this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
430 points (98.6% liked)

politics

25032 readers
2520 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Agrajag@scribe.disroot.org 169 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Of course she doesn't care now, she's only a few years away from retiring or dying on the job anyways

[–] mriswith@lemmy.world 35 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Retire? Oh you're funny.

She is 100% planning on dying in office. She's obviously one those people who are obsessed with leaving a "legacy". In her mind she's going to be remember as the first female member of the House and a groundbreaking feminist who made way for others, etc.

Which would have probably stuck if she'd retired a decade ago. Now she's going to remembered as a greedy ghoul who intentionally sabotaged other politicians and held back society to enrich herself. This is too little, too late.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 hours ago

a groundbreaking feminist who made way for others

Ah, right, he "woman CEO" 1970s bourgeois feminist trope. But experience has now demonstrated that here's no difference between a male and a female corrupt weasel. Capitalists are still capitalists, and their weasel mouthpieces are still weasels.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yea, I have nothing but disdain for Dianne Feinstein who did great things like 300 years ago and then held on to her position so long that it all got ruined and thrown away.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 hours ago

Feinstein never did anything significant.

[–] mriswith@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 hours ago

RBG actually did some good, unlike Feinstein. She hung on too long, but it was for honorable reasons, she just didn't live long enough for the benefits to materlialize.

[–] crandlecan@mander.xyz 76 points 2 days ago

... and has her coffers more than filled 👍

[–] Redditsux@lemmy.world 36 points 2 days ago (5 children)

This is a huge about-face by her. Why couldn't she have done this when she was still in power?

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 90 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Pulling the ladder up behind you and boomer shit, name a more iconic duo.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 37 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

She stopped supporting it when it had a real chance of passing. Performative progressivism is the Democrat way.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Nah it looks like she was for banning trades using insider trading, and against banning Congress members and their spouses from trading stocks.

If your husband/wife's entire career is trading stocks I highly doubt you'd be for such. It's hypocritical that she would be for it now though. She should have kept her stance that she had in that 2012 article, that increasing scrutiny and verifying their trades should be done to make sure no inside information was used.

[–] Gaja0@lemmy.zip 7 points 2 days ago

Nuance is always appreciated

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 29 points 2 days ago

"Got Mine, Fuck You."

[–] flandish@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

because this is not how capitalists work, simply put.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

she doesn’t care now

She still cares and if this had a chance to pass shed vote against it

We'll see neoliberals claim to want progressive policy now, because they'll never have to vote on it.

The same way Republicans spent four years demanding Epstein lists, and now that they can release them they won't.

[–] JavaStack@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Normally I'd agree, but she's one of the old boomers. She's planning to stay in power another 15 years.

[–] pachrist@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Well, kids these days only care about TikCrafts and their MineToks, so it's our fault she has to stay in power. If we cared more about governance by the people, for the people, instead of streaming Fartnight, she could learn what skibidi toilet Ohio means from her great-grandkids and know why Democrats lose there.