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
"Donald Trump approved just 23 percent of disaster funding requests from states with Democratic governors and Democratic senators, while at the same time, over roughly the same period, states with Republican governors and Republican senators had their [requests approved] 89 percent of the time."
"The people of Michigan are in good hands with Trump-endorsed Mike Rogers, who is running for U.S. Senate, and John James for governor." "I just spoke with Congressman Tom Tiffany, who has my complete and total endorsement for governor, and informed him that the great state of Wisconsin has been approved to be given $22.6 million in its disaster declaration request."
Trump is openly framing disaster aid as a political favor tied to his endorsed candidates. he's holding disaster aid hostage untill the state does what trump wants so he can make the senator look like the hero... Instead of creating a system where everyone gets equal protection, he's saying if you don't vote for me, you get less protection... This also creates a dangerous new quid pro quo for how states or voters act, supporting his candidates means they'll get the help they need and suffer less, opposing them means they'll have to pay the price... They also mislead voters saying that candidates (like Tiffany or Rogers) directly secured the aid, because in reality, the decision rests with the federal government, Trump himself...
So federal agencies (FEMA, ICE, HHS, etc.) will be put to work to influence elections. So we can expect more aid approved to swing states with competitive races (Michigan, Wisconsin) while denying and withholding it to blue states. They will try potential deployment to manufacture crises (immigration "surges") to rally Republican voters, and strategically deploying health resources and programs, announcing new funding, grants and initiatives to boost the image of republican GOP candidates in swing districs (RFK Jr. campaigning in those same key districts). Even if the programs were already planned or not uniquely tied to Republican efforts, it’s about manufacturing the image of the GOP as the party that "delivers".
They literally use all government resources to punish democratic states, and reward republican states. Sounds authoritarian. I thought power was a tool to make lives better for everyone, instead of power being the endgoal and making sure none can challenge him lol
If we ever do get a Democratic President again, he* should do all the same shit to Republican states. Only, he should be transparent about it: "I am only doing this because Donald Trump set the precedent that it can be done. Send me a bill to constrain Presidential powers, and I will sign it. Also, send me a bill to add 4 more justices to the Supreme Court and I will sign that too, so the corrupt fucks there don't undo it."
* = Yes, it will be a "he". If the last three elections have taught me anything, it's that Americans are too misogynist to elect a woman as President right now. Democrats ran three essentially identical candidates againt Trump after all, and only one won. This is why, if AOC is as smart as I think she is, she will wait 20 years before running for President....
a bill to constrain presidential powers doesbt work in our current system. Trump has broken the law, repeatedly, brazenly, and nobody that could stop him has done so. Passing a new law for the next Republican to break will not make that harder or result in any consequences beyond what we have already seen.
Things that might make a difference: 1 permanently expanding the power of majoritarian democracy/the Democratic party. Adding Puerto Rico and DC as states, passing the interstate national popular vote compact in enough states to neuter the electoral college, making political gerrymandering illegal nationwide.
Prosecuting the criminals in the current administration, all of them, top to bottom, thousands of cabinet and agency level convictions, harsh sentences, might deter future potential functionaries from cooperating with a future would be dictator
Arresting the Republican justices on the supreme Court and holding them in guatanemo and appointing a new court. Expanding the supreme Court would just be undone by the next Republican president with a trifecta. #1 might make that less likely, but with our current court so thoroughly corrupting our government from the inside 1 and 2 are unlikely to do anything useful.
maybe you're right, but Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris were both the wrong candidates for the wrong time, and ran not very good campaigns - I'd rather conclude that this is not the time for an uncharismatic status quo candidate, than that this is not the time for a woman candidate
Agreed. I will not compromise in a primary. I will vote for the best candidate to run and if America wants to goose step off a cliff then you will find me in the camps.
call it what it is... a protection racket and red state welfare. Those are blue state dollars trump's taking to give to the red states who bend the knee