this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
570 points (98.6% liked)

politics

24347 readers
4874 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
 

Useless. Time for the Social Democrats to form their own party.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hodgepodgin@lemmy.zip 23 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Representative Mike Lawler, a New York Republican, wrote on X: "This is absurd on its face. The United States has not declared war since 1942 and has conducted over 125 different military actions since that time, including in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Presidents of both parties have relied on Article II authority, as well as AUMFs [Authorizations for Use of Military Force], to conduct targeted strikes and have not been subject to impeachment. In 2011, Barack Obama conducted an 8 month campaign in Libya to topple Gaddafi."

[–] 13igTyme@lemmy.world 35 points 1 hour ago

We should have never been involved in any of that shit since WW2. 125 bad decisions don't justify an additional bad decision.

[–] Freshparsnip@lemm.ee 35 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Put him in a bigger peach this time, so he can't get out

[–] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 13 points 1 hour ago (1 children)
[–] LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world 2 points 34 minutes ago

Donnie and the giant peachment

[–] notgivingmynametoamachine@lemmy.world 43 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Primary. Every. Single. One.

[–] rindo25@lemmy.world 12 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

a P.E.S.O. for president Taco's followers, good pitch

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 30 seconds ago

I have full faith that if the DNC had the votes to remove trump, which is 67 senators and a house majority, then they would go through with this impeachment trial.

They have 47 Senators with caucus. This was never going to accomplish anything, and I'm glad we're saving this for later.

[–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 1 points 25 minutes ago* (last edited 22 minutes ago)

One taco? That'll be 128 PESOs.

Edit: that's about 6€ or $7.50 USD. These must be LA tacos.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 11 minutes ago (1 children)

Okay but if you don't remove 20 Republicans then it still accomplishes nothing. 67 Senators needed to remove Trump from office.

[–] notgivingmynametoamachine@lemmy.world 1 points 8 minutes ago (1 children)

… are you seriously implying that any gains the party makes are pointless if they don’t hit the 2/3rds threshold?

I’d sit this one out if I were you, take the time to brush up on politics and critical thinking.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 6 minutes ago* (last edited 5 minutes ago)

On the topic of Impeachment, yes, it means fuck all to primary these congressmen over not holding a silly ritual with no real consequences.

Ditto for anything that requires a constitutional amendment or defeating filibuster like undoing citizens united or passing medical for all. We need to Remove the GOP, not just get better DNC.

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 46 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

There is a new website tracking whether politicians will go on the record to be against bribery.

I wonder if they will note this?

https://www.broad-center.com/

I hate questions like this. Because for conservatives, taking bribes isn't an exclusionary issue. They would vote for the literal Antichrist if it meant they could oppress someone.

Sure they might care that their particular conservative representative not take bribes but if that representative took bribes but was also racist, they are going to vote for them.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 37 points 2 hours ago

Traitors, every last one

[–] mazzilius_marsti@lemmy.world 1 points 9 minutes ago

for all his talks, Ted Lieu still doesnt have the balls to impeach.

[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 2 points 29 minutes ago

Is there a list of names? Because if any of my reps show up on this list, I will never vote for them again.

I don't want these fucking dinosaurs running the goddamn party anymore. I want some progressives with teeth who have the backbone to fight the fascists head on. I don't care how petty or how low they have to get, I want to see them at least try.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 42 minutes ago

Why people keep thinking the democrats will ever be more than passive bystanders to corruption and greed. They benefit regardless who's in charge as long as it's not left of them

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 points 11 minutes ago

It's funny. When the impeachment attempt was announced, it was roundly condemned by Very Serious Leftists as useless and, in fact, targeting Trump for something that was not actually illegal, and thus more proof of Dem complicity by engaging in 'pointless' symbolic action instead of 'real' interference.

And now that most Dem reps seem to agree with this position, many of those same Very Serious Leftists regard not supporting the impeachment attempt also as proof of Dem complicity.

[–] sarcasticsunrise@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

Cowards the lot of them. I'm sure as well having AOC at the forefront the majority of the useless Elissa Slotkin-style useless libs squashed this out of spite

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 31 points 2 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Coolkat@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 hour ago

Damn that's true, same reasonning, same position

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 17 points 2 hours ago

They should have done it on day one and continued every day to explain to the public why it is necessary and how he is corrupt and dangerously incompetent if he remains.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 75 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

But they impeached him before, so their stance is that he got better and is no longer a threat to democracy?

[–] Jumi@lemmy.world 44 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

They just don't feel the need to hide anymore. Most of your "Democrats" are just Republicans with a different paint job.

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 19 points 2 hours ago

They are just Republicans that aren't comfortable rounding up minorities into camps. They are cool if Republicans want to do it, but they are afraid of being associated with it for now

[–] bluemellophone@lemmy.world 8 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Their stance is Trump came out of his two impeachments politically stronger than he went into them, and unless 14 GOP Senators decide to switch their allegiance all of a sudden the act of impeachment is practically useless.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 11 minutes ago
  1. It takes 67 Senators to remove.
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 189 points 5 hours ago (20 children)

Here is the full list of Democrats that voted to table the articles of impeachment.

Find yours, call them, and let them know they've failed to represent the people interests.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 15 minutes ago* (last edited 10 minutes ago)

TBH they're representing my interests pretty well in this case. An impeachment trial would have just been a huge waste of time unless 20 Republican Senators joined the 47 DNC caucus to remove Trump and I can tell you right now with a 99.9% certainty that wasn't going to happen.

[–] SerotoninSwells@lemmy.world 1 points 30 minutes ago

Thank you. One of my representatives, Gabe Vasquez, is on the list and I messaged him. Funny that he put out a press release condemning the actions of bombing Iran but doesn't want to support impeachment. What a turd.

[–] unphazed@lemmy.world 2 points 53 minutes ago

Was surprised WV wasn't on the list, then realized why and grew even more depressed.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

And then send them out to pasture like Andrew Cuomo.

It can be done. Do it enough, and you'll have a party that actually represents the people.

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 hours ago

Yup, that's what democracy is supposed to be all about giving engaged citizens the tools to change the system to reflect their values!

[–] dylanmorgan@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 hour ago

Also, if your rep is not on the list, call their office and express your appreciation that they voted to move forward with impeachment.

[–] burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 50 minutes ago

I looked up the ones in my state, and I'm just gobsmacked at how fucking ugly the districts are. I know gerrymandering is bad, but when I actually have to see it... /puke

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Don’t do this. Just primary them.

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 22 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Do both, so they know why they lost.

[–] evenglow@lemmy.world 10 points 1 hour ago

It's so other Democrats know why they lost. The message is for them but they won't get it until it starts happening.

[–] st3ph3n@midwest.social 13 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

God damn it. My local rep is one of those assholes.

[–] burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 51 minutes ago

Start beating on those primary drums.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 54 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

Ro Khanna doing his standard move of cycling back and forth between pretending to be a progressive and just being utterly spineless.

I truly hope "refused to impeach President Trump" becomes a purity test in the next primary. That's a lot of incumbents to kick to the curb, but with this vote it's well warranted.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 2 points 1 hour ago

Seems an own goal. It's not like it was going to pass anyway, since every single republican unsurprisingly turned it down.

load more comments
view more: next ›