this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2026
367 points (99.2% liked)

politics

30242 readers
2070 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rhoeri@piefed.world 12 points 4 months ago (4 children)

It’s not going to fail. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think we will see the outcome we’d like to see.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago (3 children)

We must assume it will. We know these people are incredibly incompetent and of the 3 estimated tracks I theorized (in risk planning), Trump is somewhere between the lowest and middle tier of inflicting tyranny.

Game Theory is that we must be viligent and also assume they will be legit and drive turnout for Democrats.

(to those who criticize the AIPAC Dems and what not, now is the time to get involved in Dem primaries to get more progressives in).

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

I don't know about competent but brazen for sure. Think they won't try to steal the election by straight up bombing high density liberal areas? Oh, they definitely would.

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago

heory is that we must be viligent and also assume they will be legit and drive turnout for Democrats.

(to those who criticize the AIPAC Dems and what not, now is the time to get involved in Dem primaries to get more progressives in).

Technically, the best time to start building primary candidates was immediately after the last election. The second best time is now.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The only opportunity is for 3 Republican House seats to switch, then impeach.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I can tell you are not a serious person, as you pretend impeachment means anything.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I don't understand how the emoluments clause is not an open and shut impeachment case.

[–] btsax@reddthat.com 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Because the imoluments clause can't jump off the page and enforce itself

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

But we agree if it were enforced then there would be no defence?

Acceptance of gold bar for reduced tariffs is sufficient emolument evidence?

[–] btsax@reddthat.com 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

OK so he broke that rule. What does the constitution say is the punishment? That's the problem: it doesn't. It just says things that are "illegal" and it's up to human beings to decide what to do after that. Congress never passed a law saying what would happen if that clause was broken. They can't enforce laws anyway, that's up to the executive. So if all the humans don't come up with some plan, it doesn't matter what the paper says. I'd say you could wipe your ass with it but you're better off with a bidet

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"A two-thirds majority vote in the Senate is required to convict and remove the official."

I see the problem. 20 republican senators are not switching sides.

[–] btsax@reddthat.com 2 points 4 months ago

That's not specifically for taking bribes, though. That could be for literally anything including things that aren't crimes or aren't forbidden in the constitution. It's a political action, not a legal one.

Something more concrete would be if, during the Biden presidency, Congress passed a law saying that any foreign gift to a federal official including the president goes into a trust or is forcibly confiscated by the federal government and/or sold off to pay the country's debt or something like that. They did basically nothing instead, even knowing that they'd never get that much of a majority in the Senate to actually remove a president for violating the constitution or that hypothetical new law. So there's effectively no actual rule against emoluments despite what that piece of paper says.

[–] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 months ago

As we saw with his first two impeachments, impeachment is not removal. So long as the cult of personality continues to support him, so too will the Republican Party.

[–] Rhoeri@piefed.world -3 points 4 months ago

LMAO! Take a look around man… ffs…

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Speaking for myself, I intend to show up as if success is the only possibility, and I suggest the same to any American.

It's far too early to guess the outcome one way or another, and anyone who claims otherwise is a fool, whether they belong to a thinktank or a sports bar.

But assuming failure is a lazy, shitty place from which to encourage people, including myself, to do their best to stop it.

[–] Rhoeri@piefed.world -4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it

~ George Bernard Shaw

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

It’s not going to fail.

Your own future-looking statement; 100% predictive.

*"The power of accurate observation . . ."

Your comeback, lol.

"'Accurate observation' is only applicable to the present and past. Try harder when borrowing false intellectual authentication from old quotes."

~ Me, just now

[–] Rhoeri@piefed.world -4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Try reading it again and this time, pay attention to the context instead of thinking up edgy shit to respond with.

I’ll bet it makes more sense.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Says the month old account full of brief low-effort posts insisting that any resistance will fail. You know, like the one I just called you out on.

It's not my comprehension at fault here, kid. It's your agenda. I don't want fascism to succeed in my country. You want people to feel too discouraged to even think about resisting. And I'm here to put a cold boot in that wherever I see it.

Don't need no old quote for that. And George Bernard Shaw was a questionable source to start with.

Shaw was a poseur and a puritan; he was similarly a bourgeois and an antibourgeois writer, working for Hearst and posterity; his didacticism is entertaining and his pranks are purposeful; he supports socialism and is tempted by fascism.

—Leonard Feinberg, The Satirist (2006)

As I said, try harder.

[–] Rhoeri@piefed.world -4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Dude. I’ve been here for years. Check my .world account.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Dude. Piefed.world is also a .world account, or hadn't you noticed?

Also, seems like you have stopped trying to defend the indefensible, which is a plus. But go ahead, quote another fascist-lite to me in defense of your position.

[–] Rhoeri@piefed.world -3 points 4 months ago

It's going to be same as the last elections. Media will claim left is winning and followers of pop news will eat it up.