this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2025
235 points (98.4% liked)

politics

24133 readers
2929 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
all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Clepsydrae@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

Saving 3m by hurting domestic abuse victims while blowing 45m on a fucking parade. Wonderful.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 4 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)
[–] Zenith@lemm.ee 10 points 1 day ago

This is so heartbreaking

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 66 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Why the fuck are they allowing them to put shit like this into a so-called budget bill?

[–] myrmidex@lemmy.nogods.be 26 points 1 day ago

They all just want to be good boys for Daddy.

[–] noxypaws@pawb.social 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Who do you mean by "they"? The nazi fucks are themselves the ones in charge.

[–] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I think they are referring to the Democrats.

[–] Stabbitha@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If we read the article, we learn:

Tucked inside the 1,200-page appendix to the White House’s budget request to Congress is a proposal to eliminate a grant program, funded by the Agriculture Department and administered by the Department of Justice, that provides domestic violence shelters with money to support survivors’ pets. Advocates say the program, known as PAWS, helps fill a critical gap despite its relatively small budget of $3 million

So we see that it actually is a budget issue, nobody's issuing a directive saying animals are banned at these shelters -- the headline is misleading.

We also see that the proposed budget cut is $3 million, which works out to almost a whopping 2¢ per taxpayer in the US.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'll very gladly pay my $0.02 share to help domestic abuse survivors and their pets.

[–] breecher@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago

That's not the point. The Republicans are not doing this to save money. They are doing this for ideological reasons, namely that domestic violence is fine and there shouldn't be any domestic violence shelters, because women should be subjugated to their husbands no matter what.

Thanks for adding context and hard evidence to the discussion. Fuck them twice as much for doing it this way. It's the same amount of sabotage and half the accountability.

[–] noxypaws@pawb.social 55 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Republicans Want ~~to Ban Pets From~~ Domestic Violence ~~Shelters~~

[–] match@pawb.social 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Republicans Want ~~to Ban Pets From Do~~me~~stic~~ Violen~~ce Shel~~ter~~s~~

"Violence shelters" sound rad as hell NGL.

[–] Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

The GOP spends so much energy on ways to be even more evil than they already are.

[–] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A government and people that cared about protecting abused people would demand that shelters accept pets.

In my jurisdiction pets were ruled to have custody rights meanwhile the land of the free wouldn’t elect a woman and won’t stand up for each other. Enjoy your Handmaid’s Tale, stop trying to push it on other countries.

[–] RaptorBenn@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Id worry more avout the fact that you live in an authoritarian state, that's decided to make an enemy of.. let me check my notes.. the rest of the planet.

[–] Turret3857@infosec.pub 5 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

we're allowed to be concerned about all of the suffering and not just the major suffering.

[–] RaptorBenn@lemmy.world -4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, your allowed to do whatever, but when the house is burning down, most wouldnt stop to complain about the decor.

[–] Turret3857@infosec.pub 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I would be complaining that Ive lost everything, not just the walls and windows.

[–] RaptorBenn@lemmy.world -2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

But your not, your complaining about the toaster not working while the house is burning down.

[–] Turret3857@infosec.pub 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Can I not be mad about the toaster and the house at the same time? Is there something about humans that makes it so we can only care about one issue at a time?

And youre comparing people being denied the right to keep their animals (some would refer to this as "property") when they need to leave an abusive household, to a toaster.

[–] RaptorBenn@lemmy.world -1 points 6 hours ago
  1. Yes, but generally youd wait until the fire was out and a bunch of other thing before even considering that.
  2. Its a relatice comparison, if you really think what i said equates to "pets are as important as toasters", then i dont think youre qualified to have this discussion with me.
  3. I think vets should have every right to keep and maintain pets at government provided housing.
  4. Demonising me, and willfully misinterpretting me, because you disagree with what ive said, tells me there isnt any furthee productive recourse to be had with you.
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

One of the weirdest bullshit items. The fuck?

[–] DrFistington@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Anything to make it harder for their wives to leave them.

[–] Placebonickname@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I will bet you anything MTG has physically harmed a significant other in her time. Men can be victims too.

[–] Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah, she married and dated them. What worse harm is there?