this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
791 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19103 readers
4081 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 50 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

311 to 114
The house has a Republican majority, you really have to fuck up for them to break the 11th commandment.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 47 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Funny story about Reagan and the '11th Commandment.'

Back in the day, a group of Dem women approached their GOP counterparts with a story about Nestle's Africa operations. Basically, Nestle was tricking poor women by giving away free formula to new mothers. The supply lasted until the mothers stopped lactating, then they had to pay full price. This meant that the babies were not getting enough food at the time they needed good nutrition the most.

The GOP women wanted the Party to stand up to Nestle, but Reagan talked thme down, and explained that conservatives shouldn't shaft one another.

Later on, Reagan attacked President Ford for sticking by the treaty that returned the Panama Canal. There was no way Ford could renege on the treaty, but it made Reagan look like a tough guy.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

Ronnie was a hypocritical bastard?! Noooooooooooooo

[–] TrumpetX@programming.dev 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ohh, that news story in "For All Mankind" makes a lot more sense. Alternate timeline, we didn't give it back.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

It was the 1980s version of 'The War On Christmas.' The treaty had been signed decades before, and handing over the Canal meant nothing strategically. WW3 wasn't going to be decided by a big naval battle. It was pure grandstanding, but Ronnie managed to orchestrate it to perfection

[–] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

Santos broke the most important commandment:

Thou shall not fuck with wealthy people's money.