this post was submitted on 17 May 2026
161 points (97.1% liked)

politics

29823 readers
2869 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
top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

To hide his health issues.

Now who else hid their health issues? Hitler, Stalin, Ataturk, Péron, basically lots of dictators.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Tito died weeks before anyone would admit it.

[–] dermanus@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I wonder how long it will be for Trump? I think at least a week. It'll take multiple rounds of denials, a sudden resurgence in social media content a la Herman Cain, and a sloppy AI video before they admit it. Probably at least two weeks before everyone knows it but the WH is insisting otherwise.

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

And they'll tell us he "went to his lord," as if he was resurrected.

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

Is it a hospice hospital? EOL that bastard.

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 47 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Trump can have his ballroom as soon as we repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, and expand the Capitol building to accommodate the 1500 representatives we should have using the average district size from the time.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's weird that far more helpful updates to our government like the above tend to get buried under what I consider rather a large and stupid distraction - the left seems to have mostly adopted discussion about a "gerontology" ( 🙄 ) and adopted the right's drumbeat about "term limits", sigh.

Sure, other things like voter suppression and making voting even more difficult seem to get attention, and that's good but I don't hear much about what you describe and it's a well-known problem. I think dumb things like term limits and how many times a politician has traveled around the sun get orders of magnitude more attention.

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 8 points 1 day ago

Yeah several of the ideas that they've been suggesting have zero chance of going anywhere, often because they actually require constitutional amendments.

The Permanent Apportionment Act was passed by a simple majority. It can be removed with the same.

The House is sized for the population in 1910. It created a defacto second Senate, and essentially allowed gerrymandering to become an effective political tool. That Congressional screwup needs to be fixed, and it can easily. But that requires members of Congress to give up some of their individual power.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean do you support the presidential term limit? Then why shouldn't there be one for senators? I mean you guys have a major problem where a bunch of old people with no skin in the game are running your country.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago

The two terms thing is fine in some cases; I would be fine with 4 terms or more for Obama, though.

I just don't see how arbitrarily focusing on age or term limits solves one fucking thing. We have too much money in politics. We have cases where land has more rights than actual voters. We have no ranked choice voting. And as if all that wasn't bad enough, Republicans are actively trying to make it all worse.

I don't see how having young douchebags in office would make it any better than old douchebags. In either case, they just do what the money says.

Talking about the age of representation is nothing but one gigantic distraction. If the voters think they are too old, by all means, they could show up to the primaries. If the voters think they have had too many terms, by all means, primary them.

[–] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 43 points 3 days ago (3 children)

It's all about that new ballroom. Construction has halted due to a lawsuit from the National Trust and Republicans now argue it's vital for both the Don's health and safety. You can't make this shit up.

[–] Iusedtobeanalien@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He should be forced to put the whitehouse back exactly as it was before, brick by brick and pay for it personally. Wrecking the whitehouse before the 250th is probably hilarious to his handlers in the Kremlin

[–] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The handlers:

disaster girl :: width=50%

All is going according to plan.

[–] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Imagine being so rich and entitled that you demand everyone else in the country spend $1 billion to build a facility that will (just partially) give you medical attention.

Now imagine being elected to represent the people who the rich guy wants to pay for that, and spending your term not representing those peoples' interests but instead finding new ways to justify giving the already rich guy their money.

Now imagine being the voters living paycheck to paycheck and seeing both of these things, and being like, "Well, at least it isn't Kamala."

At this point my head hurts and I can't imagine any more for some reason.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

you ain't gonna convince any of the majority of people who don't want the ballroom in the first place, to approve of a different use of the same fucking space as a facility to keep an ailing moron-in-chief alive.

[–] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Yes but now they spin the narrative that some people are actively hurting potus and endangering MAGA. Blocking the ballroom is domestic terrorism!!!

[–] AmbientDread@piefed.social 6 points 3 days ago

Trolling on a national and international level is their version of governing. Meanwhile the Rapepublibcans in Congress and SCOTUS soil the nation for generations to come

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 17 points 2 days ago (2 children)

He wants the White House to be his nursing home

[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Well, it is essentially a "project".

President Gomer

[–] ruuster13@lemmy.zip 37 points 3 days ago

If he guards it with ICE we could call it hosp-ice.

[–] BillyClark@piefed.social 32 points 3 days ago (1 children)

As a taxpayer, I'll agree to a new hospital for him if he resigns and pleads guilty to the criminal cases against him and accepts all maximum sentences and it's a prison hospital.

If he doesn't like my terms, then he can simply use a portion of all of the wealth he's grifted in the last year and build his own fucking hospital on the grounds of Mar-a-Lago.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 11 points 3 days ago

I'll agree he can go down a spider hole with a diet Coke and a cyanide capsule. As a long as nobody lets him out alive.

[–] EndOfLine@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago

"reveals secret"

[–] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 18 points 3 days ago

So the secret is the BS the administration made up after they were told that they'd need congressional approval if it really was just a ballroom

[–] Zier@fedia.io 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Hospital or Sanitarium? Please include the latest technology of padded rooms and SHOCK therapy. Lobotomy anyone???

[–] YerLam@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Lobotomy anyone???

Like getting a toothpick through an olive in a wok.

[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)
[–] meowmeow@quokk.au 4 points 3 days ago

Daily beast?