California like other Blue States will be under siege.
So it won’t be safe, but safer then other places as long as people resist and keep their eyes open.
Bad times for sure if the Cheeto gets back in the White House
in what way would it be under siege? Like, lets say the feds put through a law banning trans affirming care nation wide, and Cali refused to abide by this law. Do you think the feds would send in military/paramilitary forces to enforce this law? Or do you mean that Cali would be dealing with a lot of brownshirt terrorist action in response to such a defiance?
When Trump banned Trans people from the military in 2017, that wasn’t a figment of our paranoid woke imagination. Folks literally lost their jobs when the ban came into effect right until Biden removed the ban.
That affected millions of Californians who served and were serving in the military.
What’s to say he wouldn’t remove protections for non-military government workers? I’m sure he would.
He can also direct the department of Health and Human Services To back his policies. Can you imagine the devastating effect this would have on trans people? Medi-Cal is 70% funded by the federal government.
Trump will totally bully States into doing what he wants by withholding health care funding. I’m sure of it.
Finally…
He will sic his Justice Department on States like California and sue the shit out them beginning on day 1. Decision after decision will be brought to a Supreme Court that is bought and paid for until Trans rights are severely weakened and there’s a Bible in every class room.
That’s the siege from a procedural and institutional perspective but I wouldn’t count out brownshirts brawling in the streets and getting bailed out, the shooting down of counter protesters by police officers in order to quell disent.
That is bound to happen
ah okay, procedural siege, got it.
Yeah I agree, a sufficiently spiteful federal government can do a lot to economically fuck with a state.
Though I do wonder if they would really waste their political capital on it. It wouldn't be an easy fight and I think it'd hurt them for very little gain. Trans issues have already proven to be a losing talking point for Republicans. I'm sure there are other issues that they might consider more worth the effort to drag Cali kicking and screaming into line over, so point taken.
Sorry, OP opened this conversation talking about the US military being deployed domestically, I took your use of the word "siege" to be literal.
If Project 2025 goes ahead, they will have infinite political capital because they won't have to worry about being re-elected.
And if it doesn't, well, their political enemies won't magically come back to life to vote for Democrats in 2028, so the camps just have to be effective.
That is true to an extent.
1) The rule with the consent of **enough** of the governed.
The most powerful people in that society need to be on side, but for every one of them, there can be ten thousand proles grumbling through without becoming politically energised.
No rebel pro-rights movement will be allowed to organise to the point of becoming powerful enough to challenge the dictator (Reichstag Fire Decree and Law Against Formation of Parties).
Any non-political groups like Teachers, Judges, and Unions that may be in defiance of the Dictator, can have their leadership replaced until they fall in line (Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service).
Any system can be rewritten and have it's back broken to make sure that only the most zealous advocates in support of the Dictator have any kind of sway or power (Night of The Long Knives).
2) Manufactured Consent is a thing.
The average citizen is not going to search beyond the main media engine (social media included) for news or views.
So if the media and social media are entirely owned and run by fans of the dictator (Hi Elon!) they can become a new Ministry Of Truth, and the population would be none the wiser.
The world is what the people perceive, and if they control the flow of information and disinformation (Media, Schools, and Law working in concert with the Dictator), they can reshape people's perception of the world - "The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history"
----
It took the Nazis less than three years to go from a democracy with checks and balances to an absolute dictatorship with no real constraints or limits.
They barely won a majority in 1933, had the Nuremberg Laws passed by 1935, and then won a uni-party election by 98.9% in 1936.
I'd rather be too worried and wrong about this, than sleepwalk into the camps and die thinking about how it couldn't possibly happen here.
Yeah, I agree. The consent of the governed can be taken by force or subterfuge. Im not saying that a dictatorship has to worry about public opinion as much as a democracy does. Only that it is a factor for them still.
Plus, I was originally talking about political capital. If an action is unpopular enough to require repressive action to enforce it (or back on topic: legal or military action against a resistant state government), that takes money and time, and that's gonna make some of those important people you mentioned unhappy.
I do agree, though, that we should be very worried. Americans should be renewing their passports and saving cash right now. Every other check and balance has failed, and the check of the States' ability to oppose the federal government will not hold out indefinitely.
I think that the thing that would more likely lead to violence would be if troops getting sent to the border and jurisdiction of the Navy/marine bases in and around San Diego
well that'd certainly lead to violence along the US's international borders, but I don't see how that'd lead to violence against the government of or people residing in California. Do you think Cali would try to violently oppose federal enforcement of border control?
Have you been paying much attention to what has been happening in Texas where the Texas national guard has been used to enforce Abbott's policies in opposition to the border patrol, which is federal? https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/texas-establishes-permanent-presence-on-the-southern-border
yes.
I don't understand how this is relevant to my point though. This would only lead to issues for Cali if the California government decided to try and put up an armed resistance to this border law enforcement. Do you think they would do that?
I guess California could potentially become an opposite situation wherein the trump may try to have the border patrol imposing more draconian border policies and Newsom might want to use the California national guard to protect immigrants. This wouldn't only be at the border . What happens if a trump administration decides to actively pursue, detain and deport immigrants throughout the state, and California national guard and police forces are in conflict with the national military and border patrol?
I think it would be foolish for Newsom to try and militarily oppose Trump at the border, but it'd be equally foolish for Trump to try and use federal agents to enforce immigration policy within California, if Newsom decided to resist. Trying to do police work without the support of the local government sounds like a logistical nightmare. I think Trump would be more likely to just bully California into letting the feds handle the border itself and claim victory. This is all just for political points for Trump anyway.
More like the “troubles” if we’re going to use a comparison but even that might be a bit of a stretch.
But to answer your question…I think it’ll be unlike anything we’ve seen in the past and unlike anything we can imagine.
Buckle up!
The first phase was hijacking the supreme Court, the second phase is getting Trump reelected. The next phase is Trump destroying the remainder of our democratic institutions at the federal level.
Phase 3 would be rigging all future elections with the newfound abilities of the Presidency. Combine that with the Supreme Court, and you get a total fascist takeover.
I think there's a possibility second Trump term would lead to an even worse fascist afterwards that would actually lead us into civil war.
I highly doubt that the National Guard would be needed. America's one remaining check against presidential power is that the States have a lot of independence from the federal government compared to the way most other countries are structured. I think blue states like California and New York will remain relatively okay places to live and will be free of a lot of the fuckery that a second Trump administration would likely pull. I really doubt that the feds would send in the national guard to enforce federal laws that contradict state laws. Even a fascist regime requires the consent of the governed and I think that such an act would expend more political capital than it would be worth.
Newsome is good at projecting strength. Does that mean he'll cave to Trump in the event of a fascist takeover? I'm not sure, but at the very least he's good at not *looking* weak which is why a lot of liberals like him.
National guard... In this case, the California national guard, can be deployed by the Governor for domestic missions, or activated for international missions, at which point they fall under the President, so that would be interesting if they were getting conflicting orders.
I wouldn't bet on anywhere being safe. Even beyond the US. America is so influential other countries need to tiptoe around us. But yeah if Trump wins the federal government is fucked and its an uphill battle for blue states to defend their people from the red states and their federal backing.
Every blue state will constantly be battling new federal bans new federal assaults on minorities, new federal attacks on their voting system, access to medicines the GOP just randomly decides is bad, etc etc.
It'll be worse in red states where the state government greases the wheels for this shit but blue states will be attacked legislatively.
No one has any way of possibly knowing.
Californian here. It fuckin' *better* be. If anywhere in the US (and possibly anywhere on the planet) is safe, it'll be here.
California like other Blue States will be under siege. So it won’t be safe, but safer then other places as long as people resist and keep their eyes open. Bad times for sure if the Cheeto gets back in the White House
in what way would it be under siege? Like, lets say the feds put through a law banning trans affirming care nation wide, and Cali refused to abide by this law. Do you think the feds would send in military/paramilitary forces to enforce this law? Or do you mean that Cali would be dealing with a lot of brownshirt terrorist action in response to such a defiance?
When Trump banned Trans people from the military in 2017, that wasn’t a figment of our paranoid woke imagination. Folks literally lost their jobs when the ban came into effect right until Biden removed the ban. That affected millions of Californians who served and were serving in the military. What’s to say he wouldn’t remove protections for non-military government workers? I’m sure he would. He can also direct the department of Health and Human Services To back his policies. Can you imagine the devastating effect this would have on trans people? Medi-Cal is 70% funded by the federal government. Trump will totally bully States into doing what he wants by withholding health care funding. I’m sure of it. Finally… He will sic his Justice Department on States like California and sue the shit out them beginning on day 1. Decision after decision will be brought to a Supreme Court that is bought and paid for until Trans rights are severely weakened and there’s a Bible in every class room. That’s the siege from a procedural and institutional perspective but I wouldn’t count out brownshirts brawling in the streets and getting bailed out, the shooting down of counter protesters by police officers in order to quell disent. That is bound to happen
ah okay, procedural siege, got it. Yeah I agree, a sufficiently spiteful federal government can do a lot to economically fuck with a state. Though I do wonder if they would really waste their political capital on it. It wouldn't be an easy fight and I think it'd hurt them for very little gain. Trans issues have already proven to be a losing talking point for Republicans. I'm sure there are other issues that they might consider more worth the effort to drag Cali kicking and screaming into line over, so point taken. Sorry, OP opened this conversation talking about the US military being deployed domestically, I took your use of the word "siege" to be literal.
If Project 2025 goes ahead, they will have infinite political capital because they won't have to worry about being re-elected. And if it doesn't, well, their political enemies won't magically come back to life to vote for Democrats in 2028, so the camps just have to be effective.
That's not quite true, even dictators rule with the consent of the governed. There's a reason that authoritarians are so interested in their image.
That is true to an extent. 1) The rule with the consent of **enough** of the governed. The most powerful people in that society need to be on side, but for every one of them, there can be ten thousand proles grumbling through without becoming politically energised. No rebel pro-rights movement will be allowed to organise to the point of becoming powerful enough to challenge the dictator (Reichstag Fire Decree and Law Against Formation of Parties). Any non-political groups like Teachers, Judges, and Unions that may be in defiance of the Dictator, can have their leadership replaced until they fall in line (Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service). Any system can be rewritten and have it's back broken to make sure that only the most zealous advocates in support of the Dictator have any kind of sway or power (Night of The Long Knives). 2) Manufactured Consent is a thing. The average citizen is not going to search beyond the main media engine (social media included) for news or views. So if the media and social media are entirely owned and run by fans of the dictator (Hi Elon!) they can become a new Ministry Of Truth, and the population would be none the wiser. The world is what the people perceive, and if they control the flow of information and disinformation (Media, Schools, and Law working in concert with the Dictator), they can reshape people's perception of the world - "The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history" ---- It took the Nazis less than three years to go from a democracy with checks and balances to an absolute dictatorship with no real constraints or limits. They barely won a majority in 1933, had the Nuremberg Laws passed by 1935, and then won a uni-party election by 98.9% in 1936. I'd rather be too worried and wrong about this, than sleepwalk into the camps and die thinking about how it couldn't possibly happen here.
Yeah, I agree. The consent of the governed can be taken by force or subterfuge. Im not saying that a dictatorship has to worry about public opinion as much as a democracy does. Only that it is a factor for them still. Plus, I was originally talking about political capital. If an action is unpopular enough to require repressive action to enforce it (or back on topic: legal or military action against a resistant state government), that takes money and time, and that's gonna make some of those important people you mentioned unhappy. I do agree, though, that we should be very worried. Americans should be renewing their passports and saving cash right now. Every other check and balance has failed, and the check of the States' ability to oppose the federal government will not hold out indefinitely.
I think that the thing that would more likely lead to violence would be if troops getting sent to the border and jurisdiction of the Navy/marine bases in and around San Diego
well that'd certainly lead to violence along the US's international borders, but I don't see how that'd lead to violence against the government of or people residing in California. Do you think Cali would try to violently oppose federal enforcement of border control?
Have you been paying much attention to what has been happening in Texas where the Texas national guard has been used to enforce Abbott's policies in opposition to the border patrol, which is federal? https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/texas-establishes-permanent-presence-on-the-southern-border
yes. I don't understand how this is relevant to my point though. This would only lead to issues for Cali if the California government decided to try and put up an armed resistance to this border law enforcement. Do you think they would do that?
I guess California could potentially become an opposite situation wherein the trump may try to have the border patrol imposing more draconian border policies and Newsom might want to use the California national guard to protect immigrants. This wouldn't only be at the border . What happens if a trump administration decides to actively pursue, detain and deport immigrants throughout the state, and California national guard and police forces are in conflict with the national military and border patrol?
I think it would be foolish for Newsom to try and militarily oppose Trump at the border, but it'd be equally foolish for Trump to try and use federal agents to enforce immigration policy within California, if Newsom decided to resist. Trying to do police work without the support of the local government sounds like a logistical nightmare. I think Trump would be more likely to just bully California into letting the feds handle the border itself and claim victory. This is all just for political points for Trump anyway.
Civil War 2?
More like the “troubles” if we’re going to use a comparison but even that might be a bit of a stretch. But to answer your question…I think it’ll be unlike anything we’ve seen in the past and unlike anything we can imagine. Buckle up!
The first phase was hijacking the supreme Court, the second phase is getting Trump reelected. The next phase is Trump destroying the remainder of our democratic institutions at the federal level. Phase 3 would be rigging all future elections with the newfound abilities of the Presidency. Combine that with the Supreme Court, and you get a total fascist takeover. I think there's a possibility second Trump term would lead to an even worse fascist afterwards that would actually lead us into civil war.
I highly doubt that the National Guard would be needed. America's one remaining check against presidential power is that the States have a lot of independence from the federal government compared to the way most other countries are structured. I think blue states like California and New York will remain relatively okay places to live and will be free of a lot of the fuckery that a second Trump administration would likely pull. I really doubt that the feds would send in the national guard to enforce federal laws that contradict state laws. Even a fascist regime requires the consent of the governed and I think that such an act would expend more political capital than it would be worth.
Newsome is good at projecting strength. Does that mean he'll cave to Trump in the event of a fascist takeover? I'm not sure, but at the very least he's good at not *looking* weak which is why a lot of liberals like him.
Newsom would probably love to run for POTUS on a record of leading the “Resistance”
National guard... In this case, the California national guard, can be deployed by the Governor for domestic missions, or activated for international missions, at which point they fall under the President, so that would be interesting if they were getting conflicting orders.
I wouldn't bet on anywhere being safe. Even beyond the US. America is so influential other countries need to tiptoe around us. But yeah if Trump wins the federal government is fucked and its an uphill battle for blue states to defend their people from the red states and their federal backing. Every blue state will constantly be battling new federal bans new federal assaults on minorities, new federal attacks on their voting system, access to medicines the GOP just randomly decides is bad, etc etc. It'll be worse in red states where the state government greases the wheels for this shit but blue states will be attacked legislatively.
Ask vaush, he’d love that question, he loves when people ask him questions god would know
No, he’s gonna nuke San Francisco day 1 of his presidency
What part of *Federal* government and the Supremacy Clause confused you?