this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2026
282 points (98.3% liked)

politics

31347 readers
2340 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
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.world 54 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Do you want to know the real reason Trump hates California? I'll tell you. It has nothing to do with politics," Kimmel said. He then showed a clip of California Gov. Gavin Newsom – who called Trump "deranged and dangerous" after the Iran comments – greeting the first lady with a side kiss.

"It's because our governor got farther with his wife than he has in 15 years," Kimmel quipped.

haha wow

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago

Years ago, Maher (yeah, yeah) did a bit about why so much hate is leveled at Cali, and it came down to people stuck in shittier parts of the country just being jealous.

And I think he's not wrong.

I live in Colorado and love it. But if I didn't live in Colorado, I'd probably live in California. Just like anywhere, it's not perfect, but it has a lot going for it. It also has the most people and they create so much for the country. I just think the kind of person that resents success hate California for this.

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 day ago

Series question, what is he expecting the FCC to (even theoretically) do? They only regulate the airwaves. Is he trying to get stations fined for airing the president's comments?

I applaud taking action, but I'm not seeing the game plan here.

[–] Malica@lemmy.zip 67 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm sure they'll get right on that

[–] assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works 102 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Them not acting on a valid report gives cause for a lawsuit against the FCC which could result in something.

Lemmy: "why won't anyone do anything"

Someone: *takes first steps

Lemmy: "this is useless!"

[–] JustPlainDave@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago

That's because they don't actually want someone to do something, they just want to be able to complain and pretend they have answers they don't actually have.

[–] ShellMonkey@piefed.socdojo.com 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what the FCC would do about it, but it's something at least. Just real easy to have a pessimistic view when, with he massive pile of crimes and misdemeanors he has under his gut allready, nobody has actually been able to do much beyond sue, win, and he keeps doing the same shit anyhow...

[–] assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh FCC won't do anything but this could get Congress (or the courts) to intervene and maybe remove Brendan Carr or something. It's not likely but Trump and friends "work" by throwing everything at the wall and seeing what they're allowed to get away with. This is an attempt to make sure they don't get away with something and that's good.

[–] Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Anything is better than nothing, it's a matter of who gets to set the precedent, but making threats and not being able to back them up doesn't help anyone's case, either way.

I think the best thing trump ever did to help him get to this position was calling bluffs and making his own, and that seems to have made it work, for now at least.

That and the billionaire nepotism for sure

Edit while I'm at it.

Just how in the fuck did we end up in the version of reality TV where we gave the host, just like, way too much power over reality.

It's like the modern Aristocrats, where everyone is both eating shit but coming out on top every time

[–] zikzak025@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Maybe, but the courts are also stacked in favor of Trump. They can go all the way to the Supreme Court with it, but it'll end in his favor in a 5-4 split decision.

[–] assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, best to try nothing for fear of failure.

[–] zikzak025@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

I am in the camp of "try it anyways". Worst that can happen is what would happen anyways if you didn't.

I'm a serial pessimist, so it's more of a reflex at this point to avoid disappointment, but I still believe in fighting the good fight.

[–] KulunkelBoom@lemmus.org 2 points 1 day ago

You mean one of the six guys left at the FCC? Good luck with that.

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

Thank you Jimmy. It's not exactly the most novel idea but hopefully it will um do whatever it's supposed to do.

But uh, you know someone as famous and beloved as you could make a shitload of John Hinkleys if you just take a more edgy approach. Ya know that Jimmy? Just tossing that out there.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

I love this idea.