this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2025
588 points (99.3% liked)

politics

19656 readers
4302 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
 

Summary

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has issued a memo prioritizing federal funding for communities with marriage and birth rates above the national average.

The directive, which applies to grants, loans, and contracts, also prioritizes projects benefiting families with young children.

A congressional aide criticized the policy, saying, “Considering fertility rates when prioritizing federal grants? We obviously have no idea what the full impact of that will be… It’s absolutely creepy. It’s a little ‘Chinese government.’”

The memo also blocks mask mandates and requires compliance with immigration enforcement.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Australis13@fedia.io 66 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

I feel like they've buried the lead.

In addition to its directives related to marriage and babies, the Transportation Department’s memo blocks recipients of federal money from implementing “mask mandates,” a reference to requirements that transit agencies followed to limit the spread of infection during the height of COVID-19.

The memo also requires recipients to comply with federal immigration enforcement in order to receive funding — the latest effort by the administration to target undocumented immigrants, conduct mass arrests and deportations, and deny federal transportation funds to so-called sanctuary cities.

So (1) no ability for public transport systems to implement measures to stop pandemics (which will be important since avian flu is around the corner) and (2) no federal funding for transport to sanctuary cities (of which Washington D.C. is arguably one).

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 10 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Both of those are illegal. The president cannot impose extra strings on federal funding.

[–] Reyali@lemm.ee 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I know it’s possible for conditions to be tied to federal funding (like how interstate funds were withheld from Louisiana until they raised their drinking age to 21), so is it just that the Executive branch can’t impose that? (Genuinely asking since I’m not sure.)

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago

So, fun fact, that was also illegal. The MADD campaign was just so pervasive that nobody cared. Extra fun fact, it wasn't a teenager problem, it was an education problem and is much reduced. The remaining people who drink and drive, or drink underage, just don't care about the laws, so there's no reason to keep the drinking age laws except for tradition at this point.

[–] stormdelay@sh.itjust.works 43 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

(just fyi, it's "buried the lede")

[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 19 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

Both spellings are correct and do not impact the meaning. “Lede” has only this one meaning whilst “Lead” can mean a few different things.

[–] stormdelay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 21 minutes ago

I didn't realize! I thought in this context lede was the only correct spelling, I suppose I should thank Cunningham's Law for learning something

[–] gofsckyourself@lemmy.world 13 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

For more context, the phrase started as "lead" then was changed by journalists to "lede" in the 70's to help differentiate between "lead", "lead", and "lead".

[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 3 points 12 hours ago

In the US, yes, definitely. Across the globe it’s more of a mixed bag. I encounter both regularly.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

But "burying the lede" is a common term in journalism for exactly this kind of thing. "Burying the lead" is common only in that it's a mistake people say because it's phonetically similar (plus "lede" is an uncommon word, I'll admit)

Kind of like should've vs should of. Have and of are both words, but one is very wrong.

[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 7 points 12 hours ago

No. I’m sorry, you are wrong. Both spellings are equally valid. In English-speaking newsrooms across the globe either spelling is acceptable.

[–] Australis13@fedia.io 13 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks. Just did a quick search and it seems that spelling is more prominent in the US than elsewhere, which is probably why I'm not familiar with it.

[–] stormdelay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 19 minutes ago

Well apparently your spelling was perfectly fine, and neither of us were aware both spelling were acceptable, so we both learned something

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 8 points 16 hours ago

The right wingers are just so chock full of rage-filled idiots. Wearing a mask IS annoying, but you aren't some kind of freedom-fighter to not wear one and go out of your way to disrupt public health, FFS.

But that's how all of these assholes see themselves: vanguards of "freedom". By completely ruining any chance of a sane response to a pandemic.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 14 hours ago

dont' forget to add in the effect of the back to office hardons.