this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2025
171 points (100.0% liked)

politics

24736 readers
2774 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
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xyzzy@lemmy.today 34 points 1 day ago

Besides the fact that this guy is a fascist, I'm tired of judicial nominees refusing to answer any questions whatsoever by saying how inappropriate it would be to answer. It's gotten to the point where every nominee responds to every question like this:

Multiple Democratic senators pressed Bove in their questionnaire to clarify if Bove believes the Constitution permits Mr. Trump to run for a third term, despite the restrictions of the 22nd Amendment, which states that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice."

"As a nominee to the Third Circuit, it would not be appropriate for me to address how this Amendment would apply in an abstract hypothetical scenario," Bove responded on multiple occasions. "To the extent this question seeks to elicit an answer that could be taken as opining on the broader political or policy debate regarding term limits, or on statements by any political figure, my response, consistent with the positions of prior judicial nominees, is that it would be improper to offer any such comment as a judicial nominee."

Of course, apparently it doesn't actually matter if they lie directly, since multiple Supreme Court nominees have without consequence.

[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago

I guess he's pro attacks on the government.

[–] fittedsyllabi@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Just look at his face. Can’t trust that face.

[–] Kowowow@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Looks like a combo of obama and jerry seinfeld

[–] fittedsyllabi@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

Hahahaha! Accurate!