politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Playing the devils advocate here:
Why is this still news? The Trump admin gets sued left and right and loses many cases... but unless there's someone willing to enforce the rulings (which there obviously isn't, neither in the judiciary nor in Parliament... why should the admin be bothered? They can keep ignoring the defeats and continue and that's what they'll be doing.
At a time when the separation of powers has clearly failed, it is no longer a question of who is right, but of who has the power to get their way—or to simply take it. And as long as American civil society doesn’t get its act together (which seems to be a long way off), that power appears to lie with Trump and his oligarchic government.
It is news because it is a thing happening, and an informed public is a good thing. Perhaps also because corporate news agencies make money off advertising toward outrage. Malaise and burying one’s head in the sand won’t move the needle either.
Well I didn't say that, did I?
What bothers me about reports like these is that, while we do have an “informed public”—strictly speaking, for the past year or so, or even longer for those who go through life with their eyes wide open—it has no real consequences. There are no general strikes, just one-day protests announced well in advance. The activism of many, even here in our bubble, seems to be limited to liking such articles.
How often did we read articles during Trump’s first term along the lines of “Things are really getting tight for him now!”? That didn’t change a thing except to lull parts of the moderate spectrum into a false sense of security that “everything will somehow work out.” In my opinion, these articles therefore do not currently promote activism (anymore) but, on the contrary, lull people into complacency, which is why I’ve criticized this one here in my sarcastic way.
Do you remember the first few months of Trump II? The homogenization of the state apparatus and the filling of vacant positions with loyalists (for example, at the Post Office, to draw the connection) were aimed precisely at the current situation: MAGA supporters are not deterred by even the most numerous lost court cases; they will do what the leader commands, regardless of the legal situation.
From the very beginning, the goal was to continue exercising power even when it is obviously wrong.
I’m not saying you said that. I’m saying to cease telling the news would be giving in to malaise and burying one’s head in the sand. That’s why this is news. Because what the news does is report things that happen. This happened.
Okay, that makes sense.
Then let me put it another way: Personally, I’m tired of reading articles that fuel hope that an obviously corrupt system will actually work.
Personally, I don’t believe that the oligarchy surrounding Trump—and least of all Trump himself—will accept defeat, even in the midterms. Personally, I believe it will take significantly more activism than relying on “court rulings to restore the rule of law” when the other side has obviously long since started playing dirty.
.................
People: "Democrats don't do anything!"
Democrats: Do something
People: "WHY ARE WE WASTING TIME TALKING ABOUT THIS????"
Lawsuit here will confirm that voting is a states issue, not a federal one. You don't need the judiciary to enforce, just confirm. The states already do the enforcement. So, unlike other cases where the judge is basically powerless to enforce, that's definitely not going to be the case here.
The problem is that this "makes it ok" for some states to actually enforce it. So it's not just about confirming it's a states issue, but to prove that it's entirely unconstitutional so that no state is allowed to do this.
Okay I get that.
Honest question: Could the states prevent Trump from interfering in the local election process through the U.S. Postal Service? That seems to be exactly what’s behind all the current commotion.
No, unfortunately USPS is entirely federal. So yeah, the change to post dates becoming useless for their function can't be changed, but the feds can't make rules to override state election authority either (unless it was legislation, which won't happen)