this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2026
254 points (98.1% liked)

politics

30211 readers
2393 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
 

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission are unconstitutional and overturned a 90-year-old decision that allowed Congress to shield members of certain independent agencies from being fired by the president at will.

The decision from the high court expands the president's power over many independent boards and commissions, which Congress had insulated from political pressure by saying their members could only be removed by the president for cause.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

See that's the thing. None of us were voting to commit genocide. We were voting for president.

[–] TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I was about to ask what the fuck kind of dumbass statement is saying voting for president isn’t voting for policies but the party of “nothing will fundamentally change” doesn’t really have policy so I guess that tracks for a Dem.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 24 minutes ago

You should try paying attention to politics before you criticize the politics. Like, let's help you get better arguments. It bugs me when people I agree with use inaccurate information (like the democrats not having policy) when we can criticize them for far more accurate and heinous things.

It really is that simple, you are voting for a person not their platform. The platform is the advertisement of what they might do, but we all know most campaign promises are worthless. If you are just looking at a candidate's platform and not their history you're missing most of the relevant story.

If the genocide in Gaza was my only factor I was voting on, like a lot of y'all right wingers on here seem to think it should be (strange how the sibboleths in your language match theirs) I'd first ask which candidates are likely to win. Among those, which are likely to end the genocide. None? Okay which are likely to slow it, which will ignore it, and which will make it worse. Then I ranked the candidates and got to the same spot as just saying "fuck Krasnov I ain't voting for anyone he likes or who likes him"