Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Nah California won't leave. It is about power structure. Since leaving has no chance of success no one running things will go along with it.
Yeah, you're right. What I can see California do, assuming it wants to stay a progressive bulwark, is act like Texas when Texas is feeling independent, and start asserting legal resistance to its contribution to federal revenues. Also, the legalization of cannabis is getting pushed through independent states unwilling to enforce federal law or cooperate with federal law enforcement. California may just do that, forcing the federal government to send its agents to do its own policing.
This is going to be an interesting civil war.
So they make a lot of noise significant of nothing. Also can you really see Cali national guard willing to fire on the US troops? I know I would refuse that order and let whatever happened to me happened to me, because yeah I don't want certain death.
There has to be a chance of winning and outright revolt doesn't have that chance. Texas morons make a lot of noise but they don't do anything. Cannabis is not comparable since it was just states refusing to enforce federal law not them nullifying it. We already know what happens when the federal government does immigration roundups, they do it all the time and no state opposes it.
It would be fascinating to see if US troops would be willing to fire on California national guard. Do you imagine the US Army or the USMC would be willing to face off against Americans on American soil? We don't know if generals would give the order, questioning its legality, and we're also not sure boots on the ground would be willing to fire against their own countrymen.
Of course the Heritage Foundation is already trying to change this by rotating out those loyal to the United States with those loyal to the GOP and the Christian Nationalist movement.
But yes, several states already don't cooperate with the CBP or ICE, and we get regular reports of the atrocities committed by both departments. ICE is, interestingly, part of DHS and was created after the DHS was founded as immigrant hunters, and commits the same kind of misconduct that was routine in the Sicherheitsdienst. Law enforcement throughout the US is already captured, even if the state national guards are not. (And after George W. Bush's efforts to create an army of Christ within our ranks, they might be compromised as well. But I haven't followed the program that far.)
Seek help, you've been radicalized