this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
715 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19144 readers
3996 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

ProPublica released a new report on Friday detailing Justice Clarence Thomas’ close relationship with the Koch brothers with previously undisclosed and extraordinarily damning new details.

According to ProPublica, the justice developed a friendship with the Kochs as they were funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into right-wing causes, many of which ended up before the Supreme Court. The brothers then used Thomas to raise money for their sprawling network, inviting him to speak at “donor events” that brought in millions of dollars.

He disclosed none of these activities on his annual disclosure forms, an obvious violation of federal ethics law.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 157 points 1 year ago (4 children)

So before, we could only assume from the preponderance of evidence that Thomas is corrupt as shit. Now we know it for a fact. And still, nothing will change because the Koch brothers own more than some SCOTUS justices. They also own most of congress.

End legalized bribery now.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 61 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let's end the Koch family fortune while we are at it.

[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Pretty sure you'd have to end the Koch family to do that. I wouldn't stop you.

[–] spider@lemmy.nz 13 points 1 year ago

And still, nothing will change because the Koch brothers own more than some SCOTUS justices. They also own most of congress.

See: George Carlin - The Big Club (NSFW)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] matchphoenix 133 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At minimum, it’s time to investigate Clarence Thomas. When the Democrats retake the house (hopefully in 2024 after the Republicans shutdown the government over nothing), they need to begin impeachment hearings in the House. I don’t care if the Senate will never remove him.

[–] wagesj45@kbin.social 38 points 1 year ago

That's right. You don't skip your responsibilities because you think another link down the chain won't fulfill their duties. You do your job and make whoever skips out on their responsibility to put their name to it. Doesn't matter if nothing practical comes of it. Integrity and faith in "the system" demands no less.

[–] pottedmeat7910@lemmy.world 99 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He and is going to take every dime they can hustle and sign off on any "Supreme Court decision" that Koch's lawyers hand to him.

And he's not even going to pretend to feel bad about it because there's not a god-danged anyone is going to do to stop it. He's a whore, bought and paid for.

[–] Holyhandgrenade@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a bit offensive to whores. They only sell their bodies, he's selling democracy.

[–] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He's selling the body politic.

[–] imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

Right so he's more of a pimp

[–] darq@kbin.social 56 points 1 year ago

Of course, none of this actually matters in the slightest unless those ethics violations have consequences.

[–] sailingbythelee@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I love the USA, but I'm surprised at how passive the average American has become. Thomas is actively making your lives worse in exchange for bribes. Where are the mass protests? SCOTUS will do nothing about it, and neither will Congress, if you don't protest.

[–] TwoGems@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Half our population is insane actually

[–] figaro@lemdro.id 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This sounds like a joke but it actually isn't.

About 30% are openly in some kind of weird suicide pact, and the other 20% will vote for the same people as them, just while furrowing their eyebrows sometimes

[–] Pappabosley@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

This is why the police force in America is equipped like an army, to quickly and violently suppress any protests. Then when you have a prison stay on your record, no more voting, struggling to get a job or even survive.

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

This POS assaulted Anita Hill and never should've been affirmed.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] transmatrix@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gamer@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've seen this term thrown around on Lemmy in different contexts, so I looked it up and the wikipedia page gives a very specific definition of that term relating to a type of economic situation. I don't think that particular definition applies in this case, or does it?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 8 points 1 year ago

It's less the economic definition than it is this:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/banana-republic

noun - Usually Disparaging.

  1. a small, poor country, often reliant on a single export or limited resource, governed by an authoritarian regime and characterized by corruption and economic exploitation by foreign corporations conspiring with local government officials.

  2. any exploitative government that functions poorly for its citizenry while disproportionately benefiting a corrupt elite group or individual.

[–] just_change_it@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It literally doesn't matter. The republicans don't care and they've gerrymandered control away from the democrats so it can't change.

Even if democrats had control it would just be more of the same bullshit with some sugar coated feel good nonsense that still funnels wealth to the real owners of the country while appearing to make a difference.

What do you do with the democratic process when the same people control the judges, the legislative branch, and the executive branch? The answer is nothing. You just continue on getting f'd like the cows we all are.

This is not a nation of the people, it's a nation of the owners.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We need to look forward to 2024, take back the House and get a 60 vote majority in the Senate, along with the White House...maybe then, things will change.

[–] bogo@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't see any scenario where Democrats take 60 seats in the Senate. The states have polarized so much, and the system favors the Republican states too much.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Unlike the House, Senate races are state wide and can't be gerrymandered.

It's going to take a major effort focused on reforming the Supreme Court to flip those seats, but looking at 2020, we flipped BOTH seats in Georgia which is about as red as it gets.

[–] bogo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

The existing boundaries of the states is their built-in gerrymander. One voters opinion in Wyoming counts 50 times a Californian.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] yournamehere@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

murica is winning and winning and winning.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›