this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
546 points (98.9% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3657 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

We knew he was a garbage human being during the Anita Hill hearings

Man, if only the head of that committee was a real leader. One willing to stand up for what is right, defend the victim, keep decorum, and allow the multiple other woman with similar complaints to testify...

Imagine if Clarance could have been kept off the court

I guess it would be pointless to look up who that was, it was 30 years ago and the Senator would have already been pretty senior to head that committee...

I'm sure he's far a way from modern politics by now, hell, he'd have to be like 81 years old now!

No reason to disturb his likely retirement enjoying his time with his family.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 months ago

Thank god we learned from that and haven't confirmed any other justices with credible allegations of sexual assault against them. Imagine where we'd be if we confirmed that clown who regularly boofed beer.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, not like he's POTUS or anything...

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

Four hours without someone feeling the need to explain the joke...