politics
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
view the rest of the comments
This is the best summary I could come up with:
MAGA Republicans are raging over GOP lawmakers aiding the passage of a provision of this year's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that may allow the FBI to "spy" on Americans.
While the $886 billion bill was notably approved without the inclusion of several culture war amendments that many hard-right Republicans had demanded, it did include the temporary reauthorization of a controversial provision known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
While a selection of lawmakers from across the political spectrum have opposed Section 702 over concerns of privacy and potential abuses of power, a number of MAGA Republicans railed against reauthorization of the measure due to the FBI having surveilled a Trump 2016 campaign aide using unrelated FISA warrants.
"Here is a list of 147 @HouseGOP members who just voted YES on the NDAA without removing funding for the unconstitutional FISA courts," posted pro-Trump conspiracy theorist and former congressional candidate Laura Loomer.
"147 Republicans just voted to reauthorize the FISA 702 program that was used to illegally spy on President Trump," posted right-wing commentator Rogan O'Handley, also known as DC Draino.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) recommended that its members vote "no" this week because the bill "contains a reauthorization of surveillance authorities routinely used against Americans in violation of the Constitutional right to privacy."
The original article contains 663 words, the summary contains 218 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!