this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2026
227 points (98.3% liked)

politics

30968 readers
1546 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
227
Trump just lost his battle to force a university to release its “list of Jews” (www.lgbtqnation.com)
submitted 4 weeks ago by Sunflier@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Things like this have happened before…

Ostensibly, the University of Pennsylvania’s leadership refused to submit and cower to the Trump administration’s threats of withholding government grants and other funding if it did not twist to its will.

The Trump regime argued it needed the lists to interview primarily Jewish faculty in documenting supposed antisemitic comments and actions on the campus in order to “protect” Jewish people and organizations. The government claimed that Penn’s resistance had been hyperbolic and radical.

I understand that Donald Trump neither knows about nor cares about history, but even this heartless sociopathic narcissist must know how triggering and insensitive it is to subpoena any institution for its “list of Jews.”

Trump echoed 1936 Germany and the so-called “Nuremberg Laws,” the antisemitic and racist laws the Nazi regime declared as “the Reich Citizenship Law” and “the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor.”

These proclamations codified the systematic persecution of Jews, which culminated in the eventual murder of an estimated six million Jewish people throughout the continent of Europe and elsewhere under the Nazi domain.

If you don't like being called a Nazi, stop doing Nazi things!

top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 28 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Oh. So, we're outraged about this...but when he's already labeling "leftists" as literal terrorists, we haven't quite found our outrage yet?

[–] breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca 47 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

We can be outraged about more than one thing.

What is your basis for saying no one is outraged about this administration targeting leftists? I've seen nothing but outrage.

[–] Zedstrian@sopuli.xyz 12 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

A third of the U.S. thinks that anyone to the left of the most conservative Democrat is a communist, while many centrists normalize fascism on a regular basis.

[–] kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Source for those stats?

[–] Zedstrian@sopuli.xyz 7 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Polls have repeatedly demonstrated that around a third of Americans support Trump's policy positions on nearly everything; here's a graph with multiple issues listed to demonstrate (source):

[–] kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 weeks ago

Your statement isn't about support. You made blanket statements about who thinks what about communism and fascism.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago

Your brother

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

The fact that he is allowed to continue to do it.
Except you changing it to "no one" is a strawman, that was not the claim. The claim was "we" which I suppose is meant as the American population preferably a majority of the population.
Why are you acting like an apologist for normalizing the increasing psychopathy of the American society?

[–] breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 weeks ago

Sure, I should've stuck to a strict definition of the poorly defined thing that you "suppose" means something that wasn't at all indicated in the comment. Makes sense.

The comment made two claims:

  1. We are outraged about this
  2. We are not outraged about the targeting of the left

I said:

  1. We can be outraged about more than one thing.
  2. What evidence do you have to support your second claim?

Using "we" or "no one" is immaterial in that sentence in this context. It's not more than just not repeating the same words again and again for readability. No sensible person took that to be an ask for evidence that literally not one single person was outraged. The crux of the question, as written above, is "What evidence supports your claim?" Using your assumed definition, I'd have the same question about both claims instead of just one. My main point that we can be outraged about more than one thing would be unchanged.

Why are you acting like an apologist for normalizing the increasing psychopathy of the American society?

I'm not. You're just failing to think clearly.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

Guess what, he will continue to be allowed to do more outrageous things after this one too. Society STILL isn't sufficiently outraged to stop this. Maybe what will finally end this will be something stupid like he outlawed pizza pockets

[–] Eldritch@piefed.world 17 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

Unfortunately that's been happening since before most who are going to read this message were even born. Ask the weathermen or the Black Panther Party for self-defense.

[–] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The Weathermen were, objectively speaking, terrorists. Their praxis was to scare the politicians into stopping the various imperialist wars.

Noble goals (and that bathroom in the Pentagon had it coming) but they were terrorists.

[–] Eldritch@piefed.world 5 points 4 weeks ago

True and if we're being thorough even Fox News is a form of or feeding terrorism. But I think it would be important to compare and contrast with events such as the move bombing in 1985. Whether or not you were 100% on board with MOVE's praxis. What the police did was a terrorist attack that destroyed the community in many ways. Not just MOVE. But they can't be terrorist, they're police. Tulsa race massacre, ditto. If you really want to get base level, the state itself is terrorist. If you question it's authority how will it answer.

It's a term so misused as we are seeing now. It's just treated as "enemy" anymore. People need to get used to it, and understand those in power are their enemy. That they should be afraid. That terrorism itself isn't bad inherently. It's all about who's targeted and why. A culpable organization like the Pentagon and the MIC. Or unconnected random, perhaps even ally families and individuals.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

I've been in a constant state of outrage since before he was elected. Everything going on is an outrage. Numerous outrageous things are happening, any one of which should have alone been enough to end this administration. Yet here we are. Outrage is just the norm now.

[–] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 15 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Wild that AIPAC donates to a lot of conservatives.

Future leopardsatemyface material

[–] DisasterTransport@startrek.website 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I wonder what makes AIPAC think emboldening fascists serves Israel's interests. Like what do they know, or think they know, or what are their immediate priorities that tell them funding the alt-right and weakening their historical geopolitical sponsor is a good idea?

When the dam breaks it's going to be scary. What will we do when our empire starts splintering, and which military aid will be the first to go? Ukraine, sure, but Ukraine is peanuts compared to the war on Iran. Hegseth is already talking tax hikes, and the kayfabe fkr republicans is to emulate "no new taxes" Reagan. Then again maybe kayfabe is entirely irrelevant at this point? Idk man, I wish I understood how these people think.

[–] zqps@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

A couple reasons, but mostly their main narrative that Jews will never be safe anywhere other than their own ethnostate. Every instance of actual discrimination and threats against jews serves their interests.

[–] tpyo@lemmy.world 9 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

that top gif is gooood

[–] QuandaleDingle@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

It lines up so well, its scary.

[–] Smaile@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

why is he trying to find these people, is he looking for people potentially linked to isreal? it seem odd for him to be suddenly going after jewish people considering the circumstances otherwise. im wondering if he trying to angle them out for some reason.

[–] TransNeko@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

I must be blind because that uniform looks exactly the same on both sides.

[–] vala@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 weeks ago

Second image in this post looks like ai