this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
516 points (97.1% liked)

politics

24242 readers
2036 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
 

Some of the seven Democrats who voted for Noem say they'd now oppose her in the wake of Trump's aggressive deportation plans and last week's incident involving Sen. Alex Padilla.

Five days after Donald Trump's inauguration, seven Senate Democrats voted to confirm Kristi Noem to lead the Department of Homeland Security.

Nearly 5 months later, most of them are critical of her, with some going as far as to say they regret their votes.

"I'm very disappointed. I'm very disappointed in her," Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told NBC News this week. "If I were voting on her today, I definitely wouldn't vote for her."

Freshman Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., also said he would vote differently and oppose her nomination if he could do it again.

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Oh fuck off Democrats.

[–] subignition@fedia.io 11 points 2 days ago

Talk is cheap. Change your actions if you actually care.

[–] KnitWit@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I swear, this country has one party of ‘no regerts’ and one party of ‘in hindsight it was the wrong choice.’ Really great that you see the mistake, but you keep making it.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 2 days ago

Weaponized incompetence. Almost like they planned it.

[–] FireAtWill@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I've really got to wonder what passes for good judgement nowadays.

[–] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Gee that name Tim Kaine sounds familiar.. where have I heard that before?

[–] sepi@piefed.social 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why did these idiots vote for her?

[–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 2 days ago

Because the Dems are still capitalists, owned by big business donors

Don't ever think that they give a fuck about the people

[–] Derpenheim@lemmy.zip 7 points 2 days ago

Get fucked, you fucking traitors. Sadly the terrorist actually got some of the good ones instead of you corporate goons

[–] takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 days ago

TACO had the highest ratio of approved appointees, even though he had the most insane ones.

[–] ThanksObama@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago

No they don't. They did what was best for their reelection fund.

🐆🍽️ 🎭

[–] BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 days ago

If ONLY there was SOME Sort of Way they could have KNOWN that a Dog Killing Lunatic Governor would be a BAD Choice! Oh NO! MAYBE if you Donate some they'll THINK really Hard next time a Lunatic Dog Killer is Nominated!

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Uh, NO SHIT

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›