politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Jon Stewart, 2028.
The problem with Reagan and Trump isn't that they were actors. The problem is that they were complete pieces of shit long before they were elected.
Actor-presidents have demonstrated a natural propensity for revolutionary disruption of entrenched attitudes. Reagan completely fucked over economic policy; Trump is completely fucking over the fundamental concept of democracy.
Imagine that same degree of revolutionary disruption moving us toward egalitarianism rather than corpo-fascism.
Zelenski worked out pretty well for Ukraine.
He's not a saint, but he's been pretty damn good by understanding.
Okay, he's not Trump, so bad is always relative.
He was handed the Russian invasion from heaven so he can be whitewashed into a saint and national hero. You can't even find a controversies section on his wiki, the corrupt fucker.
With the latest court ruling saying trump can fire anyone he's wants despite laws against it, the next Dem president should just go full tilt and fire every right wing judge, every Republican voting government employee, just straight purge and let the supreme Court try and justify why it was ok in December 2025 but not 2028. Fuck we're still have more than 3 years left of this shitty ass government.
China appears to have benefited more from Reagan's policies than the US.
Rails against celebrities in politics.
Nominates a celebrity instead.
Jon Stewart is no progressive, and some of his takes are frustratingly bad. Just this Monday, he made the case to his interviewee that there's basically nothing we can do about climate change except maybe a little carbon scrubbing after the fact.
He makes his position clear at 7:50 of that interview that he defers to climate scientists on the issue and continues to ask the writer "what can we do"? Which in my mind is all we can hope for in a politician.
It seems your referencing his suggested response at 8:30. But he then works off her response, that there is no clear path forward, which is inline with his previously stated position frankly.