this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2026
181 points (98.9% liked)

politics

30994 readers
1819 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 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.
  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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed the White House to continue construction on a $400 million ballroom project as lawsuits play out, a win for President Donald Trump as he flexes unprecedented executive power and remakes the capital in his image.

Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, “I am pleased to report that the United States Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of the Ballroom/Military Complex being built without any further contingency, doubt, or threat.”

The apparent 5-4 decision replaces a temporary order issued earlier this month, shortly before a court-ordered halt would have gone into effect.

That temporary order was signed by Chief Justice John Roberts, assigned to handle appeals from the capital. But he publicly disagreed with the latest decision, writing a strong dissent that referenced the nation’s history and said the project is likely unlawful because it hasn’t been approved by Congress.

“Today’s decision is no victory for the separation of powers.” Roberts wrote. The court’s three liberal-leaning justices agreed.

The majority, on the other hand, found the National Trust for Historic Preservation likely did not have the legal right to challenge the project.

The unsigned order pointed to government arguments that the ballroom would address national security concerns by shielding a planned underground military installation and offering a more secure structure for large events than the tents currently used.

By contrast, “the only harm the Trust claims is the offense one of its members will suffer from having to view a structure of the ‘scale,’ ‘height,’ and ‘massing’ the government intends,” it states.

top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Please let him die before it's finished

[–] spacegoat@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Demarcate it from the White House and turn it into a prison zoo to hold the fascists. You can fling poo at them

[–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 3 points 16 hours ago

If we Americans had any sense we'd see this pedo spending all this money on this while living expenses go up and up and kick out anyone even slightly associated with him.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 48 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Mel Brooks did an absurdist spy show back in the 1960s. Austin Powers owes a lot to 'Get Smart.' The show had ridiculous gimmicks like The Cone Of Silence, designed to prevent anyone from hearing conversations, including the participants. There were rotary dial shoe phones.

Never once did the comedy genius Mel Brooks come up with something as ridiculous as a combination ballroom/military complex.

[–] CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world 51 points 1 day ago (2 children)

But Hitler did, the Nazis literally built the bunker under a giant ballroom project. Wonder where old orange douche canoe got the idea.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 24 points 1 day ago

Ugh, you libs are all the same. Just because he’s invading other countries and rounding up minorities and silencing press and trying to persecute his political enemies and threatening citizens for their political views and he’s renaming everything after him while tearing down the things that made our nation good and building a bunker under a ballroom and appointing people who use Nazi rhetoric from official US Twitter accounts and in speeches and talking like we already own the whole world and they’re all being TDS when the don’t behave in such a way doesn’t mean he’s a Nazi!

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 11 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Funny how rarely you hear about Godwin's Law these days...

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

It was cancelled in 2017.

[–] obvs@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Godwin's Law literally gave cover to Nazis when people were trying to point them out.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Godwin himself said that it was okay to call MAGA Nazis.

[–] obvs@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Sure.

But I remember in the 1990s being one of the people who was calling theses same people Nazis.

It feels like Godwin owes the world an apology, because it sure would have been good to get to call those people out and not have everyone say they lost the argument, since it turns out that they literally were Nazis.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Nope.

It isn't like Trump was hiding anything.

People saw Trump for what he was and gleefully voted for him twice.

Don't try to point a finger at anyone except his voters.

[–] obvs@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

Except he tried to falsify vote totals in 2020, and we know this for a fact.

And he tried to overthrow the government in 2021, and we all literally saw this on television.

And he's trying to falsify vote totals in 2026.

And people are pretending that it's perfectly reasonable to know all of those things and to still claim that we know with certainty that in 2024 he just sat by and didn't try to do anything to falsify the data.

In the middle of multiple documented instances of him doing so.

[–] CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

Are you trying to say Trump isn’t a Nazi?

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 19 points 1 day ago

I didn't realize that was by Mel Brooks (I was very young when I watched it). Makes sense in hindsight. I loved that show as a kid.

[–] Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Add it to the teardown list

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 24 points 1 day ago

And to the Trump reimbursement list. Demolition and rebuilding costs will be coming out of his end, and he will reimburse the taxpayers for what he spent. Same with all of his nonsense, like the reflecting pool, etc. He should also have to pay for the Iran War.

[–] xenomor@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I’m not kidding when I say, I’m not voting for a Democrat for president that doesn’t have teardown and prosecute policies in their campaign platform. There are more important issues, but these are the easy things. If a candidate can’t get these right, they cannot be trusted with the more complex issues.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not sure there are more important issues. Teardown and prosecute are prerequisites for anything else.

[–] Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I agree with this. Any candidate needs the moral clarity to declare that trump is not who we are and not who we will be. That we're serious about scrubbing out his stain

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

Yeah but Harris didn’t do enough for the proletariat.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh, it's a military complex now. Sure will be interesting to learn everything they're building into this "ballroom".

[–] bunnybunny@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 hours ago

That means it’s a legitimate target right?

[–] MushuChupacabra@piefed.world 12 points 1 day ago

It's all coming down with a wrecking ball when the regime falls.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Soooo fuckin' stoopid.

The next Democratic admin should completely revamp it and point out they are doing it legally.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 day ago

No, they should tear it down immediately. Don't pretend like an authoritarian monument needs proper review before its destruction. They can take their time and submit plans for the rebuild, but the ballroom needs to come down without pussy footing around giving the Court time to decide that now it's not ok.

The only better result would be letting them say no before giving them the finger and doing it anyway because their whole lot is corrupt and illegitimate.

[–] Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 day ago

What makes you think there will be a next democratic admin? Fascists don't build bunkers and systems of authoritarian entrenchment just to leave.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

$800 million ballroom.

[–] AlecSadler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago

Hunt them down