566
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2026
566 points (99.1% liked)
politics
31602 readers
3374 users here now
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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Republicans, certainly.
But I was around for the Obama first term. He was terminally West Wing brained. Fully convinced he was going to get 70+ Senators on every vote, because Lindsey Graham and John McCain and Susan Collins were his close friends.
Fucking chump.
I predict that Congress will find it doesn't have a majority to pass any useful legislation domestically.
But what they will have is an overwhelming Pro-Israel majority. Also, just enough votes to ban transgender athletes from women's sports at a national level
It's just theatre.
Obama was a community organizer, a Constitutional scholar, and holds a law degree from Harvard. It was his belief in the American system that gained him worldwide admiration and respect. We can't be protesting corruption while also criticizing the incorruptible.
"The incorruptible." You mean the guy who said he'd end mass surveillance and protect whistleblowers and then once in power he continued doing it secretly and hunted Snowden to the ends of the earth when he revealed his crimes?
It's also interesting, because historically, the figure nicknamed "The Incorruptible" was Robespierre, who is generally remembered more for the tens of thousands of deaths he caused than his inability to be bribed. But if you look at how many people died because Obama chose to prolong the hopeless war of aggression in Afghanistan, when as commander-in-chief he had the sole power to end it, he's got Robespierre's terror beat easily.
Obama should be remembered as the guy who normalized everything Bush did and prevented any real chance of ever restoring the country to normalcy. At least with Bush, he wasn't quite as good at marketing all the things he was doing, and there was some token opposition, both domestically and internationally. But Obama marketed imperialism and the surveillance state so well he had people thinking he was a progressive. Now, anyone actually calling for us to just return to the same level of civil rights we had in the 90's is a crazy extremist, because Obama was so effective in defining the bounds of the US "left."
All three of these monikers can be used to describe Alan Dershowitz.
i think its more to put a break on ww3 or being an imprisoned state at this point. i mean you can call it stuck from 'making progress'. some of us are calling it pulling the emergency break before you hit the event horizon after going careening into a black hole.
maybe wait a term before you can expect it to start going in reverse after it has slowed momentum going into self destruction.
i mean whilst were using physics terms and all that. context and trajectory are also factors you cannot ignore if you're gonna use such metaphors here.