this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026
47 points (98.0% liked)

politics

28745 readers
2033 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
 

Multiple times during Donald Trump’s second presidency, Congress has debated his military authority, first in Latin America and now the Middle East. The latest test will come in the GOP-controlled House on Thursday after the Senate voted down a Democratic measure to limit Trump, at least theoretically, in the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran.

Like many predecessors, Trump claims broad, even unlimited power over U.S. forces. He approved boat strikes near Venezuela, established a naval blockade and authorized a military operation to arrest and depose its leader, Nicolás Maduro — all arguable acts of war under international law. He made noise about additional action in Greenland and Latin America, before launching a sweeping bombing campaign in Iran.

Under the Constitution, the military reports to the president. But the document grants oversight roles to Congress. Trump says he won’t sign anything limiting his options — proof for some experts that control over a civilian-led military has skewed from its original design.

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ulvain@sh.itjust.works 6 points 45 minutes ago (1 children)

Man, just imagine the amount of rampant blackmailing/kompromat that must be held on these Republicans...

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 43 minutes ago

In the case of my two state senators, I think they're both just abject cowards.

[–] Ghostie@lemmy.zip 2 points 41 minutes ago

What’s the point of Congress anymore? Just pass asinine laws that only serve to irritate people then go on vacation? Because they aren’t doing much more than that.

[–] DandomRude@piefed.social 19 points 2 hours ago

Well, that should finally make it clear that the US is a failed state where organized crime reigns instead of law and order. This has been more than obvious for a long time, but perhaps now even those who still refused to believe it will finally realize that they are ruled by a king-like mob boss whose depravity can hardly be surpassed by any other monstrous tyrant of this world.

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Someone tell me how the 2 parties are equivalent again...?

[–] leagman1@feddit.org 6 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

I still don't understand the why of the war. Is there an official narrative?

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 4 points 1 hour ago

Yeah, her started talking about it saying people are going to say he can't pay attention long enough and will get bored. Then, and you can make this shit up, immediately started talking about the gold drapes in the room and his new ballroom.

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

"Without ambition?" Senator Paul really needs to turn down that spicy rhetoric before he sets the senate on fire with his words. What a brutal takedown.

[–] archonet@lemy.lol 5 points 1 hour ago

Don't forget the stare of disappointment Schumer surely gave everyone over his glasses. I'm sure that'll show 'em all.