this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2025
712 points (99.4% liked)

politics

26282 readers
3432 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
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Defying a court order? Lock his ass up!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago

Or the dems can hold on and gain on both, especially with a TACO.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 11 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

this is rediculous. you guys in congress know that the country cannot remain as a stable and nice place if he is not impeached. you can't just let a president break the law constantly. impeach. impeach. impeach.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 11 points 21 hours ago

What congress? The Republicans won't even let the house meet anymore

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm so confused. I heard that people won't be getting SNAP benefits. Then I heard that two judges ordered Trump to give them their benefits after all. Then I heard that it's only being partially funded (I guess people are expected to eat only 3-4 days a week). Then I heard Trump is refusing to fund it. Then I heard the Whitehouse said it is being funded despite Trump's social media posts saying otherwise.

So are people getting to eat or aren't they?

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago

Noyes

Hard to say really, I don't think anyone knows, especially Dickwad in chief.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

Overidding his own administration after they agreed that that they can and will do the thing. Fighting in court to avoid doing the thing. Defying a court order to do the thing. All while blaming the democrats for his not doing of the thing.

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

I did not see this coming, did you?

/s for the dumb people

[–] 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

He thinks he holds the purse strings. We'll use it to carry his head to the jeu de paume court.

[–] MuskyMelon@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Go ahead and make more people hungry, their children hungry. Go ahead and find out what desperation breeds.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 8 points 17 hours ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 7 points 16 hours ago

I'm starting to think he illegally misappropriated those funds and now literally can't use them for their intended purpose cuz he's broke.

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

That money has already been promised elsewhere in some deal. Make Trump new enemies by denying his ability to pay up.

[–] Yeller_king@reddthat.com 7 points 1 day ago

I think Dems should not pass any legislation while the administration ignores the laws that already exist.

[–] DarkSideOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don’t get it, with the federal judges saying they need to pay, does he has legal power to ignore court orders

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He thinks that courts won't have the support of police to enforce it, or that the Supreme Court will simply refuse to uphold any kind of sanction.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago

But... he's right?

[–] MourningDove@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Since when did we start negotiating with terrorists?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Exactly what I said. Trump made the law irrelevant. And the Republicans cheer him for this.

[–] Auk@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Looks like TACO is back on the menu boys.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›