this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
561 points (95.5% liked)

politics

20563 readers
3862 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
[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A triumvirate?

Just a speed bump on the way to a dictatorship.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

It would be fairly simple to pull off with modern technology

[–] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 3 points 22 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 5 hours 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 9 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 5 hours ago (1 children)

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

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

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.

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

I agree that you can't blindly give someone else control over such things, it would need to be run out of gov offices with people beholden to transparency for the public and not to which ever contractor they bid.

On the offline issue, I can see your point as valid, I just don't think it's impossible, CA still does paper voting through a scantron, millions of votes can be processed with paper, there's certainly ways of getting it done in my opinion.