this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
487 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2530 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 119 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 86 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Just gonna leave this here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization)

The current president, David Bossie… served in executive positions for President Donald Trump's and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's reelection campaigns.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

As I always say;
The rivers of ruin run deep.

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

More swampy than a river imo

[–] Zink@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago

The swamps of stupidity run derp

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 48 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Thanks a lot John Roberts and Sam Alito for fucking up our politics. Citizens United may be the worst Supreme Court decision since the Civil War

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

There's a conservative group trying to use Dred Scott as a precedent to disqualify Kamala Harris. The civil war never ended, it just went cold.

[–] TheFrogThatFlies@lemmy.world 42 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Imagine this money put into public healthcare...

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Every drop helps, but the US spends around $4.5 trillion annually on healthcare. If we changed to single-payer, cut out the middle-man multi-pipeline network of private insurers thereby also lowering administrative overhead that last I checked was around 30%... We would likely achieve what most other nations are achieving at half the per-capita cost we pay now.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 38 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Citizens United.

But just a few, incredibly rich ones. So it’s like the opposite of what the name seems to imply.

[–] metaStatic@kbin.earth 22 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"We The People" never included the peasants.

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They always give these draconian laws positive sounding names. Also, all that disposable money could've be used for social programs through taxation

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What law are you referring to?

[–] GTKashi@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago (3 children)

They appear to be mistaking the shorthand for the Supreme Court ruling to be the name of a law. In fairness, bills do often have overly patriotic names that hide their paradoxical purposes.

[–] KingJalopy@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago

The ministry of Truth would never lie! It's right there in the name!

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 7 points 2 months ago

Well the same principle is at play here, since Citizens United is a deceitful name for an astroturfed, billionaire-funded organization that had absolutely no involvement from ordinary citizens.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Typically, the collection of judicial opinions are referred to as "case law" if one wanted to be generous.

[–] Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If we don't turn over the institutions of government to the highest bidder, all the ads on TV say we'll get something way worse

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 4 points 2 months ago

Like healthcare for everyone 👻

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

that is a lot of school lunches

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

So many out of work hookers and piles of cocaine disappearimg in the morning dew.

[–] Aurelius@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Are there other western countries that have a similar rule regarding money in politics? I'm not familiar with rules regarding political donations in other countries

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not really. Most actually have very strict rules about who can donate

[–] Aurelius@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Are the rules around who can donate or around how much they can donate? My understanding is that in the US, most people can donate directly to a candidate (within a limit) but you can donate unlimited amounts "indirectly" to the candidate

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

Most have rules stipulating who can, and how much and where.

In the US, that’s how it works. The caveat is that the people who fund it are supposed to be know. This is why we have PACs that act as a buffer between the actual donors and the public.

Ken griffin (the idiot billionaire in the photograph… of Citadel Securities infamy,) recently dropped millions to defeat a measure that would have seen taxed “enough” that it was profitable to do that.

Do you think it would have worked if the scare-ads said “this message brought to you by a rich fuck you all hate”?

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

After a certain point, they're just going to cut out the middle-man and say Money = Votes and allow you to bid or hold shares in the office of the President.

Citizens United and SpeechNow fucked us. Until these are overturned, along with the Electoral College and FPTP abolished, dark days are ahead for our Democracy.

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

At which point we the people would be morally and legally obligated to make that office uninhabitable.

There is always an answer. Just not always a civilized one.

[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

”Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest…”

[–] RangerJosie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

~hysterical laughter with a backing track of Ominous Latin Chanting~

[–] 800XL@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

They're all begging for the guillotine. Why keep them waiting?

[–] bhamlin@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Yeah, I keep reading that as "Megaboners"

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

y'all come on now, just cause they donated a couple billion bucks does not mean their opinion matters more than an average citizen does it?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Republicans don't want to get rid of it because it helps them against Democrats. Democrats don't want to get rid of it because it helps them lock out progressives. We're stuck with it.

[–] aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How would the Democrats “get rid of” a supreme court decision?

Proponents of which party brought the case? Appointees of which party were in the deciding majority on the court?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

How would the Democrats “get rid of” a supreme court decision?

Stacking the courts and bringing another case. Or an amendment.

So like I said, we're stuck with it.

[–] nonfuinoncuro@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

add more justices

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

SCOTUS does not need a case to reverse itself or review a law. In fact there're startlingly few rules around SCOTUS.

[–] x0x7@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Is one of them Israel and other foreign governments? Also Pfizer?

[–] huquad@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago

Pretty sure I might be on this list. Gave $20 not too long ago, so I'm about to buy some laws.

[–] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So let's see Kamala's plan to end this bullshit... Obviously Trump wouldn't, but Kamala might if we push enough

[–] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Lmao this take that Kamala is somehow immune to the realities of our political financing structures makes no sense to me

[–] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

Not immune, and not calling for her to abstain... But she could easily say she wants to change the system and how. It's not even controversial and would get her plenty of points from the left to the center.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

This is how we get rid of the Deep State! Thank you Trump's Supreme Court (who has been doing the Same Things as Citizen United but for our OTHER Rights!)!

[–] Suavevillain@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It is their country after all we are just guest/the help at this point.