this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
268 points (97.2% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4578 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 139 points 1 month ago

Holy cow, he's gonna totally lose his next election.

Oh wait.....

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 70 points 1 month ago (1 children)

TIL Clarence Thomas’s support was ever a measurable distance from zero.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago (1 children)

he has support.

I believe they call it "product support" or "customer service" because he's bought and paid for... but he has "support"

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

Yes, but the clients who actually benefit from his decisions are a negligible fraction of the total population.

[–] Rustywhims@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago

I’d love to see the before John Oliver’s resignation/retirement offer and after. A lot of media attention came for his blatant corruption after that ingenious bit.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's strange to me that there are still 9% of Democrats who have a favorable view of Thomas. He's always been a piece of shit, we just have the receipts now, and if they still think he's OK, it makes me question their grasp on reality.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I doubt that 91% of Democrats even know anything about him. I think there's random guessing involved.

[–] Pronell@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

We watched his confirmation hearings live on TV when I was in high school.

It was in my French class, and it was because my teacher was an outspoken feminist, but she was also right to have us watch them.

More know about him than you think. It was huge huge news at the time.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The more interesting part to me is that he's also losing some republican support too

The justice saw a 10-point dip in support from Republicans as well

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 month ago

Even if he's doing their dirty political work, there's at least some nonzero number of Republicans out there who care a little about legitimate out-and-out corruption and bribery.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

He had any???

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

How the fuck could any American support that gross old treasonous fuck wit. He's a sad asshole

[–] Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Here's the problem, it doesn't matter.

[–] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

The free press is a helluva drug.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

oh no he might not get re-elec... oh.

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Remember when Anita Hill testified? Pepperidge Farms remembers.

[–] unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago

"Someone put their pubes on my coke can!", shouted an idiot with no judicial experience who became a supreme court justice.

[–] RunningInRVA@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

You don’t say