this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
447 points (99.8% liked)

politics

28547 readers
1859 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
 

Study released a day before State of the Union address shows president has lost support among Republicans

Most US adults think Donald Trump is moving the country in the wrong direction during his second presidency, according to a new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll released the day before his State of the Union speech.

Fifty-five percent of adults feel that Trump is changing the country for the worse, a 13-point increase from around the same time of his first presidency, the survey conducted from 27 to 30 January found.

The number of people who held that view also increased four points from April.

Unsurprisingly, support for the president splits down party lines.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hubi@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Vor what it's worth, the most votes Hitler's party ever received on a national level was "just" 37%.

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

How did he win the election then ?

[–] Hubi@feddit.org 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

He didn't. In fact his results in the final free election were considerably worse than the year before. He had to enter a coalition with the Centre Party that enabled him to destroy the Weimar democracy from within.

On 9 January 1933, Papen and Hindenburg agreed to form a new government that would bring in Hitler. On the evening of 22 January in a meeting at the villa of Joachim von Ribbentrop in Berlin, Papen made the concession of abandoning his claim to the chancellorship and committed to support Hitler as chancellor in a proposed "Government of National Concentration", in which Papen would serve as vice-chancellor and Minister-President of Prussia. On 23 January, Papen presented to Hindenburg his idea for Hitler to be made chancellor, while keeping him "boxed" in. On the same day Schleicher, to avoid a vote of no-confidence in the Reichstag when it reconvened on 31 January, asked the president to declare a state of emergency. Hindenburg declined and Schleicher resigned at midday on 28 January. Hindenburg formally gave Papen the task of forming a new government.

In the morning of 29 January, Papen met with Hitler and Hermann Göring at his apartment, where it was agreed that Papen would serve as vice-chancellor and Commissioner for Prussia. It was in the same meeting that Papen first learned that Hitler wanted to dissolve the Reichstag when he became chancellor and, once the Nazis had won a majority of the seats in the ensuing elections, to activate the Enabling Act in order to be able to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag. When the people around Papen voiced their concerns about putting Hitler in power, he asked them, "What do you want?" and reassured them, "I have the confidence of Hindenburg! In two months, we'll have pushed Hitler so far into the corner that he'll squeal."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_von_Papen#Bringing_Hitler_to_power

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

So he got into power without any voting. ? Am I understanding you correctly ?

So in that case I guess we don't know very accurately how many people supported him at that point.

It would probably be speculating at best to his popularity.

It does seem though in general, initially he was fairly popular with the people and some of the other politicians.

[–] Hubi@feddit.org 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

There was a election and his party received the most votes, but it was far from what they needed to govern just by themselves. He had to find another party willing to form a coalition with to get above the required threshold. The other parties with strong results, the Left and the Social Democrats, refused to join him for obvious reasons. The Centre Party thought he could be easily controlled and saw their chance to get into government with him. They did not take him or his threats seriously.

Everything he did to seize power was completely legal, he just used the system against itself. And to circle back to the original point: While his party was popular at the time, the vast majority of people did not want them in power. As you said correctly, it's nearly impossible to determine his actual popularity after 1933.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

I was aware that he used legal maneuvering to take control. (From that video I referred to)

And then at a certain point stopped abiding by the very system laws that allowed him to get into position.

Which is very concerning. Because I think many people and many politicians are under the impression that they can keep trump in check with laws.

But he only abides by them when they suit him and disregards them when they don't.

And those who oppose him always stay within the laws.

When we have no laws of enforcement/punishment of the executive branch, then any laws are dismissible by the executive branch when it suits them.

And there is already a long history of presidents doing this. Trump isn't the first. Just the worst.

Our current government system is set to ultimately fail when tested in this way.

It's playing a game where your opponent is allowed to cheat with no penalty and can even change the rules at their whim. But you are bound to the rule book.

Not impossible to still beat but nearly. And unlikely.