this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2026
63 points (98.5% liked)

politics

30816 readers
2545 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
 

Access options

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TryingToBeGood@reddthat.com 10 points 2 days ago

I liked Mark Kelly's response:

The Arizona Democrat has said that despite his own experience in hundreds of career takeoffs and landings, his degree in aeronautical and marine engineering and his work as a test pilot, he still would not tell Navy engineers how to design a carrier.

“Donald Trump knows nothing about this stuff,” the senator continued in the interview. “Not in any world would I suggest to the Navy to change the design of some system on a ship at this point.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/6029426-mark-kelly-donald-trump-us-navy-order-aircraft-carrier-steam-catapults/

[–] EchoCranium@lemmy.zip 22 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Military can hire an outside firm to examine the redesign issues, hand them tens of millions of dollars to do it. After a couple years just drop the issue once the orange man-child is out of office. Generals can tell him it's being worked on while changing nothing, and some senator's favorite contractor (probably General Dynamics) gets a cash windfall for doing jack shit.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 11 points 2 days ago

I think theyve been doing that periodically since 2017. Kind of run out here. The US is going to end up with a long-term capacity degradation because of this

[–] decolo@piefed.social 5 points 2 days ago

I assume that's what would have been done, but all the competent redirectors are being forced out. Maybe enough of them remain to block this.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Didn't they literally just finally get the electromagnetic catapults working correctly, years late and way over-budget?

I mean, criticism of the system was justified at one point, but throwing it out just after they finally sunk enough costs to fix it is the stupidest possible course of action. Yet again, it's as if Trump is a Manchurian candidate trying to US power on purpose.

[–] meathorse@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

He's burnt through most of the missile stockpile and now looking to take the ACs out of commission. It's like he's actively running the US into the ground so that it's like a pig stuck belly-up in the mud when the wolves arrive...

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago

Aren't their supposed to be Trump Battleships as well ?

[–] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The newer carriers use an electro-magnetic catapult system. As with all new tech, there's going to be some issues to work out at first. So there were some issues with the new catapult system... during Trump's first term.

When people suffer from dementia, some random memories will pop up in their minds and they seem to be very recent to them. And old people just generally hate any kind of new fangled technology.

[–] DistrictSIX@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

Don't forget his vendetta against magnets in general, claiming that they stop working if they get wet. Stable genius.

[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 days ago

No. Fuck off.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There is no money for this.

[–] Archimedes@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

Of course there is. It's currently used on infrastructure, social services, education etc. If that's not enough there's always people's bank accounts and 401ks.

[–] Vandals_handle@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago