politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Cynical me thinks they did this exactly because there's a pretty good chance Trump will be re-elected in the near future, and they're a-ok with Trump squeezing social media companies. Don't want to prematurely take away King Trump's power!
Trump will never get re-elected. In their minds, sure. But don't word it as if it's a matter of fact.
Trump already lost while being a sitting president. And he has lost the popular vote twice.
The majority of the American people don't want him.
Go out and vote.
Yeah, this is what convinced me. He already was president and lost as the incumbent. It's the biggest advantage you can have. He's not winning.
The average moderate voter is lazy and doesn't think about politics until a month before the election. Trump will be a way worse candidate in Oct 2024 than Oct 2020 or Oct 2016: older, fatter, smellier, more boring.
He has lost his novelty factor and now only has shock value to get attention. It will fade once people remember that he does crazy shit all the time.
It will fade once ~~people remember that he does crazy shit all the time.~~ he's dead
FTFY
Attendance at his rallies is already down. He is already fading.
Don't give me hope
Conservative super pacs have been running ads against him for months. He still doesn't have a running mate. No one showed up to support him outside his trial. Rich shareholders have cooled on him, because an erratic president will hurt stocks far more than any tax breaks or slashed regulations will help
His supporters are leaving his events because he just looks weak and incoherent - he's not even "incoherent sprinkled with buzzwords", he now just rants about himself like an old man
Mainstream media is owned by a few billionaires - regardless if they want Trump or Biden, selling Trump as a threat kept people focused where they wanted them. They've been showing as little unedited footage as possible, but even his softest softball interviews have so little that makes him look good.
I think it's ok to be optimistic, I don't think I can sit through the debate tonight, but I think the clips will be interesting
He was definitely more focused than usual, and that's problematic. It was full of bullshit, of course, but he was laser focused on the fucking border, even regarding irrelevant questions, and I feel his base will like it. Which is worrisome.
He already was president and lost as the incumbent. It's the biggest advantage you can have.
While trying to cheat. He couldn't even do that right.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.
The justices threw out lower-court rulings that favored Louisiana, Missouri and other parties in their claims that officials in the Democratic administration leaned on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view.
In February, the court heard arguments over Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express.
The states had argued that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency are among those who applied “unrelenting pressure” to coerce changes in online content on social media platforms.
But the justices appeared broadly skeptical of those claims during arguments in March and several worried that common interactions between government officials and the platforms could be affected by a ruling for the states.
The Biden administration underscored those concerns when it noted that the government would lose its ability to communicate with the social media companies about antisemitic and anti-Muslim posts, as well as on issues of national security, public health and election integrity.
The original article contains 439 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 51%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
(on standing)