this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2026
163 points (97.7% liked)

politics

31071 readers
3204 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
 

President Donald Trump offered a vague answer when asked about the timing of the $5,000 “Trump Dividend” checks he said his administration would send to Americans after the midterms.

The Republican, who outlined the plan last night at the GOP’s midterm convention in Texas, spoke with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham about the check plan after his speech.

During the interview, the president was asked why he was promising to send the checks after the midterms if the money was available now.

“Because the Democrats can’t do it. Because with them, it’s negative growth. With us, it’s so positive,” Trump said. “So, we’re taking in $21 trillion. No country has ever taken in anywhere near that. It’s four or five times higher than the next one. All because of that beautiful word you and I love more than most others, tariffs.”

(It is unclear what $21 trillion the president was talking about, but neither his tariffs nor investment commitments to the U.S. have brought in that much money alone during his administration.)

top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TryingToBeGood@reddthat.com 4 points 16 minutes ago

Because he has no intention of sending them. Ever.

Why does anyone think he would?

[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 12 minutes ago

Lying liar lies again when called out on his latest lie.

[–] switcheroo@lemmy.world 1 points 8 minutes ago

That dumbass has no idea what tarriffs even are. It's a buzz word that has wedged itself intl his pudding brain.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 6 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Cause that's not how to trick people and give them nothing.

[–] Lydon_Feen@lemmy.world 16 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Completely deranged pedophile sociopath, and yet some people still think he's the second coming of christ.

[–] DrSoap@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

Or the anti-christ, but they're still into it cause its gods will.

[–] Smaile@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago

Because they're one in the same.

[–] eurodyne@piefed.world 45 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

He is lying. He’s just fucking lying. It wasn’t a “vague answer“. It was a big fat fucking LIE.

[–] Steve@startrek.website 1 points 33 minutes ago (1 children)

Is it a lie if it’s entirely incoherent?

[–] eurodyne@piefed.world 2 points 30 minutes ago (1 children)

Maybe it’s the “concept of a lie”? Lol.

[–] Steve@startrek.website 2 points 26 minutes ago (1 children)

We think hes trying to lie but hes too far gone to get the words out

[–] eurodyne@piefed.world 1 points 25 minutes ago

He can’t even get through a whole sentence anymore. It’s absurd.

[–] Wakmrow@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago

We finally got him folks.

[–] snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world 23 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

THERE ARE NO CHECKS was the right answer.

[–] dan1101@lemmy.world 45 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Word salad. It's just freeform bullshit coming out of his puckered pie hole.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 19 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Being a speech writer for him would be so frustrating. I know there's been skits done about it. Even if you're being paid for it regardless, putting any amount of work into something and then have it be totally derailed every time...

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 58 minutes ago) (2 children)

Since 2015 Japanese translators have had so much trouble figuring out what he's saying. In the first presidency, his boisterous rhetoric filled with exaggerations was hard to put in words that would sound befitting to a leader, and not be mistaken as the translators making fun of him. In more recent years, it's his frequent repetition, primitive words and even more frequent derailing into word salad tangents that he can barely finish a coherent thought that is the challenge for translators.

For years they've pretty much given up and cut it to a 2 sentence summary each time at best. Recent example article in Japanese Recent example video

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

and not be mistaken as the translators making fun of him.

Anything short of that is sanewashing him and thus a dereliction of duty on the translator's part.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 hour ago

The thing is that it was totally novel and in Japanese news on international affairs especially unprecedented, virtually everything was sanewashed in the past, so it's not surprising that media and diplomatic officials in Japan were shocked and taken aback in the first couple years.

My god that's fucking hilarious. You could not pay me enough to be a translator.

[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 14 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (3 children)

You think he has speech writers? I always thought they just wheel him on stage and let him loose.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 43 minutes ago

They just read him a chapter from mein kampf before wheeling him out and the general tone of it makes it's way into his otherwise senile rambling.

[–] egrets@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

He's definitely drilled extensively on talking points. His wittering is always a mix of the things Fox & Friends got him riled up about, attacks on people who've contradicted him, and some Quixote-esque attempt at the points he's meant to make that week.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 6 points 3 hours ago

I think he has to have something to lead into the topic. Just like LLMs, a prompt to build from, no actual thoughts beginning there.

[–] shittydwarf@piefed.ca 18 points 4 hours ago

A trump never pays his debts

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago
[–] Soulphite@reddthat.com 6 points 5 hours ago

Well you see what had happened was, remember that Fuhrer bunker.. er I mean ballroom the pedophile said was to be paid for by donors?

Congratulations, you're all donors!! It's not technically paid by the taxpayers WITH taxpayer money... just the other tax the dumbfucks who voted for this shit fail to understand who pays the tarrifs; hint, you do.

[–] bobjones1665@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

Dementia Diaper Don at his finest.