this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2025
417 points (98.8% liked)

politics

26257 readers
3073 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
 

The successor presidencies of Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden decried the power grabs Cheney pursued but mostly pocketed his gains for their own purposes. (In his case for unrestricted bombing in the Caribbean and Pacific, Gaiser cited Obama’s own marginalization of Congress to bomb Libya in 2011.) Trump now walks a red carpet of lawlessness, plutocracy and bloodshed woven by Cheney. An uncharismatic Nixon functionary—someone who might never have risen to power had Texas Senator John Tower not drunk himself out of a Pentagon appointment that instead went to Cheney—decisively shaped the destruction of constitutional governance in twenty-first-century America.

...

Cheney understood the catastrophe of 9/11 as an opportunity to accomplish and cement long-standing objectives. In the early days after the fall of the Soviet Union, Cheney’s Pentagon commissioned a study on the future course of American power from Paul Wolfowitz, an adviser who would later enjoy great influence in the Bush administration. The draft document prioritized the active prevention of a peer competitor to US power from emerging. The objective of US grand strategy would be to preserve military, economic and geopolitical preeminence indefinitely. As he would when he became vice president, Cheney relied on a corps of neoconservative intellectuals he cultivated to supply the pertinent rationales. For Cheney, the virtues of dominance were self-evident. After 9/11, they drove him to favor invading not only Afghanistan, but the unconnected country of Iraq, whose regime was an outlier in the world America bestrode. A document contained in an energy task force Cheney convened before 9/11, and that he went to extraordinary lengths to keep secret, detailed “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.“

...

In the months after 9/11, these Cheneyite lawyers, wielding their boss’ influence, created in the shadows an architecture of repression. Addington wrote a draft directive permitting the National Security Agency, in defiance of the Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to establish a warrantless digital dragnet of phone and internet metadata generated by the communications of practically every American. Flanigan, aided by Yoo, wrote the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force that made the world into a battlefield at the direction of the president. They further permitted, encouraged, and protected the CIA in launching a regimen of torture-as-geopolitical-revenge, masquerading as intelligence gathering, as well as a network of secret prisons to detain the agency’s alleged-terrorist captives indefinitely. They declared that battlefield captives could be held as “unlawful enemy combatants,” deserving none of the protections of the Geneva Convention, and corralled them, without charge, into the military base at Guantánamo Bay until an end of hostilities that might never arrive. With the exception of CIA torture and much of the wholesale domestic acquisition of Americans’ metadata, these authorities and practices, in one form or another, persist to this day.

Cheney did all of this because his deepest conviction was that the presidency was an elected monarchy. Misconstruing an argument of Alexander Hamilton’s from Federalist 70, Cheney pursued what became known as the Unitary Executive Theory. It was predicated on the idea of an unencumbered presidency empowered to control every aspect of the executive branch, regardless of any affected office or agency’s intended independence from political decisions. Cheney had understood the post-Watergate reforms from Nixon’s criminal presidency as a congressional usurpation, and he intended to roll them all back. Excluding Congress from wresting any transparency from his secret Energy Task Force was, to Cheney, part of the point. After 9/11, Yoo contended that during wartime – a circumstance conceivably permanent in a War on Terror – presidential authority is all but plenary. He likes his argument a lot less now that Trump uses it to murder fishermen in the Caribbean, but, like his Bush administration colleagues, takes no responsibility for authoring the authoritarian usurpations of power that he now bemoans.

top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 2 points 20 minutes ago

May his grave become a gender neutral bathroom so he can rest in piss

[–] melfie@lemy.lol 2 points 1 hour ago

The name “Dick” was pretty fitting, though I can think of a few names for the man that would’ve been even better.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 hours ago
[–] Foni@lemmy.zip 30 points 4 hours ago

I have never killed anyone, but I have read some obituaries with great personal satisfaction.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

I was a kid when Cheney was vice president. The main thing I remember him for is shooting his friend in the face on a hunting trip.

[–] Notyou@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 hour ago

And then his friend apologized for getting shot in the face! That shit was crazy when it happened.

[–] SpiceDealer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Powell and Cheney: Gone

Bush Jr.: Next

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

John Ashcroft?

[–] jfrnz@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

Dream bigger

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Dick Cheney is dead.

Unfortunately, Brain-Cheney will never die.

[–] Raptor_007@lemmy.world 41 points 6 hours ago (4 children)

God, can you imagine how different everything would be if Gore had won? I wish there were some way to view alternate realities.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Think bigger. This shit goes back to Wilson. Could you imagine what could have happened if Teddy Roosevelt ran unopposed as the Republican candidate in 1912?

https://youtu.be/hLiI6kXZkZI

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 22 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Very hard to say, given how cowed the Dems had become under Clinton.

The way he rolled over for Bush after a blatantly stolen election did not predict a strong presidency

[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world -1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

What a a stupid fucking thing to say. What was he supposed to do? Take over the country in a coup?

"Progressives" are the biggest Trump supporters.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 0 points 38 minutes ago* (last edited 36 minutes ago)

Maybe challenge the SCOTUS decision to call the election that was blatantly unconstitutional? Fucking anything other than just rolling over?

You neoliberals can't fathom actually fighting back.

Of course you've already been told this multiple times, and refuse to accept the reality that you are just wrong.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)
[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world -3 points 1 hour ago

You'd make a great Trumper. That's exactly how one of them would respond. Fucking pathetic.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 10 points 4 hours ago

Gore did win. It was subverted by the Brooks brothers riot and the votes got "lost".

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

I don't think it would have been better necessarily. The country was yearning for liberal establishment during the 80's and 90's and early 2000's, it was a time of rising prosperity and perceived US strength in the wake of the first Gulf War. He would have been out after one term because of Republican sabotage or they would have impeached him over 9/11, and then the next president, a Republican, would have leaned harder to the right, accelerating everything. We might have gotten Trump sooner. We have to understand the slingshot effect in this country. It's very real and I've lived long enough to have seen it over and over.

He didn't have the charisma or political capital to make effective change and influence in political theater, and at the time the idea of climate change was still very fringe and the science hadn't fully come in yet so there was a lot of room to push back on his agendas.

I think the fact that I've seen two democrat candidates lose the election while getting more votes should tell us just how deeply they have all this planned out.

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 32 points 8 hours ago

Committed some of the greatest crimes against humanity and never spent a day behind bars.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 27 points 8 hours ago

Good fucking riddance.

[–] Dialectical_Specialist@quokk.au 13 points 7 hours ago

I haven't approved of a headline so sincerely in a long time😆

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 11 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

When Patrick Leahy accused the former Halliburton CEO of rigging gigantic no-bid contracts for the company in Iraq, Cheney responded, “Fuck yourself.” He later called the exchange “the best thing I ever did.”

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 1 hour ago

The fact you never see these stories about progressives is all the explanation you'll ever need for why America is doomed.

[–] Jolly_Platypus@lemmy.world 8 points 7 hours ago

Rest in piss.

[–] frankiehollywood@lemmy.zip 6 points 7 hours ago

Ding dong the witch is dead….

[–] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Yes. So anybody who chose to not vote for Harris due to her and her campaign actively embracing and attempting to rehabilitate Cheney is 100% validated now. Right?

[–] LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Is it rehabilitating Cheney just to basically say "look at how bad Trump is, even Dick Cheney thinks you should not vote for him and vote for us."?

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)
[–] LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Wouldn't rehabilitating him mean they're saying "actually Dick was a really good guy and did a lot of good"? Or to do what they did with W. by making him much more human by talking about his art and his friendship with Michelle Obama?

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 1 hour ago

Pretending Cheney has anything useful to say was rehabilitating him. It's like quoting Hitler on animal rights.

[–] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 6 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

When you embrace him and his family and platform them on your campaign trail?

Yes.

[–] LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world -1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

If you mean embrace as in campaign with him, that never happened. If you mean tout his endorsement as a way of showing just how crazy trump was, yeah that happened.

She did campaign with Liz Cheney which was dumb but it wasn't as a "we agree on everything and have the same platform" it was all about how she disagreed on almost everything except how bad trump is. So they campaigned. It was dumb but to say they agreed is dumb when they literally talked about how they didn't in the handful of campaign stops they did together.

I also don't know what you mean by embracing his platform? Regime change? Didn't embrace. Cutting taxes for the rich? Didn't embrace. Pro corporations and monopolies? Didn't embrace.

The only argument I could see is immigration and that's a dumb campaign decision they made to say she would sign the bipartisan agreement made in the senate that Trump killed so he could campaign on the border. She also talked about pathways to citizenship which trump didn't.

It was insane to campaign with Liz but she didn't embrace her platform at all.

[–] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Cope.

I also don't know what you mean by embracing his platform?

Her platform was to have no explicit platform other than "Not Trump". The notable exception was during her commencement speech where the promises were to:

  • a. building the middle class (sic) grow our economy and lower the cost of everyday needs (sic) [Through a] middle class tax cut.
  • b. Bring back the bipartisan border security bill that [Trump] killed. ^a slight variation of the one currently being used to turbocharge ICE^
  • c. Ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.
  • d. Make sure that we lead the world into the future on space and Artificial Intelligence
  • e. Always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself

Feel free to point out any that I missed. There's at least one I explicitly didn't mention because of the weaseliness surrounding it.

Regime change?

C, D and arguably A

Cutting taxes for the rich?

A

Pro corporations and monopolies?

C and D

she didn't embrace her platform at all.

She did though.

[–] LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world 1 points 7 minutes ago

Her platform was a fuck ton of things including but not limited to increasing the minimum wage to at least 15 bucks an hour, codifying abortion, legalizing weed, introducing a wealth tax and a unrealized gains tax and hire corporate tax, going after companies that engaged in greedflation, being anti monopoly by using the FCC to push for less consolidation, put a cap on rent increases, providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, more investment in infrastructure, providing first time home buyers down payment assistance that would have helped millions upon millions of people buy houses, and pushing for lower cost to more medications by leveraging Medicare having the ability to negotiate prices. There's more but that's just off the top of my head.

Did she say those things in her commencement speech? Yup. Arguing for the most lethal military was fucking weird but was likely just her trying to take away that talking point from the right as opposed to anything being mirrored in her actual platform. Still fucking weird though.

The border bill was not a slight variation from what's currently in place unless you consider billions upon billions of dollars making ice the larger than tons of other departments, then yes those billions upon billions were a slight variation. The actual bipartisan bill included far more funding for actually working towards continuing to crack down on drug smuggling by having detection machines at ports, as opposed to just grabbing randoms off the street or at illegal crossings like the BBB.

AI also isn't going anywhere so I don't see why saying she wanted us to lead the field is a bad thing (especially since that would likely come with a lot of regulation under her as opposed to none under Trump and a desire for a full moratorium on passing any AI regulation for 10 year), nor with going to space which likely would have come with actually increasing NASAs budget as opposed to almost eliminating it entirely under Trump. Don't see how either of those are both inherently pro regime change and pro corporations and monopolies.

Almost nothing you've said is talking about embracing Liz Cheney's platform either, Liz is against regulation, Harris was for it. Liz is against higher taxes for the rich and corporations, Harris was for it. Liz is against abortion, Harris was for it, Liz is against the minimum wage increase, Harris was for it. They only seemed to line up on having a strong military and passing a immigration bill that wasn't the best but was also all they could do with Republicans in control of Congress and was a compromise and likely would have been renegotiated if she had come into office with a democratic congress. That's two things of so so many.

Also, to say that Harris was only running on not being Trump is far right propaganda and absolutely BS. She had multiple interviews about her policies, she had a whole policy page on her site, she talked incessantly about policy during the election and what she'd implement, the DNC had a policy platform that she was running on. She had a platform, it was largely positive, to say otherwise is to disregard reality.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Bleep Bloop, Trump Worse.

Shut Up Russian Bot

Bleep Bloop

[–] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Why do people like you always insist that anything conflicting with your worldview must be foreign and/or artificial?

Spoiler. The specific xenophobic call you're playing telephone with is coming from inside the house and it's coming from fuckers like Cheney.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Why do people like you always insist that anything conflicting with your worldview must be foreign and/or artificial?

More intended to parody the Lib response. I've been on the receiving end of Khive-ers blaming my poor dumb ass for their favorite candidate's humiliating defeat a week before polls were even closed.

[–] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

Lol, I literally could not tell it was meant as a parody because it is identical to many, dead serious, Lib responses ive gotten in the past.