this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2025
362 points (99.5% liked)

politics

26256 readers
3655 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
 

Republicans are grappling with public polls showing the public places more blame on them, rather than the Democrats, for the shutdown, even as they argue they have the moral high ground in the shutdown fight.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Republicans stress that they put no partisan poison pills in a GOP-crafted, House-passed stopgap to fund the government through Nov. 21. Democrats in the Senate have repeatedly blocked that bill as they demand that Republicans first negotiate with them on health care issues, particularly on enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies expiring at the end of the year.

Poll after poll finds that slightly more Americans think Republicans are to blame for the shutdown than who think Democrats are at fault.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] veroxii@lemmy.world 203 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If you're in government it's your responsibility to keep the government running. In most other countries if the government can't pass a budget then it's a vote of no confidence and we call another election immediately.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 99 points 1 week ago (7 children)

I think one of America's biggest fuckups was designing a system where elections can only be every four years

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 41 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Just add the way Athens dealt with this thousands of years ago. You vote twice for each representative: once to get him into office, and a second time at the end of the term to determine if he can stay or gets banished from the city.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Banishment should be making them live in Bakersfield. Nobody deserves such a wretched fate, deserved for a politician thought.

[–] krooklochurm@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No.

The correct answer is Gary, Indiana.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago (1 children)

For the presidency.

House terms are 2 years, and Senators are 6 years.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 54 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Lack of term limits fir Supreme Court judges was another big fuckup

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 38 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Even the system of checks and balances were kind of a fuckup if you think about it - the whole system just presumes that most people are acting in good faith and bad faith actors are limited to a few positions or a single branch.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The system wasn't supposed to be perfect or eternal. The founders explicitly said that they expected each successive generation to essentially rewrite the constitution. It's not their fault that we only made minor tweaks over 250 years.

[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The threshold for passing reform is too damn high. There should've been some mandatory period to make the change happen more often and easily to keep with the times. Now we're stuck with an antiquated system that still mentions slavery in its founding documents and its loopholes are so well known that someone's using it to turn this country into an autocracy.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't know that the threshold is the problem. I think the problem is that about 35% of humans are complete pieces of shit. I don't know how you account for that effectively. Expecting the rest of society to counter them seems about as reasonable of a solution as you're likely to find and that's essentially what we have now.

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

the problem is that about 35% of ~~humans~~ US citizens are complete pieces of shit

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fonix232@fedia.io 3 points 1 week ago

Shoulda made the revamp of the constitution an enforced, time-boxed process then. Currently the approximate timeframe of getting an amendment through is what, 60 years or so?

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It actually assumes bad faith actors in all positions. The failure was allowing teams. That's why Washington hated them.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm curious how teams would be prevented.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fandangalo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Correct. They cannot be separate powers but coequal without the ability of enforcement. If the military is all subordinate to the president, and Congress or SCOTUS don’t have resources to enforce their oversight of the others, then they are not coequal. They are coequal in theory, never in practice.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 6 points 1 week ago (9 children)

And for a mandated maximum age for politicians

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, instead of having a lifetime appointment, or having a specific number of justices, they could just make it so that, at the beginning of the 4 year presidential term, the President gets to nominate a fixed number of Supreme Court justices, who serve for a fixed number of years.

I heard somebody propose that system, and I can't help thinking that it would solve a lot of the problems with our Supreme Court.

There are some laws tied to the lifetime of a person, like appointing certain judges, and copyright law, and the more I think about it, the more I realize that there is always a better solution.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I think it would be better to divide up the US into four regions, with each its own president. That president gets to pick one national justice, and each region elects four justices independently of their president. Plus, the four regional presidents elect a figurehead president to represent the nation, who gets to pick an final justice. 21 national justices in total, five of them picked by their respective president. When a president is removed from office, their justice follows.

This increases the separations of powers, and allows for the national court to have their pool of justices change relatively often. Keeping the minds of our judiciary fresh is important, otherwise they fall out of touch with the citizens they are supposed to serve.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (7 children)

While you are at it, add term limits to congress and senate seats as well.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 4 points 1 week ago

Technically, I don't think supreme Court appointments are necessarily lifetime appointments. Appointments to the federal judiciary are lifetime appointments, but the constitution doesn't specify that federal judges can't be rotated in and out of the supreme Court. I could be remembering that wrong though, it's been a while since my last read through.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 56 points 1 week ago (2 children)

So Democrats are the reason the House has been in session only 20 days in the last 4 months?

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

20 days? Wow. What is a typical number?

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I wasn't sure so I went looking. It fluctuates, but 150 days a year is what I found. So that would be 50 days per 4 months. Or rather that they have shown up about 40% of the norm.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (4 children)

So for them this isn't even much different than normal. And they're still getting paid. Not that many of them need their government salary with all the campaign donations and insider trading. And guaranteed lobbying jobs at triple the salary or more after they're done.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Id say it's more than a bit different. It would be like if you or I started going into work Monday and Tuesday, and skipping Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. Except yeah, they still get paid the same. To bad we couldn't all have jobs like that.

[–] Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The crazy thing is, with the productivity improvements recently in human history, and the amount of time wasted doing what amounts to fluffing people higher up the chain with busy work or literally just sitting there work, we could all probably work notably less than we do if that work was spread equally and not wasted on bullshit like ensuring poor people feel bad.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Agreed, I think with automation and technological improvements the only way forward is to supplement people's livings based off loss of work at a national level. 200 years ago, 70% of the U.S. were farmers. 1900, 38%. 1925, ~25%. 2025, less than 2%. Sure we can say about 10% of jobs surround agriculture in some way, but that is a drastic amount of work that has been offset. If we have offset 50% of the required work needed to keep our country fed, clothed and roofed, we need to develop ways to cut the workload by half for the people, and find other activities people can partake in that aren't just about making someone else money.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Lol, guys an imbecile. Even if "millions were living in space somehow im 20 years it would have nothing but a bad effect on earth. Population growth has us set to be at 9.7 billion people in 2045 from 8.2 billion people now. So say you got 5,000,000 people in space, which we won't, you've got 1,495,000,000 more people using resources on earth, and us sending resources into space to build shit. The cost to mine resources and maintain life in space would be so much harder than doing so on Earth, yet we can't get Earth right. Terra-forming a planet is all but a myth to us at this point. We aren't making acute changes to a planet we have everything to do it with on currently. Yet they think they'll somehow convince people they can manipulate an entire planet/moon that has temperature fluctuations drastically more uninhabitable than earths. Everyone who moves to space will die, only an idiot would think otherwise. Why, because you can't make peace on earth. We are already trying to bring weapons to space. It takes one suicidal person to end their entire community in space. When have we ever known someone willing to sacrifice a life to serve a cause. Today, yesterday, the day before, for every year mankind has existed. If you don't create a peaceful utopia, it is certain death and a massive waste of resources.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 week ago

Imagine working 2 days a week instead of 5. That's a pretty big difference.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

They still get paid right?

[–] HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world 45 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)
[–] whiwake@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Gotta put a space after the #

like this

[–] HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm on Sync, I forget that others are not. My bad

collapsed inline media

[–] whiwake@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

Well, proper markdown requires a space, they should not be capitalizing that.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] skozzii@lemmy.ca 39 points 1 week ago

All of this just to hide the Epstein files.

[–] LoafedBurrito@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They are doing it on purpose to keep Congress closed forever and Donald will HAVE to make all the decisions.

This is another project 2025 power play to take rights away from Democrats and non fascists.

I think it's time to go for a walk or something.

[–] CarrmynCarnage@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

General strike. It's time.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

Has polling ever shown a majority blaming dems for any shutdown? This has been a republican tactic for a while now and it doesn't substantially hurt them. Why would they give a shit?

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 14 points 1 week ago

Love the republican we are doing nothing and its their fault. Such a modest ask to.

[–] aarch0x40@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

The more people are available to self-inform (spending cuts/layoffs) means the more they’re available for waking up. Brilliant strategy on the GOP’s part.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

For every other time Republicans withhold their vote, in order to make demands, Democrats always give them what they want...and everyone calls them weak because of it.

Does it surprise anyone that Republicans don't want to look like Democrats?

load more comments
view more: next ›