politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:

- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Sure glad so many people opted to nope out of voting at all in 2016 and 2024 and all because "I don't care about politics" or if they did care about politics, they'd stay home because they were not presented with a perfect pretty pony and/or for single issues like gEnOcIdE jOe.
There are still Americans saying they don't care about, or pay attention to, politics. How can they be this unaware of what's happening in their own country?
Really will never understand people who won't vote (at least when its not super inconvenient like it can be? I think it can be for some idk)
I do feel like it was a blunder having Joe run again though.
at least when its not super inconvenient like it can be? I think it can be for some idk
Yeah, TBF, in my state - Colorado - voting is made very, very easy. I suppose the only way we might get even more turnout would be to have mandatory voting or voting via the Internet.
Some live in states where the vote literally would not have changed anything.
You're also arguing a negative to disprove. The statement implies more people voting would have had an alternative outcome, and that cannot be proven/disproven.
Votes say something, even if they don't tip the state. They're counted and the total is very much part of the election - whether popular vote was won is a "mandate."
More importantly a lot of folks who voted "against Israel" (Kamala, who they seem to believe is responsible for 70 years of foreign policy) then snubbed Dems down the rest of the ballot too, and those races are important.
Splitting our vote over a war that's been going on for millennia was exactly what the right wing wanted.
Fuck these uncaring pieces of shit.
Uncaring?
You really think they don't care how they ruin people's lives?
Quite the contrary. They relish in the suffering. The cruelty, as always, is the point.
Fuck them sideways with a Guillotine.
Fuck them sideways with a Guillotine.
Bone Tomahawk these fuckers!
P.S., don't look up the scene this is referencing. It's very NSFL.
But Barrett has suggested recently that same-sex marriage might be in a different category than abortion because people have relied on the decision when they married and had children.
Or, you know, because people should be able to choose who they marry. Wait, that actually applies to deciding whether to have children too!
They are similar, but she has the logic backwards. People should be able to marry who they want and have abortions because people should be able to choose for themselves.
That aside, there are SO MANY RIGHTS that come with being married that you actively deny LGBTQ couples when you deny them marriage.
For example:
Did you know that in a court case, your spouse cannot be compelled to testify against you? Speech between spouses is protected at the same level as lawyer/client or priest/penitent.
I am 100% aware of all the benefits.
Also, like the priest/lawyer/etc. there is an exception to the privilege if the spouse is an participant in crime.
I wonder if they used this logic, if people who wanted an abortion within the time frame of the ruling and finding out they were pregnant could sue.
Like - I had already conceived before your ruling on Roe vs Wade, so that decision was made based off existing laws, so I should have been allowed the abortion.
Sue for the entire cost of raising those children.
We must be living in a Scary Door episode where governments regulate entities which impact the few rather than those that impact the many.
When you read the article, it’s just that there is an appeal that’s unlikely to get picked up. Headline seems a bit hysterical.
Yeah just like they weren't going to pick up Roe v Wade right?
They said that over and over too lol
“Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned. We all know that.”
- Chris Collins, R - N.Y.
“I think the likelihood of Roe v. Wade being overturned is very minimal. I don’t see that happening, truly I don’t see that happening.”
- Joni Ernst, R - Iowa
“Well, I don’t think anybody is going to overturn Roe v. Wade … it’s a settled opinion … I doubt seriously that that’s really a legitimate concern.”
- Orrin Hatch, R - Utah
I could go on and on... Now they're saying the exact same things about same sex marriage
Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again.
Keep the government closed until it's gone for good. The US federal government is beyond worth saving. Let's start over
This is such a nonstarter, as Gorsuch was the one who wrote the opinion on Bostock. He's strong on LGBT rights. So there's a solid 5 with him, Kagan, Sotomayor, KBJ, and Roberts.
Don't worry. They will support the spirit of gay rights but will vote it down on a technicality they invent.
Seems they rejected it outright. As suspected.
Thank goodness.
