_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
239
Im hearing: The other political party needs to stop our party, its being crazy ... this is why we did not vote for the other political party, so they can save us ... or something.
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
239 points (96.5% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
7349 readers
1744 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
- Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm hearing "holy shit, how are those dipshits so ineffectual? Why dont they use any of their power when they're the minority like mine does?".
The answer is SCOTUS is compromised. They will favour GOP every time.
The republicans dont throw their hands up and go "well the SCOTUS/Parliamentarian/Manchin>might say no, so we cant do ", they do it anyway. When Greg Abott wanted to drown children in the Rio, did the fear the SCOTUS might request he stop after the 50th child prevent him from drowning dozens of children?
When the parliamentarian told W's cronies "no you cant just do infinite reconciliation bills to stop the dems from filibustering", they just fired him, like they are talking about with the current one.
The republicans dont throw their hands up
Why would they? They've got Supreme court in their pocket since last 4 years.
Honestly, what do you want Democrats to do? They have no power. Not even popular vote which Hillary had.
load more comments
(1 replies)
So sick of conservatives breaking shit like children and then demanding liberals clean it up.
So sick of conservatives breaking shit like children and then demanding liberals clean it up.
So sick of the stupids breaking shit like children and then demanding normal people clean it up.
Ok there Obama anger translator. lol
Yeah, no. My anger at Obama is that he didn't convict anyone for the 2008 financial crisis and he killed the used car market. Don't reason in advance of your data.
not a single person they would have let be president would ever have made any meaningful convictions for the 2008 crisis, this is America we don't punish rich people meaningfully anymore because that would be bad for the rich people
We're beyond French Revolution levels of wealth disparity and literally one bad season away from a civil war and 99% of you are just memeing and calling people doomers
Our grandchildren, if we survvie to have them, will be taught this era of our history as a bloody lesson in letting sociopaths unfettered rule
load more comments
(3 replies)
Too bad, unless we leave the country we will deal with it for the rest of our natural lives. Just that every cycle the average person comes out broker and broken
There's no getting rid of them now and the coming generation being any clue, it's only going to get worse over time
Imagine a world where disliking people like Joe Rogan and Andrew Tate publicly gets your family disappeared, because that's where we're heading despite a fucktonne of idiots coming after to say 'nuh uh!' like they always do.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Letting Trump run the country into the ground is the best way to get rid of the MAGAzis.
No, because they'll immediately vote conservative the next chance they get anyway.
No amount of suffering will cure the vast majority of these people. They will be licking the boot even as it crushes their skull in their final moments.
Accelerationism has never proven to be an effective means of combatting conservatism.
The billionaire disease remains, though.
Ooh! There was an episode of the Past, Present, Future podcast a couple of months ago that touched on this very subject. Tariff policy was set by congress up until the Smoot-Hawley act, which was considered such garbage that they decided that it should be left to the executive.
Back when it was a congressional power, it was also the source of some of the worst horse-trading, as representatives from rural areas would seek protection on agricultural imports (with low tariffs on imported machinery), while representatives from manufacturing areas would seek to lower food prices and increase the cost of imported manufactured goods.
Edit: Not saying that handing it to the executive is the best plan, as we can see by what's going on now, but letting congress do it was also problematic. It's funny how a lot of us grew up with the idea that no/low tariffs are the natural order, when it's actually been a fairly short-lived anomaly in historical terms.
I’m not sure that tariffs being a constant back and forth in congress is a bad thing
Pretty sure he's doing tariffs specifically because they aren't a tax. They aren't collected by the IRS, they're collected by Customs and Border Protection, which is a division of the Dept. of Homeland Security (just like ICE). And because the head of the DHS is such a loyal stooge, whatever god-king shitstain says goes
I think it comes down to 2 parts, one being that tarrifs is what were used prior to income tax in the U.S., the time when "robber barrons" thrived and could grow their wealth easily. So the heritage foundation is trying to drive down income taxes and reintroduce tarrifs so they can legally make as much money as possible while not having that money they pull in pay for America's well being. The second I believe is that the money starts in a separate pile, and ultimately goes to the treasury still, but previously since that "pile" had far less in it before it will look like the government is collecting a lot more money when directly comparing that pile to that pile over than last 50 years. So he can say he increased our revenue by bolognanumber% to show he is doing well, while ignoring that higher costs decreased purchases which in turn decrease states income from sales taxes. So states will make less, and be more dependent on the federal government. Which if the states don't fall in line, the federal government can/will disperse funds unevenly to states who don't lap the federal governments balls.
So it comes to a game of taking from the working class and states money/rights as much as possible to keep them fully dependent while growing insanely rich, but not pissed off enough to rebel, or if they do.. not have enough resources to be able too.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The convoluted hill these morons made for themselves has actually been really satisfying. I hate these people and it’s good to know that it’s nothing but a total fucking mess inside their dumb little heads
Both conservatives and liberals don’t want people discussing how easily the Dems could put a stop to this, and that they’ve been covertly participating in all of it.
I'm neither but I'd love to hear how you believe Dems can put a stop to these tarrifs? It's either A. Presidential power (which I don't believe it is) or B. Congressional power (which is Republican majority)
load more comments
(34 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
view more: next ›