this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2025
344 points (99.4% liked)

News

32283 readers
5054 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has confirmed 48 of President Donald Trump’s nominees at once, voting for the first time under new rules to begin clearing a backlog of executive branch positions that had been delayed by Democrats.

Frustrated by the stalling tactics, Senate Republicans moved last week to make it easier to confirm large groups of lower-level, non-judicial nominations. Democrats had forced multiple votes on almost every one of Trump’s picks, infuriating the president and tying up the Senate floor.

The new rules allow Senate Republicans to move multiple nominees with a simple majority vote — a process that would have previously been blocked with just one objection. The rules don’t apply to judicial nominations or high-level Cabinet posts.

“Republicans have fixed a broken process,” Thune said ahead of the vote.

The Senate voted 51-47 to confirm the four dozen nominees. Thune said that those confirmed on Thursday had all received bipartisan votes in committee, including deputy secretaries for the Departments of Defense, Interior, Energy and others.

Among the confirmed are Jonathan Morrison, the new administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and Kimberly Guilfoyle as U.S. ambassador to Greece. Guilfoyle is a former California prosecutor and television news personality who led the fundraising for Trump’s 2020 campaign and was once engaged to Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

They expect Democrats to cater to people who don't bother to vote because nothing is ever good enough.

"Bold strategy Cotton. We'll see how it works out for them."

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Considering the Democrats are a minority in every single branch of government, I'd say its a bold strategy on their part to continually ignore their own base in favor of the Republican base.

[–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The base that doesn't vote for them?

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 6 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Correct, the republican base does not and has never voted for a democratic candidate in meaningful numbers. However, trying to be republican-lite does a great job of decreasing turnout with your own base.

[–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 0 points 18 minutes ago* (last edited 17 minutes ago) (1 children)

There is no "base" if they rarely turn out.

For all this talk of big progressive numbers they do jack shit.

That's no "base." The base is the people who regularly turn out in primaries who vote in all these "centrist" candidates.

Primary turnout is so low most everywhere progressives, if they were so numerous or determined, would easily overcome Democratic inertia. They don't, hence theyre not "the base."

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 points 11 minutes ago* (last edited 10 minutes ago)

Those people get scared into believing dogshit candidates like Biden are more "electable" by the MSM. They will vote as they are told in the general.

The only people you can win are the ones who hear "healthcare? Free?? I'm paying 1500/mo and still end up paying out the ass when I need to use it!", but won't turn out for "subsidies for employer-sponored health insurance on a market purchased through 1 of 50 websites" because they know that complicated, means tested bullshit won't help them.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

There's that whole thing about everything in the US taking this horrifying downwards turn right around 1970, by all these different metrics, and there's not really an obvious reason for it. I actually have one speculative theory on that: I think that in the 1968 Democratic convention, the Chicago cops beat the fuck out of a lot of the most passionate and engaged leftist activists the country had out in the street, and the lesson they took away from that (sorta reasonably, even though the Chicago cops certainly were not Democrats) was "fuck the whole political system then, I don't care, I'm out and fuck you." McGovern suffered his absolutely heartbreaking shutout in 1972, and the Democrats just stopped winning elections completely for the next 20 years, and eventually they learned their lesson and became Republicans. We went from JFK and LBJ to Clinton, and the new era of 1990s / 2000s horrors was born with no left representation anywhere in Washington.

So yeah, I agree with you. There's not really any reason to think that anyone in Washington would react to the electoral disengagement of the left by moving any direction other than right, and I think there is a good argument for a strong precedent of them moving far right and the whole country getting fucked over a barrel up to and including the present day because of it.

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Clinton only won in 92 because Ross Perot split the vote. Obama (and biden) won because people thought they were going to help them, and were further disaffected when they turned out to be republican-lite. You can't pretend dems moving right does anything but further disaffect their base. You have to really really loath your base to lose against a party as malicious and incompetent as the republicans.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 4 points 5 hours ago

Never change guys

Never change