Fire all the Trump supporters first. There are a lot of them.
this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
143 points (97.4% liked)
politics
20393 readers
3171 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah… their team won. The idea that Trump voters will be ousted first is more fantastical than an actual day dream.
Needs to be a FAFO for UPS/Fedex. How do we rebuild the postal system? 👻nationalize 👻
That's like rebuilding a forest with a match.
You
- set it alight
- watch it burn. Mourn the loss of an evolved ecosystem.
- recognize a dead zone
- dodge mudslides as things depending on solid ground also fail (ohai america)
- wait a generation (1-3 year for forests)
- see what grows -- note in the changing climate, it's not gonna be like before
I don't recommend it if things have to live there during the process.
No. It’s in our Constitution. It can’t be whisked away unless it is approved through Congress.
You're right about it not going anywhere, but its because Amazon uses USPS as a subcontractor to deliver packages that they can't deliver reliably. Not because any of the current administration give a shit about the Constitution or what it has to say about the USPS.
It can be systematically deconstructed and defunded until it no longer works and is non-functional and frustrating to use and then that used as an excuse to eliminate it.
It can't be defunded as it's not funded in the first place.
it’s not funded in the first place.
THis is why they need to recognize it's not a business but a service; like highways and criminal courts.
Brother, than can always drain it even more.
yeah, but convicted felons can't run for president, yet here we are.
Where in our law does it say they can’t? I don’t like our situation and that it is possible.
Look, we get it: felons CAN run for president because it would otherwise be a way to prevent one's opponents from winning elections. It's a rule that protects us against a cheap tactic.
And then it was weaponized.
That's what Aeternum is - I think - trying to say. I think it's the opinion that convicted felons shouldn't get to lead the country; but those still on trial may. Still, for some, this isn't good enough, and for me this is already too much.
Maybe carve out a rule that bars FUCKING TRAITORS stealing secrets, hiding secrets, and frustrating criminal investigation with co-conspirator help - hey, ma, look: a clear conspiracy to contravene national security! - from ever holding office. That's so specific it'll probably only affect Don2 and other swamp people.
You have more confidence than I in the Constitution at this point.
Who said I had confidence?
You said "no", like the constitution would prevent the end of USPS.
It does, unless Congress changes law in our current system.
I think the states would have to agree to it first, wouldn’t they? Congress can’t unilaterally modify the Constitution (thank Christ).
I think there needs to be a senate & congress vote AND a majority of states need to ratify the amendment after which the Supreme court does a review.
Elon Musk and Donald Trump are so out of touch with the basic American citizen today that I’m sure they think the Postal Service is the organization that puts up road signs and highway barriers or something
I think there needs to be a senate & congress vote AND a majority of states need to ratify the amendment after which the Supreme court does a review.
I’m not sure a Supreme Court review is an official part of the process—the SC can review the constitutionality of ordinary laws, but amendments are constitutional by definition.
Wouldn’t the Supreme Court need to review to make sure 1 new amendment doesn’t include wording that conflicts with other amendments thought? Just asking, not sure about any of these, in fact I cannot even remember any amendment ratified after the Women’s right to vote in the 1920s.
No, by definition a Constitutional Amendment would be part of the Constitution. All branches of government derive their authority from the Constitution. Simply put, the Constitution is above SCOTUS.
The Supreme Court can intercede if the process for ratification is not followed, but as long as the agreed upon process is followed there is literally nothing a judge could do.
Don't challenge him, he will EO it and nobody will challenge it so it will become real.