this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2026
149 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30042 readers
2316 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
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] artyom@piefed.social 72 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Extensive planning, permitting, travel plans for thousands of spectators and intense training among the fighters would all be wasted if the event is forced to cancel, according to the Justice Department.

Those plans clearly never should have been made in the first place, so that's on you.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 12 points 14 hours ago

Also, this is the sunk cost fallacy and any lawyer should feel ashamed for making such an argument.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 10 points 14 hours ago

This is the same argument as me saying that the judge should just allow me to rob that bank because I made so many preparations already and they would all be wasted if I was stopped from robbing that bank!

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago

I really wish a judge would say, “so?”

[–] Eldritch@piefed.world 10 points 17 hours ago

This was always the kind of flight we wanted to see anyhow. Someone, anyone pushing back against this fucking fascist. The Congress could learn something.

[–] Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 31 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Why is the Justice department acting on behalf of the defendant?

[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 31 points 20 hours ago

Because at this point the Justice Department is just Donald Trump's personal law firm.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 5 points 23 hours ago

They’re not. They’re speaking on behalf of the gooberment, which is the defendant.

The plaintiffs are a watchdog organization that focuses on public corruption.

[–] BigBenis@lemmy.world 25 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

How does this man manage to fail so bad at everything except for grifting stupid people into electing him to the most powerful position in history?

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 9 points 18 hours ago

The point is to grift by any means necessary. That’s it. The definition of failure and success are different from yours.

[–] Rothe@piefed.social 14 points 20 hours ago

And grifting money. He was never a billionaire before, but there can be no doubt that he is one now.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 6 points 20 hours ago

Because that is the only thing where he really tried. There was zero effort put into making his actions lawful.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

Good. Well unless they make Don Snoreleone compete. I’d even do the pay-per-view.

[–] whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 4 points 17 hours ago

What could stop him now? Even if there was few months before the event, who would stop. him on the white house ground?

[–] Haze@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Not exactly sure what they plan to do in the next two days.

[–] garbagehead@lemmy.ca -5 points 13 hours ago

Why can we all get along, and allow MMA fighters to kick the shubba dubba out of each other?