this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2026
142 points (98.6% liked)

politics

30069 readers
2852 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 45 points 12 hours ago

ELIMINATING Healthcare for Veterans is how we SUPPORT the Veterans!

-Republicans LITERALLY!

[–] ActualGrapesTasteGreen@piefed.zip 15 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

If we're so tight on funds, maybe we shouldn't be hiring so many new Congress people?

[–] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 6 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

tight on funds

Things are better in other countries, but this particular lie is almost universal, as are the "solutions": keep bashing minorities & slashing funding for social services to keep the gen pop entertained, while the money flows to projects rich people benefit from.

The article's topic is more ideological though; the Trump admin's continued efforts to eliminate anything LGBTQ+.

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago

New senators and representatives are slightly cheaper than the existing ones, although with a fixed size of 100 and 435 it's not highly variable.

And fixing the house at the size it was a century ago when the country was a third its current population contributed to the house.not being responsive.

[–] hopesdead@startrek.website 7 points 12 hours ago

I wonder when the day will come that a judge sees shit like this and decides anything saying woman or man should be included, just to legally fuck with the Administration. Imagine someone trying to deny healthcare or something else for trans individuals and they learn they wrote something that is legally interpreted as including CIS women and men. I’d like to see the moment that backfire occurs.

[–] The_Wumpus@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Good luck in the midterms