this post was submitted on 19 May 2026
202 points (99.5% liked)

politics

29823 readers
2795 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
 

The Senate advanced legislation Tuesday that seeks to force President Donald Trump to withdraw from the Iran war, as a growing number of Republicans defied the president’s wishes.

Since Trump ordered the attack on Iran at the end of February, Democrats have forced repeated votes on war powers resolutions that would require him to either gain congressional approval for the war or withdraw troops. Republicans had been able to muster the votes to reject those proposals, but Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy — fresh off a primary election loss in which Trump endorsed his opponent — switched sides to deliver a crucial vote to advance the legislation.

The 50-47 vote tally demonstrated the small but crucial number of Republicans voting to halt the war with Iran. The legislation will get a vote on final passage, but the timing was not immediately clear. There were also Republican Senate absences Tuesday that would be enough to defeat it, if those lawmakers maintained their stance on the war.

Still, the vote showed how Republicans are increasingly uneasy with a conflict that is in a fragile ceasefire and has caused rising gas prices in the U.S.

Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska had all previously voted for similar war powers resolutions and did so again Tuesday. Cassidy voted for the legislation for the first time.

After his primary election loss last week, Cassidy returned to Washington saying that he was proud of his work to uphold the Constitution and would carefully consider how he would vote on several priorities of the Trump administration.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social 100 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Just highlights that these people don't normally vote with thier constituents in mind. Dude flipped like a switch.

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 21 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

True, and I'll take it. However it happened, let it keep happening. I hope he continues voting against everything trump wants and against every trump nominee for anything, and do anything he can do to stymie that pig. And I hope the other repubs trump has successfully primaried out will do the same. Plus there's more primaries today and more trump revenge endorsements against the incumbents, so those numbers may increase. Let's go.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world -1 points 9 hours ago

Sure sounds like he was voting to make his constituents happy instead of what he thought was best for them.

The disconnect there is why we're supposed to have a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 52 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Yet another Republican suddenly finds his conscience once he's a lame duck/out of office.

('Course, this one sounds like it might be more due to spite anyway.)

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 14 points 12 hours ago

Not to praise a republican, but a wake-up call style "oh I've been voted out, okay, let's listen to the people and do in my leftover days what they want me to do" would usually mean a level of self-reflection.

Not in this case, because here it's obvious he doesn't give a flying pigeon shit about his constituents, but at last a politician realising just a smidge too late that they were wrong is still better than a headstrong one eho refuses to see reality even on the way out.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 22 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Funny how these Republicans can only (sometimes) do the right thing once they're no longer running for reelection.

And not just this one. It's a very predictable repeating pattern. If a Republican crosses the aisle to do the right thing, 9/10 times, you can bet you'll find out they're not running for reelection next time (or their campaign has already failed).

[–] Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world 19 points 13 hours ago

What a winning smile! Go play with Uncle What's-His-Name kids! He likes to watch you workout!

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 7 points 10 hours ago

The fact that Trump can simply veto any law that limits his ability to wreak havoc on the world, means that anything less than impeachment and removal from office, is utterly pointless.

[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 13 points 12 hours ago

I wonder what the DOJ will start "investigating" him for tomorrow.

[–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 10 points 12 hours ago

so he views his vote on this not as a matter deeply affecting the lives of millions of people around the world, but as a bargaining chip he can leverage for personal gain, or in spite of personal loss

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 7 points 12 hours ago

Spite > loyalty > ethics

We've finally seen what's more powerful than their idolatry.

[–] zd9@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours ago

Fucking scum. Only chooses to follow the Constitution and will of the people when he knows he has nothing left to lose. Absolute slimy garbage politicans.

[–] lemmyng@lemmy.world 8 points 13 hours ago

What's that colloquialism about the hit dog?