this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2025
363 points (98.9% liked)

politics

25858 readers
3198 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
 

Cruz is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which has oversight jurisdiction over the FCC.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz says FCC Chairman Brendan Carr sounded like an organized crime boss threatening the ABC network’s broadcasting licenses over comments by late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.

The Texas Republican also emphasized how much he hates what Kimmel said about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk — and how much he likes and works closely with Carr.

Having high-ranking federal officials threaten a network in such a way, however, is “dangerous as hell” because it presents a slippery slope that could end with conservatives facing government censorship down the road, Cruz said.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LittleBorat3@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

Did I read this right conservatives could face censorship? His problem is that it could backfire on them later?

Are they doing this checks and balances thing now that's actually their job? Wild!

[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 days ago

I am baffled by sensible words coming out of this man's mouth. Has the situation become so dire that Ted Cruz and I ended up on the same side?

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

He knows how mafia bosses sound, of course

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

The message I am getting is:

Brendan Carr is our scapegoat for this backfire.

[–] stephen@lazysoci.al 82 points 1 week ago (5 children)

because it presents a slippery slope that could end with conservatives facing government censorship down the road

Silencing speech in “the Land of the Free” isn’t really the problem to him. The problem is that the sword swings both ways.

Turd continues to be turd.

[–] stephen@lazysoci.al 46 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The shoe was on the other foot and the FCC never did this before.

[–] GuyFawkes@midwest.social 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Time to stop being the adults. Use their tactics against them, and once they’ve FINALLY learned their lesson we can negotiate normalcy with impenetrable safeguards.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There is no such thing as impenetrable safeguards. We have safeguards now but half of the government refuses to enforce the rules. We could do better but there's no getting around that level of coordinated treason. The only thing that has ever worked consistently is the fear of retribution from the people. We need to make them afraid of what will happen to them if they fuck us over. I'll leave the specifics of that suggestion to your imagination but suffice it say that they aren't afraid of us voting them out of office.

[–] GuyFawkes@midwest.social 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh sure there are; you’re just not creative enough. Laws can be written to where they can’t be overturned by less than the number of folks that voted to implement it in the first place. Consequences can be written for violating laws and rules (you’d be surprised how many things Trump has done that are illegal but don’t really have any consequences other than “don’t do that”). Enforcement powers can be granted to others who wouldn’t fall into this corruption orbit. Standing can be granted to bring charges and cases to parties that can’t currently do that. Hell, we could add a mechanism for plain ole citizens to recall POTUS and our Congressfolk/Senators.

The ultimate goals would be to take away the ability for a select few to protect others in power do these egregious violations.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

All of that stuff already exists in one form or another. Democrats just softballed their turn with power and Republicans are refusing to acknowledge their role in checking the authority of the executive branch. There is no system of government that can survive when those charged with enforcing the rules abdicate their responsibility.

[–] GuyFawkes@midwest.social 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Show me how citizens can directly initiate a recall of the President, or their Rep or Senator for that matter.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] abfarid@startrek.website 20 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Criticizing someone else’s censorship in order to defend your own right to free speech is as valid a reason as any. In fact, I’d say it’s the very point.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You're right, but only if he were being honest. Democrats wouldn't do the same. We all know that. He's just saying this because he knows it's wrong but can't be honest and say that it's Republicans who are doing this and are the issue. He's pretending like both sides are equal, and he is fully aware they aren't. He's in too deep to actually call Republicans (specifically Trump and MAGAts) out.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Sure, he might be doing it for the wrong reasons, but at least he's doing the "right" thing. Isn't that the best one could expect of him?

[–] stephen@lazysoci.al 2 points 1 week ago

Fair point! I’d’ve liked something about the whole “market place of ideas” illusion that the ruling class says exists, but I guess your perspective gets right to the quick of things.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

Credit where credit is due, he at least understands that consequences exist as an abstract concept. That's pretty rare nowadays from that side of the aisle.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Yes, but a slightly more self-aware turd than I gave him credit for before.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 49 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's your party, bro.

You guys have spent decade upon decade getting here. It's not like Taco is some kind of weird outlier. He's the most popular figure in the conservative movement and the Republican Party.

This is your party. Also don't try to both-sides what Kimmel said. Kimmel said nothing even remotely wrong or in bad taste.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Sure, but while the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend, someone willing to speak out against facism is at least another voice against facism.

Saying "fuck this guy for speaking out against facism" doesn't actually help.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 45 points 1 week ago

You can impeach him, Ted.

Take back the power of Congress. It's supposed to be a coequal branch of government.

[–] alexc@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Is he trying to rehabilitate himself as a “man of reason”? I predict at the first sign of resistance he’ll be back on the plane for Cancun

[–] mereo@piefed.ca 13 points 1 week ago

It's because MAGA should be a totally different party. I suspect It's too different even for the most hardened republicans.

[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 4 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Anyone who proudly declares that they believe fantastical things on no credible evidence AND have a Sky Daddy....

Has no place as a "leader" in civilized society.

And sure the fuck doesn't get to claim being a person of "reason"

Go back to the disease-ridden Middle Ages whence you came

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Maybe he was only expecting Donald Trump to go 65% fascism, enough so that Republicans would always be in power. He doesn't want 100% fascism because once you hit 100% the leaders kill everyone that helped them get there.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GuyFawkes@midwest.social 26 points 1 week ago (2 children)

At this point it damn well better end with conservatives facing censorship down the road. I’m so sick of Dems bending over and taking it only to “turn the other cheek” when they should be doling out punishments - it’s why the right keeps doing this. Need to see lots and lots of consequences if we ever want it to stop.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Biden had his chance to enforce the law and he didn't do anything to the people that mattered. It's too late for all that now. This doesn't get fixed at the ballot box.

[–] GuyFawkes@midwest.social 6 points 1 week ago

I think we have one last chance, maybe, next November.

HOWEVER we need to get plans in place, NOW, for what will be done if the election is rigged. I’d go so far as to say if he somehow maintains control due to the gerrymandering that should trigger it. But we need concrete plans in place so that we don’t sit around allowing them to consolidate even more power.

Personally I think we should be doing more now, but since most of America won’t seem to get behind that I/we have to sit back and wait until they wake up and just pray it’s not too late by then. But each passing day makes it harder.

[–] SethTaylor@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Yep. If ever Dems are in charge again, I better see Fox lose its licence.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They overreached. They thought they could use this as their George Floyd moment and it doesn't seem to be working.

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Because no-one cares about gun deaths anymore. If we did nothing after Sandy Hook, a Nazi getting shot isn't going to do shit to the zeitgeist.

[–] Flickerby@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Never in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine I'd end up in a timeline where Ted Cruz made a good point.

[–] MBech@feddit.dk 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

He only made it, because he fears it could potentially backfire on the fascists. He is right, but for the wrong reasons.

[–] uss_entrepreneur@startrek.website 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Ted Cruz pisses his pants because he likes the warm feeling between his legs. Fuck him.

But this isn’t bad reasoning necessarily, to use on a man in the Oval Office with the mental capacity of a 5 year old. Hell it’s the logic I use for my kid some times.

If you do this bad thing to someone are you ok with them doing it to you? No? Then don’t do that.

Pissboy is just getting on Donnie’s level, which admittedly, is very close to his own.

[–] SethTaylor@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

"that could end with conservatives facing government censorship down the road, Cruz said."

They haven't clued Cruz in about all the schemes they've got planned to cheat future elections.

[–] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Please stop the simulation, I'd like to return to regular life

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

It's not a dream, and no one is going to wake you up from it.

[–] barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Now, I have to care about Jimmy Kimmel (and I should) and agree with the human slug Ted Cruz? Weird times....

[–] Envy@fedia.io 7 points 1 week ago

That was a compliment

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

That's a beautiful merger you've got there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.

load more comments
view more: next ›