this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2026
139 points (98.6% liked)

politics

31509 readers
2081 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Gavin Newsom said state’s threat-assessment center would be on heightened alert after president’s remarks

California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, on Tuesday directed the state’s emergency preparedness center to “actively monitor” possible threats to the state after Donald Trump suggested Iran could “take out” the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego.

Trump has faced a chorus of condemnation from Democratic leaders in California after his comments at a rally in Nebraska on Monday night, which the White House has suggested were being taken out of context.

At the president’s rally in Grand Island, Nebraska, Trump claimed that high prices due to the war with Iran are a “small price to pay for keeping the world safe – keeping our country safe”. He went on: “They can take out a city. Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego.” The crowd applauded the line.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

End all taxes leaving the state immediately.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Businesses submit the majority of taxes going to the government. How do you all not know how taxes work?

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There comes a point when people in a geographic region wonder what the point of having a government above it is for.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago

IKR? California has nearly 40 million people in it, meanwhile this stupid assfuck of a "president" and most of his cult have California Derangement Syndrome and normal people have to hear about how much all these idiots hate what is probably the most important and profitable state in the nation.

[–] xenomor@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago

The biggest threat to California is the president and his administration.

[–] Arancello@aussie.zone 14 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

At what point are americans going to decide they’ve had enough. Clearly not yet. Will it take an american nuke dropped on an american city by an american president in an american false flag?

[–] snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

99% sheep 1% balls.

[–] JennyLaFae@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

They'll never believe it if dear leader tells them not to.

[–] Malica@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago

You know as well as I do, they'll have enough when it's too late, as predicted.

[–] DokPsy@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

"taken out of context" what context, pray tell, makes the President saying this ok

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

We need our own army. Clearly we can't trust the federal government to protect us.

[–] CrimeIsLegalNow@ani.social 3 points 2 weeks ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Guard

It's been made clear that Republicans have become actively hostile to their own supposed countrymen. The National Guard units ultimately just siphon state resources into the federal military, and every blue state should be preparing for the worst by expanding their state guards.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 points 2 weeks ago

If nothing else, there is a sudden glut of military-trained individuals who now have a chip on their shoulder for being unjustly fired. The Blue States should make a point of preemptively scouting and hiring on everyone who has been tossed out of the Federal government. Military, domestic, all of them. Their skills will be needed to make the machinery of the Blue States to run smoothly.

[–] SecretiveVault@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 weeks ago