
in the USA, there is nothing more constitutional than a king