this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2026
84 points (97.7% liked)

politics

28875 readers
1994 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
 

The Pentagon and National Security Council significantly underestimated Iran’s willingness to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to US military strikes while planning the ongoing operation, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

Donald Trump’s national security team failed to fully account for the potential consequences of what some officials have described as a worst-case scenario now facing the administration, the sources said.

While key officials from the Departments of Energy and Treasury were present for some of the official planning meetings about the operation before it started, sources said, the agency analysis and forecasts that would be integral elements of the decision-making process in past administrations were secondary considerations.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

while all they do is blame others like boomers, who btw, protested the fuck out of everything and earned many rights you’re supposed to have today.

That is something I've noticed gets completely lost in the "Boomers vs. Gen Y" narrative that is so very tiresome and myopic.

They keep acting like boomers were somehow the most regressive generation to ever come along and I am not sure I really see the evidence for it. What is true is that marketing ended up catering very much to boomers, given their size, but the very same thing happened with Gen Y (Gen X was skipped largely because we are a smaller group), not because of any inherent quality in either, but instead, because of their numbers.

I think this has led to some of their members in both groups being a bit more narcissistic (when it comes to demands that often involve sentences that contain the phrase "my generation") than generations that were not overly catered to.

But I see lots of footage and evidence that boomers really stuck their neck out to fight for things. Gen Y is now well into middle age and I don't see much evidence that they did so, as a group. Not that Gen X did, either, but I also don't see much intergenerational warfare coming from Gen X aimed at boomers, either.

[–] Man_kind@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago

Its social media that made them complacent and fed them a bunch of bullshit. The students and young people are usually the ones that stand up and fight. But they're all on social media doing social media things, and complaining that they cant biy homes, or that their rights are being g taken away and they're ruled by a tyrant, but they aren't doing anything. They're just on social media.