this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2025
128 points (100.0% liked)

politics

25238 readers
2348 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 21 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

He had all the cards and gave them all away. Probably on purpose.

[–] aarRJaay@lemmy.world 8 points 2 hours ago

He had the card his Russian handler let him hold for a while so he could give them back to their rightful owner (Putin)

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Putin needs a way out. He can’t beat Ukraine, so it’s easier to have Trump get him what he wants, with the only cost being to let Trump brag about “winning”

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

The deal was made long ago.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 hours ago (2 children)
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 46 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

Read the article, her point is that if Trump could use his infamous deal making power to get Russia out of Ukraine without ceding any Ukrainian territory, then that would be a large enough achievement that she, personally, would nominate him.

But she says it because she strongly suspects it would never happen. Trump will never stand up to Putin, and will have no problem selling our Ukraine in any peace settlement.

[–] takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 4 hours ago

It would never happen, because so far everything he did his first term and this 7 months benefited the Russia.

But if he would do it, why not? That would actually finally be something worth of a nomination.

Somewhat related, but this is a great roast related to his desire of having a Nobel peace prize by India:

https://youtu.be/gO_OE5G-R_E

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 hours ago

Oh I know, I thought it was hilarious. She knew he was going to get owned at the meeting. He also didn't know how to respond when he heard she said that, lol.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

if Trump could use his infamous deal making power to get Russia out of Ukraine without ceding any Ukrainian territory

Then he'd need to offer something of equal or greater value. So... Alaska? Idfk.

Trump's deals have enriched himself, consistently. This isn't any different.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 hours ago

I don’t care about anything said by the woman who had such hubris to think she was guaranteed to win, thus running an unpopular campaign that resulted in his first term. Go away, lady.