this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2026
144 points (97.4% liked)

politics

31007 readers
2633 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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
 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his leadership team announced they are eyeing punishment for two House Democrats who bucked their party Tuesday.

Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington and Jared Golden of Maine broke with leadership to advance a key procedural vote that revived Republicans’ legislative agenda. The incredibly rare crossing of party lines incensed many House Democrats and top leaders who were then forced to vote on a slate of GOP priorities.

“The decision by two of our colleagues to blindside the entire House Democratic Caucus and join with the Republican majority to pass a procedural rule on the brink of failing represents a significant breach of trust,” Jeffries said in a statement with Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts and Pete Aguilar of California. “It is an action that necessitates a serious response, and we have asked the Committee on Caucus Rules to take this up in short order.”

...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Disclaimer: not an American.

It's necessary political theater. Republicans are the bad cops whilst Democrats are the good cops. Citizens tend to align to whichever party supports their personal philosophy - broadly, either working together or preventing, punishing, and purging the "bad" elements of society, both for a promised better future. Both are still cops, though, and receive their funding from the same types of interests. Sometimes the same donors. They're largely on the same team.

This keeps the majority trapped in the political sports arena, thinking things will improve if only their party can finally get their way... but they just keep getting thwarted by those pesky Demonrats/Rethuglicans! They only need to keep voting blue no matter who or red even if brain dead and support harder while compromising more, then it'll get better next term! The Democrats have been oddly inept for decades and the Republicans actively hostile toward their own constituents, but what's the alternative? Voting third party? Criticizing their politicians? Hah! That's handing the election to the other team, right? Right? They must hold the line!

So whichever party wins the majority throws their voters a bone or two, otherwise ignores their campaign promises whilst blaming the other party for it, and further erodes the overall rights of the American public, often strengthening the very rights eroding policy they earlier decried, á la Obama extending elements of the Patriot Act then signing the USA Freedom Act that furthered its aims.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

This keeps the majority trapped in the political sports arena, thinking things will improve if only their party can finally get their way

Republicans took full control and their voters ARE getting their way. They were just too stupid to realize the consequences of what they were asking.

[–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

I'd argue they're getting more than they voted for. I'm certain few of them wanted the increases in living costs and decrease in quality of life associated with the Trump administration. Otherwise, Trump wouldn't keep trying to distract and displace the blame.

Just like Democrats, they voted for the promises their candidates loudly and publicly made, and either ignored, were never aware, or severely misunderstood the effects of their politicians' past actions and what would come from their future actions. To be fair, it's vastly easier to hoodwink American conservatives. They're quite dim.