wonderingwanderer

"Within the country's federal system" means, yes, the state governments are federated under one government: the federal government, which is a separate institution.

"Alongside the federal government," i.e. "exercising functions... alongside the federal government." Meaning they are separate institutions that operate parallel to each other.

The idea that state governments, or county governments, aren't aspects of the US government is pretty absurd. They aren't part of the federal system, sure, but they are part of the government of the united states.

You have that backwards. Read your own wikipedia quote again. State governments are part of the federal system, but not part of the federal government (which is the government of the United States).

USG stands for "US Government" and is an official term often used in international relations and diplomacy to refer specifically to the federal government of the United States. The "United States" as an entity refers to the federation of states, each of which has its own state government. The terms and conditions of dual sovereignty are defined in the US Constitution, and each state government is chartered by its own constitution which defines how matters of state governance run.

Yes, I'm american, and I've worked for the federal government in the past. Federal and state governments are separate organizations. Very little coordination or communication happens between them, even trying to do so would be difficult and only happens rarely, except for highly specified cases where there are typically established liaison staff (such as distributing funding from federal departments to state counterparts, or state and federal personnel cooperating on disaster relief efforts). But for the most part, they don't even work in the same buildings.

Also, this should be the most telling sign, but federal and state taxes are handled completely separately. Two separate filings for two separate taxes to two separate governments. Because federal and state governments are separate institutions with different functions albeit with overlapping jurisdictions.

Look, I don't trust the US or Israeli governments either, but I really feel for the Iranian protesters and many of them are already mourning. The faster this regime falls, the better.

The Iranian government is already shooting live ammunition at its people, just like they did during the last round of major protests. They've already killed hundreds on the past couple days, under the fog of an internet blackout. Protestors are asking for international help.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/10/iran-protesters-tell-of-brutal-police-response-deaths-and-forced-confessions

The sooner the Iranian people topple their government, the better.

State governments are not aspects of the US government. The US government refers specifically to the federal government. It's called dual sovereignty or something to that effect. States governments are separate institutions with their own constitutions, and are for the most part independent (or at least were intended to be), although still subject to federal law.

The closest comparison would be like the parliaments of Scotland, Wales, England, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man. Technically their own countries ('states'), but subject to the agreements of the larger union (the federation or kingdom, depending on which nation).

Local councils in the UK have an equivalent in the US as well. States are generally divided into counties with their own governments, and most cities as well as some towns have their own metropolitan or municipal governments.

Granted, not even most americans, being ignorant, fully understand that there are multiple levels of government with different jurisdictions that they're subject to. That's why you see idiots fucking up state or local infrastructure when they're really mad at the federal government.

Well you're not them. And I never claimed my opinion matters, noticed I haven't even expressed my personal opinion

This comment thread is literally on an article about people in Iran rallying to his call for a mass demonstration. Read the room.

Are you in Iran right now, participating in their protests? Cause if not, you have no right to tell them who they should or shouldn't follow. That's your own unexamined colonizer mindset showing.

“The lack of a viable alternative has undermined past protests in Iran,” wrote Nate Swanson of the Washington-based Atlantic Council, who studies Iran.

“There may be a thousand Iranian dissident activists who, given a chance, could emerge as respected statesmen, as labor leader Lech Wałęsa did in Poland at the end of the Cold War. But so far, the Iranian security apparatus has arrested, persecuted and exiled all of the country’s potential transformational leaders.”

Keep waiting for your perfect leader, but the Iranian people are moving on without you.

Is there any credible reason to believe the US had anything to do with toppling Assad?

Or do you simply not believe an Islamic rebel group would be capable of a successful lightning offensive otherwise? Cause that's pretty demeaning if so...

If there were an option who has "done leadership in Iran," that person would be part of the current regime. Any potential grassroots leaders have been exiled.

This rhetoric that "surely there's a better [hypothetical] option" is the sort of perfectionism and ideological purism that dooms so many movements. Keep waiting for a hypothetical "better option," you might as well be waiting for a messiah.

The practical reality is that the crown prince is a figurehead that the liberation movement can rally around, and indeed they are rallying to his call. That alone makes him the best available option, as the momentum being generated is what's critical. To say "wait, why don't we wait for someone better to come along" only helps the ayatollah.

Dumb fuck. World powers shouldn't appease the US either. These dictators feed on one another: putin, netanyahu, trump. Each one who gets away with it encourages the rest to do the same.

The only way out of this is to meet dictators with strength, to teach them they won't get away with it because there are powers in the world who won't let them.

You advocating for disarming Europe is basically saying "hand the world over to the dictators." And that's fucking stupid.

You're a fucking idiot if you think appeasement and concession will avoid WWIII. russia will invade Europe if Europe doesn't maintain their forces as a deterrent.

Letting russia have its way with Ukraine isn't being "anti-war," you dunce. It would be rewarding hostile powers for aggressive military invasions, incentivizing others to do the same.

But then again, you might be on the kremlin's payroll, so perhaps you already know that and that's your whole point for being here in the first place.

You're kinda snitching on yourself by framing "sending troops to Ukraine" as if it's a bad thing