this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2026
310 points (98.4% liked)

politics

29284 readers
1958 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
 

Someone posted without an article on this. Here is the article.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 53 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

Not sure who still needs to hear this, but the Republican party are traitors to the United States of America.

They've abdicated their Congressional duties and signaled that they are fine watching this country crash and burn to give a single man the power of a king.

They aren't going to remove him.

Want him removed? Give Dems the House and Senate.

[–] bagsy@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago

8 million people showed up for no kings. You are telling me we couldn't get a chunk of them to follow a senator around to remind them who they work for?

[–] GuyFawkesV@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I’ve written all Dem candidates for Statewide and Federal office in my State, asking what they’ll do to punish these folks and strip them of their ill gotten gains. I made clear no response = no vote, primary or general.

ONE candidate responded.

I have no faith Dems will do shit.

[–] bagsy@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

That's where I am. I'd rather see tho whole thing burn to the ground that vote for another "time of healing" bullshit democrat. I want fire and fucking brimstone. Someone, a bunch of somones better serve some damn jail time or i'm never voting again.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 3 points 22 hours ago

Eyup. I often write here that citizens respect the constitution, patriots defend it, and traitors violate it. In the us anyway.

[–] CircaV@lemmy.ca 6 points 16 hours ago

The sycophants in Congress WON’T stop this because they agree with him and with everything he’s doing. Congress won’t stop his insanity.

Only things similar to what went down in France circa 1793 will stop him. That’s gotta come from the people. Not from toadies, yes men, and cultists.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 115 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (8 children)

I keep reminding people that the 25th Amendment is not the solution here, because it requires a higher bar to enact than simply impeaching the guy. You need to have the VP and half the cabinet on board to trigger it, but then the President gets his office back by simply telling Congress "Nah, I'm good". But then if the VP and cabinet still insist, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses to trigger.

Impeachment requires no Cabinet officers, and only a majority of the House (but still 2/3 of the Senate to convict).

It would be fitting, though, if for all the dumb, impeachable shit he's done, the thing that finally did it was swearing in a tweet on Easter....

[–] Soulphite@reddthat.com 72 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That would be something. Raping a whole bunch of kids, and women and countries and businesses is fine... but they draw the line at swearing on Easter...

Christians are fucking strange.

[–] GuyFawkesV@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago

You mean “Christians”.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It doesn't seem like there's an especially substantial call for the 25th Amendment, buuuuuut the 25th isn't strictly a downgrade to impeachment:

  • First, yes, impeachment is only 50% House, 66.7% Senate. Boom, out, donezo. Taking the numbers alone without any other context, that's easier than VP, majority of department heads, 66.7% Senate, 66.7% House (which is even more far-right than the Senate).
  • However, when invoking the 25th, the VP and a majority of department heads are the ones who initiate the proceedings, and there's an active, visible struggle for power within the Executive Branch.
  • If the cabinet were to effectively throw a coup (because let's be honest: none of the ghouls in Trump's cabinet give a flying fuck about his ability to execute the law and would not be in it for the betterment of the US), then it gives a major swing in credibility compared to just a House impeachment. This is especially true because Section 4 has never been invoked.
  • I would argue for this reason that, while removal of Trump by Congress via impeachment is functionally impossible, public opinion would swing wildly if Trump's cabinet started 25th Amendment proceedings, and it also puts the initial onus on Trump to establish that he's capable rather than the onus on Congress to establish that he's not (or rather, that he committed "high crimes and misdemeanors").
  • Thus, you can maybe swing for the fences with the 25th if you can convince enough of Trump's cabinet that Trump is a sinking ship (and thus Vance becomes POTUS, debatably in his own self-interest). Impeachment isn't overcoming the numbers game, but the 25th could (just potentially) change the numbers.
  • It'd be divide-and-conquer: the Democrats all want Trump out of office ASAP (obviously, because they're sane), while the Republicans in the House and Senate would be reckoning with siding with Trump or siding with his cabinet (and whoever their supporters are) – all while the general public bleeds remaining faith in Trump as even his cabinet are challenging his fitness, and while the question at hand is a lower bar than "high crimes and misdemeanors". In an impeachment trial, it would just be "Democrats or Republicans" to the Republicans.

TL;DR: The argument for the 25th is that, if you can get the ball rolling, it might actually be possible compared to impeachment proceedings which currently, inarguably, are not.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 15 points 1 day ago

Bingo.

Vance is going to want to be seen as leading the coup, not being handed the job. But it's not happening for another 10 months. First, he needs a new Congress, one who is already itching for impeachment. And if he's waiting for Congress, he's going to wait another three weeks: so long as he only takes half of Trump's term, he remains eligible for two full terms himself.

Vance will exercise Section 4 of the 25th after January 20th, 2027.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

One rebuttal I've heard in a previous discussion of this is that Congressional Republicans might have more appetite for removing him for "medical incapacity" than "high crimes and misdemeanors" because it allows the party to save face.

[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

Impeachment is a political tool, and doesn’t change anything unless removed. They won’t do that.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 85 points 1 day ago (2 children)

~~Could~~ constitute war crimes

Blowing up a school and murdering 168 schoolchildren is absolutely a war crime. Journalists need to grow a spine and stop trying to spread uncertainty by soft-pedaling this shit.

[–] zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 23 hours ago

For that you need journalists who get paid by someone else than Bezos or Ellison. Something that does not exist, as Pichai (Google) and Nadella (Bing) censor the search results in a way, so they never see any light of day.

[–] voidsignal@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No they need to tell the story from all point of views. Don't you ever think about the kid's shooters mental state? /s

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

We could possibly hurt Trump's feelings by calling him a child rapist charlatan war criminal. We need to consider his feelings as well.

[–] Hayduke@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago (9 children)

What to know about the 25th amendment? It is not going to happen for Trump. That’s all there is to know.

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Actually it just might. Republicans need to drive down the blue vote before the midterms. Voter suppression measures aren’t enough. Trump keeps threatening to die but hasn’t. If they remove him before the midterms, it could remove the motivation for dems to show up.

They may just feed Trump to his own leopards.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 11 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

It's more likely that the military will assassinate him than that Republican politicians will betray him.

[–] CircaV@lemmy.ca 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

That will never happen. He purged the military. They follow him blindly and willingly. The army is FULL of orange shitgibbon cultists.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 points 13 hours ago

I didn't say it will happen. I said it's more probable than Republicans betraying him.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Or a dark cabal poison him, etc.

Then they can leverage him as a martyr instead of fracturing the party.

They won't do it unless shit gets way way worse first.

[–] GuyFawkesV@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Oh this isn’t the bottom?

[–] HairyOldCoot@lemmy.ca 2 points 16 hours ago

There is always more down

But but but this time is different!

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] RattlerSix@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago (5 children)

This article should be titled "Five people have recently tweeted about the 25th Amendment"

One of them is Anthony Scaramucci. Why the hell do people think we need to hear anything from him?

[–] Soulphite@reddthat.com 6 points 1 day ago

Well based on the presidents actions, all governance is done over social media... maybe they're trying to follow suit?

[–] Eh_I@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

He had one whole Scaramucci to do something, and he didn't.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 16 points 23 hours ago
  1. It won't be used.
[–] areakode@riskeratspizza.com 35 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Mark my words, the 25th amendment won't even be considered until January 20, 2027. After that point, the remainder of the term is a freebie for Vance because he's still eligible for 2 full terms.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

What you are ignoring us that the new Congress will be in place by then, and as long as the election isn't ratfucked the Democrats will probably gain a slim House majority. This means not only that the Democratic Speaker will be third in line for the Presidency, but also that the Democratic House (and the Senate)will have to approve whoever Vance picks as his VP. They could just sit on it and not do anything, in which case the VP slot remains vacant, and that House Speaker is now second in line (plus, ties in the Senate can't be broken, which can be handy if Republicans still hold that.)

So, they may pull the trigger* early if they don't think the Congressional election is in the bag

*= Hey, FBI, that's only a metaphor....

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 1 day ago

Vance is going to need that new, impeachment-ready Congress in place before his coup, or his coup will fail.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Which is a good thing...

trump in office being obviously crazy will depress R turnout because their candidates have to say they agree with the crazy shit.

Dems will have a lot of "free" votes because they just have to point out how bad shit is.

Vance's personal pursuit for max power is going to fuck their movement over.

It's why we need to start making sure every Fem.politicians values party/country over their own personal.power.

[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Not to doom-reply, but…

their candidates have to say

Dems will have

[x] Doubt

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 3 points 1 day ago

Because they just have to point out how bad shit is? They did that before and Trump got elected again.

[–] MrSulu@lemmy.ml 1 points 23 hours ago

Requires Vice president and majority of his cabinet. I'm guessing (sadly) highly unlikely.

load more comments
view more: next ›