this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
506 points (95.0% liked)

politics

20522 readers
3732 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Secretary of State Marco Rubio grew visibly frustrated during an ABC News interview when questioned about the Trump administration’s approach to Russia.

Defending Trump’s push for peace talks with Putin, Rubio insisted negotiations were necessary but admitted the administration didn’t know Russia’s demands.

He clashed with host George Stephanopoulos over Trump’s refusal to call Putin a dictator and the U.S. siding with Russia in a recent UN vote.

Rubio also compared Trump’s handling of Ukraine to Biden’s approach to Israel, further escalating tensions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 26 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Just to be fair: Only women can be elected president for the next 47 presidents.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 9 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Can we write s sanity test into the Constitution?

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 1 points 49 minutes ago

Wouldn't that be a dream... but it would only turn into finding the doctor that takes money for a clean test.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 14 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

Or maybe we don't vest so much power into a single psychotic ape. Maybe we have three presidents and they all have to agree before something happens, like the computers on the space shuttle

[–] HailSeitan@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago (2 children)
[–] MrVilliam@lemm.ee 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Or maybe like 200,000,000 presidents? Direct democracy go brrr.

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 1 points 49 minutes ago
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)
[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

A triumvirate?

Just a speed bump on the way to a dictatorship.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Okay how about everyone votes on everything? That actually sounds awesome.

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 1 points 48 minutes ago

It would be fairly simple to pull off with modern technology

[–] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

It sounds awesome until you remember that we can barely get half our population to vote for president most of the time and that the average voter is uninformed and poorly educated.

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 1 points 47 minutes ago

If you look at polling you often find the majority of Americans don't actually agree with much of the actions of either party, I personally think direct democracy would lead to real progress and prosperity.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

And it would be neigh impossible to manage in a very large nation with a large populace.

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 1 points 46 minutes ago (1 children)

Not really. We have a lot of connectivity, the world has never been smaller.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 1 points 42 minutes ago

I do not trust techbros to solve this correctly. It would be far too easy and tempting to game the system.

Any political system needs to be able to function separate from electronic devices as there are times when the grid fails.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I'm fine with that, as long as a sanity test gets written into the Constitution. I believe it should apply to all reps. But then if they change the definition of sanity... I don't know what the best way forward is, but it's surely not regression.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 12 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Counterpoint: Fetterman.

Dude had a stroke and stuck his tongue up Trump's asshole. Even if they pass the sanity test they could have some kind of traumatic brain injury that makes them jerks.

Plus I consider all humans to be psychotic apes who I wouldn't trust as far as I can throw them. Including myself.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 9 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Fetterman was a plant. Someone posted an article about how he actually governed before he was a national level leader.

Plus I consider all humans to be psychotic apes who I wouldn't trust as far as I can throw them. Including myself.

Fair point, and thanks for reminding me! The people who don't want it are probably the people most capable and worthy. I look forward to your filing as a candidate! 😀

Don't hurt me please. I'm only half serious, but it's exactly people with this attitude who should probably be on the ballot.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 7 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

The people who don’t want it are probably the people most capable and worthy. I look forward to your filing as a candidate! 😀

This comment made me realize I have a religious obligation to run for office. And then if I win to not do the job at all.

The major problem, one of the major problems, for there are several, with governing people is that of who you get to do it. Or, rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: It is a well known and much lamented fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarize the summary: Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job.

To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

  • Douglas Adams
[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 20 hours ago

Made me laugh. +10 for Doug reference!

[–] tonytins@pawb.social 3 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

There seemed to be quite a few who were just there to sabotage the party from within, such as Manchin.

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Manchin was the only Democrat who could win national office in West Virginia. He's the best my sad state could do.

Yeah he tanked some important votes but a Republican replacement would have voted that way anyway. At least he stuck with the Democrats most of the time.

I don't know that the excuse is for Kyrsten Sinema.

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 1 points 43 minutes ago* (last edited 42 minutes ago)

He always seemed like the Mitt Romney of the Democrats, Romney loves to take a moral stand against his party, after he'd checked with his party Whip who assures him the measure with pass without his vote.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 17 hours ago

Controlled opposition within controlled opposition, maybe.