this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
898 points (99.4% liked)

politics

24544 readers
3749 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 novel and untested approach has been introduced by Democratic lawmakers in at least four states.

Democratic legislators mostly in blue states are attempting to fight back against Donald Trump’s efforts to withhold funding from their states with bills that aim to give the federal government a taste of its own medicine.

The novel and untested approach — so far introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin — would essentially allow states to withhold federal payments if lawmakers determine the federal government is delinquent in funding owed to them. Democrats in Washington state said they are in the process of drafting a similar measure.

These bills still have a long way to go before becoming law, and legal experts said they would face obstacles. But they mark the latest efforts by Democrats at the state level to counter what they say is a massive overreach by the Trump administration to cease providing federal funding for an array of programs that have helped states pay for health care, food assistance and environmental protections.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I guess a big difficulty in the way of secession could be that it was denied to Texas in the last 200 years. This attitude carries a certain momentum. That might hinder blue states from seceding as well. What do you think?

[–] Azal@pawb.social 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, but fuck Texas and it's "denied secession."

The American South plays victim every chance it can in its lost cause mythos and "look at how poor picked on we are" when they spent years pushing federal requirements like the Fugitive Slave Act on the non-slave states and got pissy when they couldn't overtake the numbers of slave states over non-slave states so they wanted to take their ball and go home, but the North wouldn't let them lea... no... wait... they fucking shot first. "War of northern aggression" indeed.

The mess we're in is the culture that created the civil war originally can't get over themselves and have mythologized themselves into the victims when they were the assholes causing the problem.

-Signed a southerner who is FUCKING sick of hearing how Texas never signed to rejoin the union every time he's near at least three Texans.

ok sorry i'm not that familiar with US history, i was just pointing it out.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What about the current administration gives you the impression historical precedent matters anymore?

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

fair point that you're making here.