r/politics • u/sweatycat New York • 20h ago

California to Negotiate Trade With Other Countries to Bypass Trump Tariffs

https://www.newsweek.com/california-newsom-trade-trump-tariffs-2055414
88.9k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

6.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

182

u/frosty_the_blowman 19h ago

California I could see. It's Hard to imagine Texas seceding over Trump taking a third term. If the Republicans in Congress right now are any indication then they will welcome any unconstitutional moves so long as it benefits Trump/their "team".

159

u/I_AM_NOT_A_WOMBAT 19h ago

A prior discussion about this, iirc, noted that Texas was chosen to make it less overtly political, but I haven't seen the movie.

112

u/confirmedshill123 19h ago

The movie is fantastic btw. It's a love story to war journalism and an actual fantastic depiction of what civil war here would be like.

One of the few movies I've watched repeatedly.

67

u/StMcAwesome 19h ago

Just when you thought you couldn't despise a character played by Jesse Plemons more than Todd.

46

u/Seaside_choom 18h ago

I love that he was cast because he was just hanging around set and ended up being one of the most memorable/terrifying parts of the movie. Serious luck

24

u/Sixtyninealldaychef 18h ago

I mean, he's already got plenty of acting accolades to his name, and he's married to Kirsten Dunst, which is why he was around on set anyway.

Luck would be more like him being discovered on set because he had to use the porta potty there when the bathroom at the studio's IT office where he works was closed.

15

u/Seaside_choom 18h ago

That's true, but the original actor had just left the project and he happened to be in the building so his wife said "what about him?" If he was at home or working elsewhere then he might not have been considered

4

u/StoneGoldX 17h ago

More luck for the movie.

-3

u/morethanjustanalien 16h ago

He’s being mentioned by first name in a Reddit thread speaking about the success of the movie he is in. He was a major role in one of the most successful television shows ever made.

And then we have people like this who feel the need to instill a bullshit origin story for it. He’s a famous actor who got cast for the part. There’s no secret lore ya weirdo.

5

u/Seaside_choom 15h ago

No, that's actually what happened. The original actor for the part dropped out rather last minute and Plemons happened to be on set because his wife, Kirsten Dunst, is playing the lead and they travel as a family when either are filming. They needed a new actor, she suggested her husband, he stepped in. 

I just checked the interview given by the director to be sure I had the facts right and even he said "It was a stunning bit of good luck."

1

u/HauntedCemetery Minnesota 15h ago

Dude plays the best realistic evil.

He nails the, "aww, shucks. Gee, I sure wish you wouldn't have said that. Now I have to eat your children, dangit" kinda thing.

1

u/MrGupplez 11h ago

Hell I guess I need to watch it, didn't realize he was in it.

13

u/loneSTAR_06 18h ago

You’re one of the few people I’ve heard have as high opinion of that movie as I do. I love it, but basically everyone else I know hated it.

11

u/Background_Home7092 18h ago

Many people went in hoping for a modern day GETTYSBURG or GLORY, instead they got more of an action/drama about war journalism.

I loved it, but I can see why many people didn't.

3

u/kuldan5853 17h ago

I loved it too - but I'm not American. From the outside perspective, the movie seems much more realistic than many Americans want to admit to themselves.

6

u/confirmedshill123 17h ago

It's incredibly realistic, especially the parts where certain parts of the country were just straight up ignoring it. Very underrated movie.

6

u/Rough_Bread8329 Canada 18h ago

As a Canadian, I loved it. It feels like it would bring up a lot of difficult emotions and cognitive dissonance for a lot of American viewers. It's not that they hate the movie - they don't like how it makes them feel.

4

u/loneSTAR_06 18h ago

Fair point, but I think a lot of it is more because of how they marketed the movie, leading people to think it was about something different than it was.

4

u/Rough_Bread8329 Canada 18h ago

I'm hard pressed to understand how anyone could have misinterpreted the marketing. The trailers are pretty unambiguous.

3

u/mu_zuh_dell 16h ago

I didn't like it becaue of the way the politics were portrayed. There were good parts, but that was in spite of the movie's "lore". I understand the idea of creating fantasy scenarios, but... the movie already plays on and is born out of fears Americans have, and those fears stem from real politics. So to keep the fear, but toss the politics... it made it seem like a cheap cop-out.

5

u/Least-Prompt-212 17h ago

To me, the apoliticality was completely immersion breaking. The degree to which I was cognizant that the story being presented was written in a context where it was actively avoiding offending portions of its audience by not addressing the politics of the most political setting you could pick was just too much.

8

u/confirmedshill123 17h ago

But the whole point of the movie was that the sides didn't matter, and barely any body even knew what the sides were. They were constantly asking what outfit the people were with that they end up interviewing and it's still a mess. I thought it was perfect.

5

u/Xyllus 17h ago

agreed, best movie of the year

3

u/rabton 17h ago

I took it on face value as "enemy of my enemy" and that all that really matters is the US was boned regardless of who was teaming up. Like after the events of the movie, Texas and Cali end up going after each other and the war gets worse.

2

u/No-Advice-6040 16h ago

Cos everyone thought it would be about the war part when really that was merely the backdrop from talking about the journalism of it.

11

u/Papayaslice636 18h ago

I found it to be far more emotional and powerful than I was prepared for and had a lot of trouble watching it. Too real. Not saying it was bad by any means, it was excellent, but..damn..

3

u/rabton 17h ago

It's a top 5 for me but I'll probably never watch it again. Similar vein of Children of Men.

5

u/peanut47 18h ago

its interesting you say its a love story. I think the ending pretty clearly showed war journalism in a bad light

3

u/confirmedshill123 17h ago

I'm unsure how you got to that point? Are you misconstruing the younger woman's motivation as a comment on all war journalists? It was quite literally a love story to war journalists, and how even though they are in a warzone they have a job to do.

5

u/Im_Chad_AMA 16h ago edited 16h ago

I agree with the comment you replied to. Its been a few months that I watched the movie but there were many instances where it felt like, to the main characters, that "chasing the thrill" was more important than the actual reporting. And it turned the framing of the whole movie from "group of war journalists trying to show the atrocities of war at great personal cost" to "group of adrenaline junkies recklessly endangering themselves and the lives of soldiers around them to snap a few pics". Combined with some other iffyness (like the dude hitting on the new girl who was like, barely legal and clearly vulnerable?) it did not particularly leave me with a great impression of war journalism.

I genuinely thought that that was one of the points the movie was trying to make, but it doesn't seem like this a takeaway that's widely shared

4

u/Kinky_Loggins 16h ago

That was absolutely the lens of the film. The war journalists are horrible.

3

u/No-Advice-6040 16h ago

Thought it showed war journos as mercenary in their approach. All about the pay off. No opinions, no convictions, a somewhat detached psychopathy about profiting from death.

2

u/Lifeboatb 17h ago

I thought the movie was powerful, but some journalists have complained about their depiction. For one thing, actual war reporters are trained in first aid. It was really hard to watch them do nothing tonstop the bleeding when one is shot.

2

u/Gowalkyourdogmods 16h ago

I really want to watch this with my gf because I think she'd like it as well but I know it would just really bum her out for a while

1

u/confirmedshill123 14h ago

It's not nearly as much of a downer as you are expecting

1

u/HauntedCemetery Minnesota 15h ago

Interesting. I'll have to track it down.

But maybe in 5 years or so. Until then I can just read the news.

1

u/rokerroker45 15h ago

I dunno that it was a love story to journalism so much as it was a scathing critique of the industry from the perspective of a veteran journalist.

It echoed my biggest problems with the business, I thought it was refreshingly candid rather than naively romantic about journalism.

1

u/primaequa 12h ago

Great movie - but not a love story to war journalism at all - in fact it’s highly critical of it

-2

u/truthputer 17h ago

I was disgusted after seeing that it used AI generated promotional material and avoided watching the movie.

If I am proud that my grandfather defended his country and killed fascists in WWII, is the movie worth my time?

2

u/confirmedshill123 14h ago

I would say it has little to no connection to world war 2 and has very little in connection with that your implying. But I'm about as left leaning as they come and it is absolutely worth a watch.

11

u/Fourkoboldsinacoat 17h ago

If it was just California we would assume the president was republican and if it was Texas we would assume the president was a democratic.

With it being both California and Texas we know the presidents must have really crossed the line.

16

u/Daxx22 Canada 19h ago

It 100% was, the creators tried to make it as not-overtly politically reflective of current events (plenty of nods anyway) as possible. Walked a very fine line and mostly succeeded.

5

u/bdone2012 18h ago

That is exactly why they did it that way. I enjoyed the movie quite a lot. Although I wouldn’t have been sad if they made it more overtly political.

I think it was the right choice though. Certainly economically but also because at least some conservatives likely watched it and were a bit more open to the lessons.

People burying their heads in the sand aren’t easy to reach but i think things like that can have a small beneficial effect if enough people see it.

4

u/IAmDotorg 18h ago

The movie isn't what the trailer implied. It's really a fantastic movie.

5

u/hokis2k 18h ago

the politics of why aren't the point of it. It isn't about left vs right.. its about our politicians overstepping and destroying the norms. The movie is focused on the human impact of it.

1

u/zulutbs182 17h ago

Got into a drunk chat with my military brother in law about this point. He pointed out it’s just movie marketing - making the “rebel” states California and Texas kinda takes the politics out of it. If those two states are on the same side, then the civil war wasn’t fought over some stupid contemporary political issue - whatever started it was enough to unite these two and we’re supposed to just run with it 

1

u/FuriousPorg 15h ago

Yeah, the movie was not overtly political. There are no explicit references to Republicans or Democrats that I can remember. It’s clear from the opening sequence, though, who the president is possibly meant to represent: https://youtu.be/-QP6ZXSbmvY

39

u/AdminsCanSuckMyDong 18h ago

They clearly made Texas and Cali on the same side in that movie to try and avoid making the movie overly political.

It seemed to work, there wasn't that much stuff online with people trying to cancel the movie.

3

u/rickane58 16h ago

It seemed to work, there wasn't that much stuff online with people trying to cancel the movie.

Unfortunately, the marketing also didn't work for the same reason.

•

u/BrainMarshal 4h ago

As soon as I saw the premise was California and Texas on the same side I lost interest. Zero connection with reality. They'd legislate the sky is polkadots just to troll us.

0

u/theapeboy 14h ago

It seemed to work because it was marketed as a movie with a message, that ultimately seemed to lack one almost entirely.

3

u/Haltopen Massachusetts 10h ago edited 10h ago

It definitely had a message, it just wasn’t one specifically about politics like Alex Garland made it out to be. It was about human nature, how the “stability” we desperately try to hold onto is an illusion that can crumble at any time and how anyone can become a monster when they become desensitized to violence

11

u/-SexSandwich- 18h ago

Just wait until Texans realize the majority of their produce is imported and their grocery prices skyrocket.

7

u/mouse9001 18h ago

Texas doesn't care about independence or anything like that. They just want Republicans running everything.

7

u/10113r114m4 17h ago

I live in Texas. This state is too fucking dumb

6

u/avrus Canada 18h ago

What's funny about this is that Texas has been talking about secession for a while now. I realize it's probably not had much traction but it comes up several times a year.

2

u/TheSavageDonut 18h ago

I agree -- at some point, Trump will have to be put out to pasture, and I don't think Texas will want to secede if it means it's stuck with Emperor JD Vance for the next 40 years.

4

u/jaydurmma 18h ago

If a single pro gun pro uniom democrat ever ran in texas they could flip the whole fucking state blue and make it impossible for the GOP to ever win another election.

But texas democrats all have brain damage and cant figure out how to navigate a state full of single issue voters.

2

u/brontosaurusguy 16h ago

They need to admit they were wrong about guns.  Today's current events make it obvious....   Democrats need guns to keep the government in check.  If only one side has guns, guess what.....

5

u/Ok-Maintenance-2775 15h ago

The last Democrat to even do anything about guns was Clinton, and a lot of that has been repealed. Everything else is just fear mongering from the GOP. Individual democrats might want a weapons ban, but institutionally the party isn't that keen on it, if for no other reasons than the logistical impossibility and obvious unpopularity among certain single issue voters.

2

u/brontosaurusguy 15h ago

Ya I know and that's why it's insane that they keep making it a point to run on gun reform.  Kamala and Walz were pro gun yet they never just campaigned that way, they tried to have it both ways

1

u/jaydurmma 13h ago

Its such a small concession in the grand scheme. Im pro gun reform myself but if i were to run as a texas dem, id take a strong pro gun stance to capture single issue voters, and then focus all of my political energy on helping working class people and empowering unions. Fighting hard against scumfucks like bezos that spend tens of millions fighting against unionization efforts.

Why fight every battle all at once? Make Texas an actual nice state. Stop letting the fucking power grid be neglected so bad that they have blackouts every winter. Improve everything else, improve education, improve peoples living conditions, then suddenly people will learn that theres more to life than fucking lethal force. Let the people drive gun legislation when they're ready. For now, help them get ready.

1

u/JLixxx Illinois 16h ago

I can 100% see Texas seceding to form is own nation state again. And if that means war with the Federal Gov't I can 100% see Texas alligning with an also seceded California Republic to launch an offensive to topple DC.

1

u/JLixxx Illinois 16h ago

I can 100% see Texas seceding to form is own nation state again. And if that means war with the Federal Gov't I can 100% see Texas alligning with an also seceded California Republic to launch an offensive to topple DC.

1

u/RiPont 14h ago

Well, if the theory is that "it's just whatever Putin wants", then Texas seceding seems more possible.

Texas seceding and allying with California? Still implausible.

1

u/overcomebyfumes New Jersey 11h ago

It's Hard to imagine Texas seceding over Trump taking a third term.

Texas would secede just out of sheer spite.

0

u/FNLN_taken 18h ago

Presumably also because some people assume Texans mean it when they say "don't tread on me". And some actually do!