this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2026
93 points (96.0% liked)

politics

30195 readers
2700 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Even as they rebelled against a $1.8 billion fund for President Trump’s allies, Republicans looked the other way as his administration granted him potentially lucrative tax protections.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 15 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (8 children)

I remember when I worked in a certain field, and you could pull driver record data as part of standard background checks.

However, certain individuals we had to whitelist. I'm not sure if there were others, but apparently pulling the record of a judge for a background check was not something we could do, because, apparently judges are magical creatures that are better than the rest of us.

It annoyed the shit out of me then, and things like seeing Donvict get special treatment irritate me now.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 0 points 6 days ago (7 children)

Judges tend to be very protective of info like home address, and for good reason. Data brokers and background checks tend to expose it.

[–] zurchpet@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 days ago (5 children)

But. This should apply to ANY person. I'm no judge and I too don't want to my home address found easily.

I get why the judge gets the protection. But I don't get why not everybody gets that protection too.

Data brokers as a whole should be forbidden.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Judges face a lot more active threats from people who have gotten out of prison. For most of us, being easily found is an advantage. For judges it's life-threatening

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Well, with online threats and things like "swatting", I think we could all use similar protections.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net -1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

The odds for most people if being swatted are really really low. The odds of somebody you know wanting to mysteriously drop off cupcakes are many orders of magnitude higher.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)