this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
324 points (99.1% liked)

politics

25634 readers
2862 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
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 90 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

What a great use of government's time and money.

Jesus, these people are such assholes. They won't root out xtian nationalists, but I guess they'll spend lots of energy on trying to find people that were expressing emotions that are....what's that phrase I'm thinking of?.....oh, yeah: politically incorrect.

When the Confederates were bitching and moaning about "political correctness", they were projecting.

Again.

They loooooove enforcing political correctness - the actual types of political correctness, not the imagined kinds.

[–] xyzzy@lemmy.today 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why would a Christian Nationalist root out other Christian Nationalists? Hegseth literally is one.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

Well, even prior to that. Hell, the Obama admin bent over backwards to cover up the report that showed that right wing extremists were the biggest terrorist threat in the United States.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

Enough time and effort, when the order to kill American "dissidents" comes in the ones that are left will be more than happy to oblige.

How many veterans and service members have said "I may not agree with what you say. But I will defend to the death your right to say it."

God damn how fucking cowardly and thin skinned these cockroaches have become.

[–] Marshezezz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 88 points 2 days ago (3 children)
[–] don@lemmy.ca 46 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Sorry, did you say “Trump is a pedophile? Because, looking at your comment where you say “Trump is a pedophile”, your position seems to be – and I could be wrong – that Trump is a pedophile. If so, you should know that I agree with your statement that “Trump is a pedophile“ due to the overwhelming evidence that Trump is a pedophile.

[–] whiwake@lemmy.cafe 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I’d like to second that motion as I too agree that Trump is a pedophile.

[–] AreaKode@lemmy.world 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] muffedtrims@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Been binging the entire series, just watched this episode tonight. Danny DeVito is a treasure.

[–] AreaKode@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

I like to picture Frank Reynolds as just a toned down Danny Devito. :D

[–] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sorry this isn't very clear. You're saying who is a what now?

[–] don@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You’re saying who

  1. trump

is a what now?

  1. pedophile
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Thank you for clarifying. Id like to reiterate your statement by repeating it in summary to make sure i understand. Trump is a pedophile.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Nah you see Trump has standards he said 12 might be to young. When asked if he has an age limit.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Doing your civic duty I see.

[–] Marshezezz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago

Gotta keep the people focused :)

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 51 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] darkdemize@sh.itjust.works 41 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Last I checked, hating Nazis wasn't a UCMJ violation.

[–] GuyFawkes@midwest.social 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Used to get the Presidential Medal of Freedom for killing Nazis, not being one.

[–] darkdemize@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I appreciate the sentiment, but for the record, the Presidential Medal of Freedom is a civilian award, so it's unlikely that anyone was awarded one for killing Nazis (although I'd be happy to be proven otherwise!). With it being the highest civilian award available, the military equivalent should be the Medal of Honor, which requires gallantry at the risk of one's own life above and beyond the call of duty.

[–] GuyFawkes@midwest.social 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

My bad, I got them mixed up.

[–] darkdemize@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago

All good, friend. Keep hating those Nazis.

[–] Octavio@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

My Grandpa was in the military, and he went to prison for being mean to Nazis.

Of course that was a German POW prison.

And by being mean I mean dropping bombs on them from his B-24.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Its literally a USCIS question for naturalization interview.

Question like: "Have you ever been a member of the nazi party", "Have you ever persecuted, or tried to persecute, anyone for religion/race/national origin/political opinions" (correct answer is "no"); "do you support the constitution and form of government [aka: Democracy, Separation of powers, etc...]" (correct answer is "yes")

If magats were assessed on this standard, they would absolutely fail (provided that the interviewers were unbiased).

Like holy shit, you could be denied citizenship or even be deported for smoking weed (since that's still illegal federally, even under democratic administrations). Like, hypothetically if you got citizenship in, say, 2016 right before trump first got elected, then they find out now in 2025 that you smoked weed in 2015, they could retroactively revoke your citizenship for the crime of violating the controlled substances act, and denaturalization happens in Civil Court where standards of proof is lower than "Beyond Resonable Doubt" (that is, assuming they even obey the law).

All that stringent process, but then we have these obvious traitors sitting on the highest office of the land. What an absolute insult to all of the naturalized citizens who swore their allegience to the constitution.

Btw: List of questions they ask: https://www.literacymn.org/sites/default/files/yes_no_qs.pdf magas will never pass this test

[–] grue@lemmy.world 29 points 2 days ago

Purging the military for ideological reasons actively harms US defense. Pete Hegseth is a traitor.

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is what one step of a purge looks like. I don't know which step or how close to an obedient and loyal military that will betray the constitution we are but one step closer.

[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (9 children)

Zeihan's take is basically that Trump is speedrunning what took Putin and Xi each ~10 years in their own countries.

He's created an information bubble around himself and removed anybody competent several layers from the top down, replacing expertise with sycophancy.

He's often wrong about details, but I think in this case he's pretty much nailed it.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago

Please hunt down and dishonorably discharge a bunch of combat trained individuals ideologically opposed to the current regime. I see no way that could backfire.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 days ago
[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You know, the real concern shouldn't be someone looking up our posts, or even who is losing their jobs... thinking about 9/11, we're really prepping ourselves up for a similar terrorist act. Pissing off everyone, losing people in charge of espionage, wasting time investigating people making fun of Kirk instead of actual threats, and so on.

[–] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

Aw no Pete, think of the ExxonMobil profits!

[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

1st Amendment rights, anyone?

Funny how the right is always the first one to attack enshrined rights as soon as they are used against them.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

goddamn I remember when living in barracks was the worst part of military service. and burn pits.

jfc, leave those poor soldiers and sailors alone already, they've got a moron for a commander in chief, a racist drunk for secdef.... trump's got them picking up trash in DC, life sucks enough for them already

[–] heyWhatsay@slrpnk.net 8 points 2 days ago

Service members can either defend the construction including freedom of speech, or they can follow the orders of a dictator and his cronies.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago

"Ready....Aim....Type!"

[–] BlueZen@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

defending the freedom to think the way they want you to think. 'murica!

Petey boy protects pedophiles.

[–] twistypencil@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Oh free speech is good if it's yours?

Release the Trump/Epstein files