this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2026
293 points (99.3% liked)

politics

27435 readers
3762 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
 

"These unprecedented tactics -- which even the former top lawyer of the Department of Homeland Security in the first Trump administration has characterized as embarrassing, lawless and cruel -- have now resulted in the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens," the Obamas said.

The Obamas accused the Trump administration of "escalating" the tension in Minneapolis by offering the public explanations of the shootings of Pretti and Renee Good "that aren't informed by any serious investigation -- and that appear to be directly contradicted by video evidence."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 68 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

One of my earliest wake up calls was when a certain president didn't outright dismantle the Patriot Act, allowing illegal privacy invasion policies on American citizens to continue and have now made the life of ICE officers a lot easier.

I wonder who that president was...

[–] manualoverride@lemmy.world -2 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

So instead of doing something about it you’re going for whataboutism, we’ll done, whatever makes you feel better about your inaction.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 hour ago

I swear to God, "whataboutism" just means, "You stated a fact I don't like." Of course it's relevant that the guy criticizing ICE was someone who could've actually done something about them and chose not to. What a load of bull.

[–] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago

Firstly, may I remind you that you are online? If you are going to criticize someone for inaction, maybe you should stop wasting time bishing and complaining cuz someone made a comment you didn't like on a social media feed, go outside, and take your own advice.

Secondly, pointing out hypocricy, especially as that hypocrisy relates to a person in power, and especially when said person in power is a former president of the US, is a far cry from whataboutism.

I can draw a straight line from the Patriot Act to the privacy invading tools ICE and other Federal Agencies use today, and while Obama didn't draft nor sign into law the Patriot Act, he did fuck all to end it. Heck, he extended provisions of that horrendous act in 2012.

So nah, I'm not about to forget that there's plenty of blame to go around when it comes to Obama. And yeah, I'm gonna shout that shit into this void. Thanks for reading.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 41 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Yes Obama was part of the problem too. Refusing to acknowledge the surveillance and rights to authorities as soon as they claimed terrorism were way beyond what's healthy for a democracy. Unfortunately Obama too was very "American" in that regard.