this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2025
398 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19930 readers
3621 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
 

In response to suggestions by a lunatic in the US Oval Office, Green Party Canada's leader Elizabeth May suggested Canada should invite western states Washington, Oregon and California join B.C and split from Canada to form the 'Cascadia' eco-state.

(Note this article is from Jan 8, 2025 and Elizabeth May has since become co-leader of the party alongside Jonathan Pedneault).

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

The REMNANTS of the US would be fucked without the regular contributions of CA and tech folks based in WA. Most (or is it all?) red states are net takers (pull more from government than they contribute back) while publicly whining about welfare. Fuck around and find out....

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

As a Californian I'll say that if they want to take our rights and go home, we'll take our money and go home.

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Why does the east coast always get left out?

[–] WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Because the east coast will form Mega-City One.

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

It’s gonna be called the DMV because I’m pretty sure that’s the coolest metro area name in the north east.

It will become DMV City when New York City becomes connected

[–] nandeEbisu@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Do you really want to merge with Quebec?

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Maine should be part of New Brunswick but we hate Americans the people so that’s why these suggestions are just jokes

[–] fishos@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Ok, but we made a promise in the past to take Alaska and Hawaii with us too.

[–] ZeffSyde@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

It's super convenient because Hawaii and Alaska are in boxes just off the west coast on maps.

[–] Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago

Never forget

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 51 points 2 days ago (9 children)

I personally support all of Canada amd the US breaking into smaller countries but with an EU style freedom of movement and trade deal.

[–] inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago

I like this because it’s closer to “articles of confederation” version of the proto United States which imo is closer to anarchism although still far from it.

[–] hansolo@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So, this was pushed for a while and was later discovered to be Chinese propaganda. But it holds water is the thing.

Breaking into smaller counties isn't the solution because you lose economies of scale and inefficient trade. Which was why China pushed it, to leave themselves and the EU as the largest single economies in the world.

The real solution is to regionalize block of states and instead of having one head of state as President, a council of state like Switzerland with a rotating chair that functions as the ceremonial head of state.

But that would take a new constitution...

[–] MrNobody@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago

But that would take a new constitution… Yeah, its a good that the thing that is only a couple centries old has been updated to match modern times and all.

Ironic when you consider that the people who would cry foul and act all offended the most if you ever were to suggest thinking about changing the entire constitution, have no issue with blatantly ignoring it entirely when it suits them.

Almost like the people who follow and believe in it the most are the only ones about to get mega dicked.

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Texas immediately invades smallest Southern states

New Mexico turns off the Pecos and Rio Grande

Fuck off.

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 12 points 2 days ago (6 children)

I don't think that's quite how it would play out.

Texas has long been aching to leave the US. They've setup all sorts of their infrastructure and economy to not be dependent on the rest of the US.

Many southern states, particularly Oklahoma, fantasize that they're part of that. When Texas leaves, they will expect to join. But Texas views them as freeloaders.

It's possible Texas invades to steal resources, but they don't want the land or the people. More likely it's the reverse - The poor states (now extremely poor, since they won't be getting all that juicy federal money) will be envious of Texas's wealth, and may invade to claim some of it for themselves.

[–] inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Interesting considering the tech oligarchs have been relocating their business structure (incorporation, etc) to Texas.

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Very few companies are making business decisions on the possibility of the US collapsing. Those are all decisions made on the current state of affairs.

[–] inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago

The tech oligarchs are orchestrating the collapse

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 88 points 2 days ago (3 children)

That would immediately launch it into the #2 spot of countries by GDP. I'm down for that 🤣

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] guaraguaito@lemmy.blahaj.zone 48 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (11 children)

Just FYI Canadians, don’t get fooled when people say California is “leftist”. Check out recent referendum results, they voted against abolishing slavery (for prisoners) and in favour of the death penalty for example. They are only “leftist” in relation to the neofacist US’s overton window.

[–] kerrigan778@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

Do you think Canada is on average that much more leftist than California? Canada has plenty of Trump supporters and they aren't even US citizens.

[–] zaphodb2002@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 days ago

Yes, as a Californian leftist, our government has always been more interested in money than people, and it will continue to be a problem. NIMBYs will be the death of us.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] hedge_lord@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago
[–] WrenFeathers@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

As a Washingtonian, I’m totally okay with this.

[–] cmbabul@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

Same here, this sounds like the best thing I dare hope for at this point

[–] MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Never going to happen. The USA will not let CA leave.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 9 points 2 days ago (8 children)

So, I think this could happen. Trump and Musk are just trying to speedrun smashing the administrative state; it's difficult to overstate the enormity of the damage they're going to do to the federal government's ability to govern over the next two months. Laying off all these administrators and closing their offices is going to create a glut of administrators at the same time as it creates a demand for administrative capacity to make up for what the feds dropped. Plus, they're going to want to stop California, but how will they when they've gone and replaced every competent person in the DOJ/DOD/FBI/CIA with incompetent stooges?

California has an advanced enough administrative state to handle breaking off, jokes aside. California also has the economy. Here's the kicker: California has the geography. California would be a complete bitch to invade; for most of the coastline, the mountains (hills, as the locals call them, but they ARE mountains) just run right into the ocean, and the ocean is notoriously a bastard for much of that coastline; as for an overland route, there's basically, like, three big highways that cross the Sierra Nevadas to inland Cali. A couple of big bombs or cal fire bulldozers would make short work of them. Plus, California has a LOT of agriculture to support itself with. Basically, the one weak spot is water supply, and we could be doing a lot better than we are if we just tightened up on our industrial, livestock, and rich dumbass consumption.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] goferking0 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 44 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Yes, fucking, PLEASE.

Sick of our tax dollars supporting these fucking deadbeat ass states like Arkansas,Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi.

Also Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi all smell like a fucking asshole because of all the paper mills.

[–] flames5123@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Yep. There’s a reason me and my wife left Mississippi a few years ago for Washington.

[–] Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

As a Washingtonian, I would unironically support this. I'm sick of being forced to fund a fucking genocide.

[–] Claymore@lemm.ee 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

As a resident of British Columbia, I would support this with the sole condition that we all use only the metric system.

But, how will i know how big something is if we stop comparing things to horses and refrigerators?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›