Maine county wants to secede over Dem-controlled state house
The page has amassed 3,2000 followers and promises residents that there will be no income or property tax, and that the state will be locally controlled. The group, which currently has a 'constitution in progress,' said they have chosen to break free from the liberal state because it has 'failed to adequately represent the interests of the people of this country' through 'excessive taxation and bureaucratic interference.' Mainers currently face a 10.6 percent 'total tax burden,' including income, sales and property tax, according to Visual Capitalist.
Despite that, last year's election revealed that while Democrats led in suburban areas of the state, Republicans dominated in Aroostook, Bangor Daily News reported. Some people don't believe the county could break away from the state while others are quite sure how it would happen. 'Do I think it's feasible? I have no idea,' Roxanne Bruce, a Maine Department of Education's regional local food coordinator for Aroostook, told the outlet.
'Government is so complicated. I can't even begin to imagine what would have to happen.' It is unclear who exactly started this initiative, but they made it clear that the mission 'is not a political stunt.' 'This is not a political stunt. It's a grassroots response to decades of cultural, economic, and political disconnect between our region and Augusta,' the group insisted.
Many locals have taken to the comments to show their support and even share new ideas for the hypothetical new state. 'I have been a proponent of this for about 20 years,' one user said, adding a comment about the state's current Governor Janet Mills. 'I personally don't appreciate having a governor that would dance in costume at a drag show. 90% of the people I know don't like the example it is setting.'
Another user said: 'Please add franklin county as well.' 'Please expand this area down to just north of Augusta. We're fed up here in central Maine as well,' someone else commented. While many appeared to be all for the proposed idea, others were left questioning how exactly it would all work. 'Good luck funding your schools and other government required programs and agencies with no property tax or income tax,' someone noted.
'And this would l I believe start civil war,' said another user. 'This is sooo disgusting. You think these people want to separate for peace lol,' wrote another. Aroostook has a population of 67,351, as of 2023, according to the United States Census Bureau. Maine became an independent state in 1820, and was one of three that declared its separation nationwide that year, according to The Maine Wire.
This is also not the first time the proposal has floated around the state as late state Rep. Henry Jones tried to divide Maine in 1997, 2005 and 2010, but did not succeed. In 2011 the legislature rejected Peaks Island from leaving Portland because locals didn't follow the process stated in the law, per the outlet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
27 minutes ago
- Reuters
Fact Check: French court ruled on defamation case appeals, not Brigitte Macron's gender
A court in France ruled in early July on a defamation case involving Brigitte Macron, the wife of French President Emmanuel Macron, not on her gender, contrary to online claims. Social media posts, reacting to the Paris Court of Appeal decision, said it was confirmation that Brigitte Macron was a transgender woman born a man. 'Brigitte Macron is not a woman,' said one July 13 Facebook post, opens new tab. 'What once sounded like a conspiracy theory now stands confirmed in a court ruling.' However, a copy of the July 10 ruling seen by Reuters shows the Paris Court of Appeal acquitted two women of defaming Brigitte Macron. The court did not rule on the truth of the claims about her gender. Delphine Jegousse and Nathalie Rey had claimed, in a video published in December 2021, that Brigitte Macron was a transgender woman born a man, originally called Jean-Michel Trogneux. That is also the name of her real brother, who was a co-plaintiff in the case. A criminal complaint was filed, and in September 2024 the Paris Judicial Court found both women guilty of defamation., opens new tab They were fined and ordered to pay 8,000 euros ($9,150) to Brigitte Macron and 5,000 euros to her brother. The Paris Court of Appeal in July 2025 said the allegations about gender and transition were made 'in good faith' and therefore did not constitute defamation given the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society, court documents show. The court overturned the women's convictions and acquitted them of all charges. All credible media, opens new tab reports, opens new tab say the Paris Court of Appeal acquitted the women of defamation and did not rule on Brigitte Macron's gender. An attorney representing Brigitte Macron and her brother did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Jean-Michel Trogneux is appealing the latest ruling to a higher French court, his attorney told AFP, opens new tab on July 13. On July 23, Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron filed a defamation lawsuit in the U.S. against right-wing influencer Candace Owens, centred on her assertions that Brigitte Macron is a man. In her podcast that day, Owens said, "This lawsuit is littered with factual inaccuracies" and part of an "obvious and desperate public relations strategy" to smear her character. Reuters has previously addressed baseless claims about Brigitte Macron's gender. In August 2024, a fact-check showed that an altered picture of a young Russian male model had been shared online with the false suggestion that it was Brigitte Macron as a young man. False. The Paris Court of Appeal ruled on a defamation case involving Brigitte Macron, not on her gender. This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work. ($1 = 0.8744 euros)
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
The eye-popping millions American families can accumulate with new 'Trump accounts' revealed
Babies born this year could become millionaires before they turn 30, thanks to the 'Trump accounts' established when President Donald Trump signed the 'big, beautiful bill' into law earlier this month. Fox Business reported Wednesday that the one-time government investment of $1,000 per child could grow to as much as $1.9 million by the time that individual turns 28 if the account if fully funded and left untouched. The Treasury Office of Tax Analysis found that if parents don't contribute anything to their 'Trump account' the fund could still grow to between $3,000 and $13,800 over 18 years. Parents and relatives are allowed to contribute up to $5,000 annually until the child turns 18. The Treasury assessment found that if a maximum contribution is made each year on the child's birthday through age 17 the account could grow to between $191,500 and $676,400. The money can't be used until the individual turns 18. A child's Social Security number has to be provided in order for parents to sign up. The current law applies to children born between January 1, 2025 and December 31, 2028. Democrats have raised concerns about the program due to a comment uttered Wednesday by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. 'In a way, it is a back door for privatizing Social Security,' Bessent said at an event hosted by Breitbart News. 'If, all of a sudden, these accounts grow and you have in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your retirement, that's a game-changer, too,' he added. On Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer gave a floor speech on the matter. 'Yesterday, the Trump administration did something they rarely do – they told the truth. It wasn't Donald Trump, but it was one of his minions. They told the truth,' the New York Democrat said. 'The Trump administration, in this case, was talking about wanting to privatize Social Security.' Republican President George W. Bush had tried to partially privatize Social Security during his tenure - an effort that failed.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
How will Australia's under-16s social media ban be enforced, and which platforms will be exempt?
Australians using a range of social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat and X will need to have their age checked to ensure they're 16 or older when the social media ban comes into effect from early December. Sign up: AU Breaking News email How will it work? And what information will people need to hand over? From 10 December, new laws will apply to platforms that meet the government's definition of an 'age-restricted social media platform', which has the sole or significant purpose of enabling social interaction with two or more users, and which allows users to post material on the service. The government has not specified by name any platforms that will be included in the ban, meaning any site that meets the above definition could be included except if they meet the exemptions released on Wednesday. The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has said that the covered platforms include – but are not limited to – Facebook, Instagram, X, Snapchat, and YouTube. The communications minister, Anika Wells, said these platforms would be expected to take reasonable steps to deactivate accounts for users under 16, prevent kids registering new accounts, check ages, and also prevent workarounds to bypass the restrictions. The government said platforms would be exempt if they had the primary purpose of: Messaging, emailing, voice calling or video calling. Playing online games. Sharing information about products or services. Professional networking or professional development. Education. Health. Communication between educational institutions and students or their families. Facilitating communication between providers of healthcare and people using those providers' services. It will be up to the eSafety commissioner to determine which platforms meet the criteria for an exemption. In practice, this means that LinkedIn, WhatsApp, Roblox, and Coursera would likely be exempt if assessed to meet the criteria. LinkedIn had previously argued to the government it was not of interest to children. In theory, it could also mean YouTube Kids could be exempt from the ban if it meets the criteria for an exemption, given it does not allow comments on videos. But the government has not confirmed this, and YouTube has not commented on whether it would seek an exemption for its service designed for children. Platforms that have not been named by the government but do not meet the exemption criteria will also need to consider whether they need to bring in age assurance by December. This would include services like Bluesky, Donald Trump's Truth Social platform, Discord and Twitch. A common misconception about the social media ban is that it will only apply to children. In order to ensure teens remain off social media, the platforms will need to check the ages of all user accounts in Australia. How they will do that is not prescribed, but it will be informed by the outcome of the age assurance technology trial, the full report of which is due in August. The government has legislated that although ID checks can be one form of age assurance, it can't be the only one accepted. It's expected Australia will follow a similar path for age assurance that launched in the UK in July, which includes options such as: Allowing banks and mobile providers to confirm a user is over 18. Asking site users to upload a photo that is then matched with photo ID. Use of facial age estimation technology. In addition to that, platforms could potentially infer user ages based on account behaviour or age. For example, if you signed up for Facebook in 2009, you would be over 16 by now. YouTube has also flagged it will use artificial intelligence to determine user ages. Albanese has compared the social media ban to alcohol restrictions, and said there will no doubt be children who manage to get around the ban, but he argued it was still worth doing. In the UK, where age verification was brought in this week for accessing pornography websites, there has been a surge in people using virtual private networks (VPNs), which hide a user's real location, enabling access to blocked websites. Four of the top five free apps on the Apple app store in the UK on Thursday were VPN apps, with Proton, the most popular, reporting a 1,800% increase in downloads. The Australian government has said it expects the platforms will implement 'reasonable steps' to account for how teens may seek to avoid the ban. Platforms that do not take what the eSafety commissioner determines to be 'reasonable steps' to keep kids off their service can face a fine of up to $49.5m that will be determined in the federal court. What 'reasonable steps' means will be up to the commissioner to determine. When asked on Wednesday, Wells said: 'I think reasonable steps is reasonable.' 'These are meant to be working rules, and they also need to sort of correct any errors as they arise. Because these are not set-and-forget rules, these are set-and-support rules. They are world-leading. But this is manifestly too important for us not to have a crack.'
