this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2024
208 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19089 readers
4512 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
[–] [email protected] 53 points 4 months ago (2 children)

If you think Trump's Agenda 47 is scary, take a look at Trump's Rule 34.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

If you think Trump's Rule 34 is scary, take a look at Trump's Order 66.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I know what this is but I’m still kind of curious to look. But I’ll never unsee goatse or tub girl so I’ll refrain. There is only so much eyebleach.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Believe me, it exists.

A lot of it is Biden x Trump or Trump x Biden too.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 4 months ago (22 children)

Remember these same assholes that started this shit in the 90's about the "Gay Agenda" converting all the children? According to that very same fear mongering, we're all supposed to be gay by now, cuz that's how that works...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

We would be if not for their efforts

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It couldn’t be that they were wrong right?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes, they were wrong. There was no "Gay Agenda" trying to convert people to being gay. That kind of dumb activity is apparently only meant for the religious nutjobs trying to turn people straight, which was and is a real thing that happens.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago (4 children)

They're being sarcastic lol

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I’d rather not ruin the joke by screaming “it’s a prank bro”

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Judging from the downvotes, people evidently really need the /s...

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] [email protected] 42 points 4 months ago (1 children)

On schools:

Safe, Secure, and Drug-Free, by "immediate expulsion for any student who harms a teacher or another student." This includes sending the "out-of-control troublemakers OUT of the classroom and INTO reform schools and corrections facilities,"

Yikes. Start rounding em up and locking them away, probably as free labor, while they're young.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

There's no need for the "probably".

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The plans include constructing "freedom cities" on empty federal land, investing in flying carmanufacturing, introducing baby bonuses to encourage a baby boom, implementing protectionisttrade policies, and over forty others. Seventeen of the policies that Trump says he will implement if elected would require congressional approval. Some of his plans are legally controversial, such as ending birthright citizenship, and may require amending the Constitution.

I’m not even shocked anymore. Flying cars?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I used to chuckle about people pushing flying cars.

Aircraft typically use their main engines to push themselves around on the ground. It’s ridiculously inefficient. If you add an otherwise more efficient drivetrain that powers the wheels, that’s added weight, added complexity, and these hybrid trains usually suck at both jobs anyhow.

Further, flying will always be more fuel inefficient because in addition to moving, you’re spending some energy on staying in the air.

The best approach, if your rich enough to afford entertaining this notion, is just to have 2 vehicles, one a car designed to do car-things and the other an aircraft (probably a far 103 compliant ultralight.)

And if you are rich enough, please please get any of the large number of quad-rotor designs that are coming out- and right me in the will. (For some reason they forgot that bird strikes shatter rotors and the disc planes are literally at neck height. Just saying. Cf this one)(also, just for the record my 150 rc helis have enough energy to decapitate you in the rotors if you disrespect it. These, when they shatter, are basically thrown straight out and are flying daggers.)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Don't worry, when people start catching up to this one, they will downplay it and start pushing Order 66.

I want off Mr Bone's Wild Ride!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes, you’d know this, too, if you’ve done any research on Rule 34.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Can we just call it Order 66 and be done with it?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Those dorks are far nerdier than that.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

Ii was hoping that I misread the title and that it was actually trump vs agent 47

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

that’s way too close to Agent 47. please don’t hurt my favorite hitman

load more comments
view more: next ›