this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
874 points (99.5% liked)

politics

24443 readers
2961 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 hour ago

Laws not mattering anymore works both ways.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

California needs to get on this

[–] Lucelu2@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 hour ago

Honestly, states can change their rules... and enshrine and encourage/incentivise communal ownerships... like Co-ops, B-Corps, etc. in which there is not actual US currency involved but state sponsored services provided with credits (like HC, Agriculture) -- people could exchanged things and labor for those credits. Those who are disabled would fall under a social safety net and do some things that they are able to do to acquire credits but on a different level and our collective labor should cover our vulnerable and disabled of every age.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 36 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

This sounds like dissolving the union with extra steps ngl

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 31 points 4 hours ago

And?

Blue states can only continue supporting red states that bite the hand that feeds for so long.

And in this case, biting the hand that feeds involves removing human rights.

So yeah. It's time to balkanize. Blue states will be fine. Red states can suffer and die for supporting a traitor and his treasonous party.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 25 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Honestly, we need to dissolve the union at this point. It's just common sense.

Look, it's time for a reality check. When a nation's political culture becomes this dysfunctional, there's no bringing it back, not without some massive bloody civil war that leaves millions dead. What they don't teach you in school is that every written law or constitution is ultimately meaningless. The Constitution does not enforce itself and neither does any law. They all require a certain amount of good-faith interpretation. It is always possible to come up with a strained bad-faith interpretation of any law that will allow you to do whatever you want. But in a healthy political system, this doesn't happen. Both sides practice restraint and realize that their overreach will be answered by overreach on the other side.

But if you lose that? The nation is effectively shattered. The United States, as a functioning democracy, is already dead. It's zombie corpse is just limping along. The president is openly defying the laws passed by Congress. The Supreme Court is openly corrupt, openly partisan, and ignoring the plain language of the constitution. It's all just might makes right now, and both parties view the other as fundamentally wicked and illegitimate.

Once your politics have decayed this much, there is no bringing it back. We need to peacefully dissolve the United States. Will it be easy? No. But we also shouldn't let one of our core national character flaws - American exceptionalism, blind us to the possibilities that exist. Plenty of nations have peacefully dissolved before. And they find ways to negotiate the hard issues like dividing assets, debts, obligations, military forces, etc. This has been done before, and it can be done again.

When this comes up, the "umm aktually" crowd also comes out of the woodwork. They'll point out that there's no actual constitutional mechanism to do this. These people are blind or have been asleep the last six months. You would think they would learn by now that all it takes to do something is that there not be anyone there to stop you.

We should grant all 50 states full independence. Just disband the existing federal government entirely. Let the states then come back together in whatever new nation or nations they want to form. How can this be done legally? Simple. Someone just needs to run for president on the platform of national dissolution, saying, "I'll grant all 50 states independence. I'll fire every federal employee, and I will not use any military force to stop all the states from seceding." And then they get elected and simply do that. Congress or SCOTUS can complain all they want; it won't matter. That candidate if elected would have an overwhelming political mandate, and there would be no way to stop them. Some may whine that it's unconstitutional, but who cares? It's pretty obvious by now that the Constitution is broken, obsolete, and no longer worth respecting. We're walking away from that broken obsolete piece of trash. We can do better.

[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

So true. What we are experiencing now is the "new normal", and electing Joe Biden proved that we can't restore sanity just by voting a democrat in office. Every time we get a conservative from now on, we should expect more of this wacky Trumpian bullshit, even if Trump isn't at the helm.

There are, as you said, only two way of actually fixing the problem. All-out civil war, which nobody really wants and may not culminate in actually winning, or untethering ourselves from the minority party currently running the failed state by seceding, preferably peacefully. That presents it's own unique challenges and problems, but it's by far a better solution than continuing to course correct the sinking ship like we are now. We will only drown with the captain and his crew of morons who intend to go down with the ship.

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 10 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

I'm in.

Because you're right. Once Pandora's Box is open, that's it.

The Constitution has been nullified by not being adhered to. Our branches and Congress have ceded their power to what is effectively a king. Our Supreme Court justices have been proven to have taken bribes and are passing rulings completely in opposition to the Constitution without providing reasoning. The bar for president has been lowered to gutter-level. And a significant portion of our populace has been radicalized by lies from propaganda networks.

It's over. There is no coming back from this. You can't legislate your way back to reality because we'll never have the numbers necessary in Congress to make it happen and the president has been given the powers of a king.

It's balkanization for the Un-united States or total collapse across the board as we all cling to each other as we drown. I'm voting for balkanization.

I know it's something that's going to take people a lot of time to wrap their minds around, but the United States as we've always known it is over. This is what happens when you let conservatives have too much power.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Un-united

There's a word for that - divided.

Also, +1 for dissolving the Union. We had a good run, it's over.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It need not even be over permanently. Many nations have come together, broken apart, just to come back together again in the future. Look at how many times China has gone through that cycle. Look at German dissolution and reunification. I imagine some time apart would do the nation and its various political factions a lot of good. And probably in a generation or two, a movement would likely develop to try to bring things back together again. The idea of united America isn't going anywhere. But our present form of government just isn't what is needed to produce that unity. The Constitution is a collection of compromises meant to satisfy the needs of the 1780s. Perhaps in the 2080s, a new attempt can be made, a new set of compromises forged, and the nation rebuilt. If nothing else, an EU-style customs and open boarder union between the states would likely be implemented even from the time of first dissolution.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Well, the US as we know it is over. I'd certainly never trust having a federal government with as much power as it does currently again, reunited or no.

[–] PTSDwarrior@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t want to be in a union ruled by a mad king. BTW, I joined the California National Party, check them out: Vote CNP.

They are running a candidate for the California governor’s election next year. California Democrats are weak AF, and have no idea that the mad king is about to rape them. CNP wants California to peacefully leave the union, but know that it may not be so peaceful.

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

CNP wants California to peacefully leave the union, but know that it may not be so peaceful.

California needs to create and fund a state militia. We need to convince Oregon and Washington to do the same and then have those militias train and work together.

The Constitution allows for militias. Not that the Constitution matters anymore. So we should do it anyway.

[–] PTSDwarrior@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I have been trying to convey that to more senior party members. They take their inspiration from the Scottish National Party, which has worked nonviolently to regain some form of autonomy. I have said though that we may need to consider the Irish way. But even they went the peaceful route in the end, not having gained much.

My thought is America is a warmongering nation. It “won” the west that way, and it will not easily give up the west without murdering millions of people. They will definitely attempt a genocide of Natives, Latinos and Blacks that live in the west coast states.

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

As an Englishman, the IRA were fairly critical to the political results. They kept the UK government from running roughshod over the Irish political parties.

The IRA proved they were willing to cross critical lines (bombs aimed at large scale civilian damage on English soil etc). They also demonstrated restraint. They often provided warnings ahead of time. They focused on disruption not casualties. The underlying threat was clear however. If you (UK government) escalate too far, it's simple to switch from a bomb aimed at destroying a high street of shops, to one aimed at killing a high street of Christmas shoppers.

The end result was that Irish politics stayed in the public eye, and the government took the safer path of negotiating in good faith. No-one was particularly happy with the results, but no-one was excessively unhappy with them either. Often the best you can hope for.

In short, the credible threat is required to keep all parties honest. Most smart governments will see an escalating trail of protests as part of that. Unfortunately, the current US leadership doesn't seem that smart.

[–] PTSDwarrior@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

No, they are not. I hope though that they are stupid enough to actually welcome letting California go, because it’s full of commies, trans, brown people, etc.

[–] masterbaexunn@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

That sounds like the [insert state name] national guard with extra steps ngl.

Ofc without DoD funding.

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago

I'm down to call it whatever. No DoD funding means no adherence to their bullshit.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Honestly, that's probably the most effective thing that can be done.

In business, where it really hurts, is in the money. Hit them where it really matters.

[–] unphazed@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago

If a company becomes too large to manage and kits subsidiaries make individual profits, some making profit and others at a loss, you divest. You sell off the crap companies. Makes sense to me. They say Trump wants to run the US like a business, right?

[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 1 points 5 hours ago

Does it really matter though?

Seems like the lost revenue would just be made up through borrowing / deficit spending. Worried this is another whiff of a move. Its not like I have a better solution; and I wish the states doing this the best of luck in addressing their finding issues, but I don't expect this to move the needle significantly.

[–] nonentity@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 hour ago

The states are currency users, and as such are intrinsically subservient to the currency issuer, namely the federal government.

The US federal government doesn’t need whatever money the states, or anyone else, pays it. Every cent a currency issuer receives is instantly obliterated from the economy, and conversely the origin of every cent is conjured out of thin air by their budget.

That said, the states withholding federal payments could work on the chucklefucks currently in charge, because many of them are likely to believe strongly in the fiction of zero-sum economics, but I’d hazard a critical mass hold a world view built on some other fantastical hallucination from hotboxing their collective farts.

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 4 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

What do you call US when it's no longer "U"?

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago

The Nintendo DS (Divided States)

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

The Balkanized States of America

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 12 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Just get divorced already.

[–] match@pawb.social 4 points 5 hours ago

Nawh we're gonna do a Taiwan-style One America policy

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Wait wait wait! Lemme get on to the other side of the line so I can live in a blue state. Just 3 more months!

[–] ansiz@lemmy.world 38 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Sounds like the beginnings of a future civil war if those states actually follow through. It sounds like the right move though, I hope a bunch of blue states follow up on this!

[–] zebidiah@lemmy.ca 14 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I hope a bunch of fema deprived red states follow up on this!

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago

Virginia: We can play this game too, democrats! We're keeping our $100B to ourselves this year! Can we still get that $200B you send us each year though?

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 hours ago

States rights have and always will be a double edged sword. Usually it's a non issue because at worst you have representation. Sadly it seems like ours has gone missing now and we all need to stop what we are doing and go find it. Violently if necessary but hopefully as a last resort. Or maybe just 2nd place.

[–] lorski@sopuli.xyz 21 points 21 hours ago

Might be the only way to stop him/gop

load more comments
view more: next ›