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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
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
Holding criminals liable for their criminal activity is not "getting even".
Impeaching Trump won't do that. I mean, with a Dem-led senate, there would at least be a trial, but they'd need at least 10 GOP senators to remove, and that won't happen.
Impeaching Hegseth? Clarence Thomas? Aileen Cannon? Go for it. Still probably won't happen, but those are all people more vulnerable to the shame of impeachment. They might even resign.
There's a lot of criminal activity to expose among people who can actually be indicted and convicted. People who might testify after Trump's get-out-of-trial-free card expires, but most importantly, people who can now be made to stop hurting the country.
I'd still rather see them use War Powers over Iran and close ICE concentration camps than put Elon Musk in jail, if it came down to a choice, but I think they can do all three.
Honestly I think impeaching Hegseth is quite doable. Knives are going to come out in the GOP and I’ve heard people already blaming the whole blue wave on Hegseth and his Iran war. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a lot of republican senators vote to impeach him.
I think enough republicans are seeing the writing on the wall that getting ten of them to side with Dems on impeachment/removal might not be entirely outside of the realm of possibility...
They need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's a pedophile to get enough support to actually remove him from office. With both houses, maybe there's a shot they can force the unredacted Epstein files to be released, but we'll see.
In other words, release the epstien files.
Yeah, pretty much
If only there was a Democrat president who had access to the full unredacted Epstein evidence and could have directed his DOJ to go after the criminals with the evidence therein!
Not necessarily sticking up for biden, but the documents were sealed, held up in court at the time, and they thought they'd have more time.
Then the pedophile used the release of the files in his campaign trail... which he never really did, to no one intelligent's surprise.
Literally. I called that that spineless shit would lead us right back to Trump in 24, but did anyone listen? Noooooooo of course not. We needed someone "electable"
If only you knew what "sealed court documents as part of an ongoing investigation" meant.
Which ended 20 days before his term did.
If only you understood how long investigations into Epstein had been goin on. The FBI released their first investigation findings in like 2005. thats 21 years ago, almost 22. Dont talk about it like it just happened this last cycle. Its been a cornerstone of both parties policies for 2 decades and 5 presidential admins.
Why do they need 10 reds to do that? I thought they just needed 60% of the senate, and democrats have 54
They need 2/3's. So 67 i guess
To be pedantic, they need 2/3 of those in attendance. So if EVERYONE shows up that's 67, but Senators often don't all show up. This year alone there were 3 senators that missed more than 10% of all days in session (with varying justifiability).
Ohh
AIPAC Shakur never fails to show us who owns him. Capitalists and Israel.
Giving Jeffries the surname "Shakur" is an insult to the Shakur family. Look them up. The name is a political statement.
It is wrong to call him that and a bigger insult to Shakur family, but jefferies is purely performative politics.
Yes, and people calling him AIPAC Shakur are displaying their ignorance of the black power movement and honestly it's just gross
I looked it up.
Shakur means thankful in Arabic according to the internet.
AIPAC Shakur is a perfectly fitting name for Jeffries. It shows that he’s thankful and politically motivated by AIPAC because he has been bribed.
Also, it’s weird to claim that a single family owns a word and therefore everyone using that word is insulting someone.
I suggest you look up virtue signaling, vicarious offense-taking, and white knighting.
So you missed the entire history of the contemporary black American Shakur family, where the name was adopted by Black Panther James Coston as part of his conversion to Islam after Malcolm X's assassination? Where that others in the Panthers choose to adopt that name for themselves as a sign of solidarity, respect, and commitment to black liberation? Where Tupac's mother changed her name for this reason, and changed her son's name as well.
The only thing linking Jeffries's moniker and the Shakur family name is that AIPAC and Tupac end in the same three letters. It both assigns a very specific radical revolutionary name to an opponent, which in and of itself is disrespectful to the name and the family, but then does so simply because Jeffries is black, because none of the white people in Congress that take money from AIPAC are called "AIPAC Shakur".
There's really not a single legitimate reason to use the moniker, and there are at least 2 reasons not to.
To be clear, Jeffries deserve an insult. Using Shakur as part of the insult is insulting to the Shakurs. Jeffries has not earned that name.
So only the definition that you prefer is valid. Not the actual meaning of the word.
Who gets to decide what words mean?
Do you also get bent out of shape when someone says Uncle Tom? Is that not insulting to historical Toms? This is your argument.
Maybe wait for the family to tell people that they are offended instead of you pretending to be offended for them.
Virtue signaling – Expressing outrage to demonstrate one's moral superiority or social awareness.
Vicarious offense-taking – Taking offense on behalf of someone else, particularly when that person isn't offended.
Manufactured outrage – Deliberately pretending to be offended to create controversy.
You're working off some random definition he found on some bullshit name site to argue why he should not just ignore the family that made the name famous, but take it away from them. Let's not pretend like you're not using "AIPAC Shakur" as a loose Tupac reference.
And now you're likening being against this to somehow also thinking referring to codifying fictional character must mean it's an insult to all people named Tom? You know that's not an equivalent situation.
It's possible to be personally offended by someone being so fucking obtuse and neckbeardy about justifying a shitty thing they said. Your amorality is not a good enough defense, and it's downright stupid to not consider how trying to rip away a famous name from a famous family just so you can use a racially coded insult is perfectly okay.
It would have been infinitely more respectable if you demonstrated the capacity to take a step back and see what the mistake was rather than doubling down off the back of some stupid baby name meaning site as if it's a legitimate source.
Jeffries is called AIPAC Shakur because he’s a corporate and AIPAC sellout and because he’s always doing goofy middle school level raps in his speeches.
I don’t know what to tell you but being so sensitive over something so innocuous is silly.
So the meaning of a word is how it's used. This case with Jefferies, the meaning of the word is "famous black man like Tupac". That's the meaning. We know this because the person assigning it to him is not speaking in Arabic, and not applying the same moniker to white people.
So even in that basis alone, the moniker may as well be "AIPAC Blackman". Because that's literally the extent of thought being put into it.
The problem is that Tupac's name is not just some accident of history. It is a deliberate choice. Therefore it comes with meaning.
Meaning is constructed. It's not something found in a dictionary, it's a participatory process.
This is true for plenty of other names: Hitler, Trump, Gandhi, etc. Imagine calling JD Vance's wife "A Hot Ma Gandhi". Not only is it offensive simply by virtue of the dehumanization that comes from decontextualizing a name based on ethnicity or race and just applying a famous name of one member of that community to another (like calling all Chinese people Lee or Ching), but it's ALSO applying a name with the baggage if honor to a person who doesn't deserve that honor.
I wouldn't be offended on behalf of the Gandhi family. I would just find it offensive and ignorant.
This is like that. I am not upset on behalf of the Shakur's, I am upset as me, because it's an ignorant and offensive name for all of these reasons. And you defending it is a lot like the good old boys saying "what are you some kind of Indian lover? If they don't like it let them come tell me to my face that they don't like it". It's not a good look
You do go through so much effort to be offended.
You’re really trying hard to twist something that isn’t meant to be a racial insult into one.
Jeffries likes to rap in public events so the AIPAC Shakur is more directly making fun of his sold out nature plus making fun of how bad of a rapper he is. As in, he’s a fake Tupac.
I don't think I've ever heard of him rapping in public events. Quoting hip-hop lyrics, yes, but not actually trying to rap. If that's the reference, then yeah, that's a whoosh on my part. I would love to see a video of Jeffries rapping
https://youtube.com/shorts/ZLXje0iBkKc?is=qcdR6hMvFomUuAxa
He likes rapping platitudes but always forgets to include his AIPAC handlers in his rhymes.
Rhyming days of the week is, uh, wow. Fucking contrived news coverage. It's as though they know the only people watching them are old white people who think a black person listing days of the week is rapping
What a stupid thing to double down on.
Sure but they were very clear with this message throughout the campaign.
The usa do not have the institutions for real accountability
Trump will pardon everybody.
Even if you get an impeachment and conviction, Vance will pardon him and everybody.
You'll have to wait until Ds win presidency to hold them criminally accountable. Better to investigate and make a case in my opinion.
U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1
I don't disagree that dems will need more control to hold the fash accountable, but in the case of impeachment he cannot be pardoned.