this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
290 points (98.3% liked)

politics

29077 readers
1596 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
 

Senate Democrats are cautiously optimistic about a potential agreement to fund the Department of Homeland Security. But it's far from a done deal.

As negotiations ramp up on Capitol Hill to end the Department of Homeland Security shutdown, Senate Democrats seem to be clinging to a particular word: reforms.

It was a term party leaders used in the context of Immigration and Customs Enforcement nearly two dozen times during a March 24 news conference.

The refrain threw cold water on a new GOP compromise to fund the critical agency — minus ICE's enforcement and removal operations — and end a crisis that has upended air travel across the country.

"Democrats are continuing to push for modest reforms," Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, told reporters. "The current Republican offer in front of us does not do that."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] uberdroog@lemmy.world 54 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Shut down airports .. what are we even talking about...shut it all down for the next 3 years...there is 0 room for negotiations until this administration is held to account and trials begin.

[–] Jimbabwe@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Seriously. As much as the shit stains in charge are fucking everything up, I’d gladly endure a total shutdown of society as a whole if that’s what it takes to cut this cancerous corruption out.

[–] triptrapper@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not making excuses for the dems complete lack of backbone, or their complicity in all the current horrors, but I do think this conversation should always acknowledge that many millions of (poor, undocumented, disabled) people would be utterly fucked during a total shutdown.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 23 hours ago

Not as fucked as they'd be if we did a shutdown and then ended it in exchange for nothing whatsoever.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today -5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I got no problem with that. I wanted to keep it locked down last Fall.

I don't like General Strikes. You think Trump is going to capitulate because we self-inflicted unemployment on ourselves? He'll just think that's hilarious.

No, instead of cutting off OUR money, let's cut off THEIR money. That hurts THEM. You want money? Dance, Monkey, Dance.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A general strike does cut off the owner class's money. How do you think they get money? They sure as hell aren't getting their hands dirty and making anything. Their money comes from our labor. Sure, it also hurts workers (which is what strike funds are for), but it's one of the few tools we have to hurt the owners.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

European nations do general Strikes because they don't have an alternative. America has the unique option of shutting off the GOVERNMENT'S money instead of our own. So why don't we do what works best for US, instead of following the tired old European model, that simply won't be effective in America?

We can try to hurt the Sociopathic Oligarchs with strikes, but they'll just spend their endless fortunes fighting back. But if we hurt the politicians badly, and convincingly threaten them with more in the future, we can make them more afraid of US, than their desire for more money from the Sociopathic Oligarchs.

I just don't see how self-inflicted wounds are going to convince MAGA psychopaths to behave. They. Don't. Care. About. Us. We can hurt ourselves all day long, and they'll just watch and laugh.

What politicians care about is themselves and their money, so hurt them in THEIR pocketbooks, not ours. That will wake them up real fast. We're seeing it right now in this partial shutdown. They are flailing all over the place, but NOTHING is working for them, and everybody knows they are running out of all their options.

The SAVE Act will NOT be passed, and DHS will NOT be funded unless they take those masks off. This is due to the Dems hanging tough and not giving up this time, unlike that shameful, humiliating surrender last Fall. THAT government shutdown should still be going on.

For me, that was the last straw for the MAGA comedy act of Schmuck & Schumer. Those two loser need to get the hook and be dragged offstage.

To paraphrase General Patton: We won't win by hurting ourselves, we will win by hurting THEM. So let's hurt them real bad, in every way possible. That will make them listen.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 20 hours ago

But if we hurt the politicians badly, and convincingly threaten them with more in the future, we can make them more afraid of US, than their desire for more money from the Sociopathic Oligarchs.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do this, but how does this hurt them? Sure, it delays them from getting things done, but that's assuming they have a strong desire to do so, not just that it's their job. They're still being paid. Stock value does hurt most of them though, which a general strike effects.

To paraphrase General Patton: We won't win by hurting ourselves, we will win by hurting THEM. So let's hurt them real bad, in every way possible. That will make them listen.

Notably, he was leading a war, where a lot of people had to sacrifice their life, not just some money. If you think they won the war without hurting themselves, I don't know what to say. Again, I'm not saying to not shut things down in the government. I think they should. I'm just also saying general strikes hurt them too, and probably significantly more.