this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
97 points (97.1% liked)

politics

28429 readers
2785 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 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hegar@fedia.io 28 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You don't purge the military of anyone who disagrees unless you plan to do some shit that the military would try to stop.

This move can only be read as our illegal fascist regime consolidating it's grip on power.

[–] Insekticus@aussie.zone 11 points 2 days ago

And anyone who wants to see where this goes, so read some news about the RSF in Sudan.

A well-equipped military filled with loyal men who are okay with committing atrocities in the name of their generals.

[–] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Sure, keep firing lots of experienced, talented military professionals because their opinions offend you. And replace them with less competantent sycophants. I'm sure that won't have a negative impact on the daily operations of the US armed forces! /s

[–] imrighthere@lemmy.ca 16 points 3 days ago

They don't need experience or talent to shoot you in face in the middle of the street, or put toddlers in concentration camps.

Well if we think about the truth of it they expect if someone ever got back into office that wasn't a sycophant, they will try to unify the population and not outright fire everyone that was unjustly put in these positions. If they did they will cry and scream at the top of their lungs saying it was a partisan agenda intentionally trying to split the nation and cause havoc. And every major media source in the U.S. will side with it because it will make sure the rich keeping getting richer.

The odds that the U.S. can be saved are extraordinary slim. Especially without huge changes.

If you don't arrest and punish those who betrayed the nation for their own gains, they win. If you do arrest them and punish them, their families will inherit the money and use the actions to drive as many wedges as they can for personal gain. (See turning point or whatever since Kirk got killed).

There won't be enough senators/members of the house that will upset donors to allow a complete overhaul of the tax system in a 4 year term. The U.S. may already be dead.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why are you trying to spin a fascist purge of the military as somehow a good thing?

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Didn't read like spinning it as a good thing to me, just "It's stupid on top of being evil".

Not everyone is trying to spin something some particular way. Even if they took it for a good thing, they might just not have comprehended the full implications. Ignorance, error or misunderstanding are all possible explanations.

[–] emmanuel_car@fedia.io 2 points 2 days ago

Hegseth, more than any other of his predecessors, has weighed in on the makeup of the military’s top leaders.

He would be the expert in that regard.

[–] Zier@fedia.io 3 points 2 days ago

So will we be left with all the ultra built, hairless men? What's that porn movie called again?

[–] Kevlar21@piefed.social -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] silence7@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I expect the plan is to leave in place those who favor Trump over the Constitution

[–] Zier@fedia.io 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That will leave about 25-33% of the military.

[–] silence7@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's plenty if all you want to do is bomb civilians

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

It's not plenty if you want to continue your track record of not having enemies attack you on your own soil.