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

6.7k

u/TinFoilBeanieTech 19h ago

States setting their own trade agreements is totally unconstitutional, but we haven't been following that for a while now anyway. I'm hoping the whole west coast can form it's own trade coalition.

519

u/palmerama 19h ago

Now the plot of Civil War doesn’t seem so far fetched.

381

u/Faux-Foe 19h ago

The biggest far fetched idea in there wasn’t the movie, it was which states were aligned with each other.

351

u/Emblazin 19h ago

That was by design so the right couldn't complain about being the bad guys.

273

u/rainzer 19h ago

then they complained anyway cause they recognize the fascist president as Trump

96

u/InsuranceToTheRescue I voted 18h ago

I mean, they were really big on The Boys until the Homelander parallels became clear to them.

48

u/Vohdre Illinois 17h ago

Which should have been 5 minutes after Homelander was introduced

38

u/animatroniczombie 17h ago

They're not the sharpest knives in the drawer

8

u/ActOdd8937 16h ago

Heck, they aren't even the sharpest spoons!

1

u/Silidistani 12h ago

Gah, beat me to it! 🫵🏼

•

u/JTitch420 3h ago

You Don’t need knives when you got all the guns

•

u/thefirecrest 5h ago

I broke up with a guy because he told me Homelander was his favorite character.

Homelander is also my favorite character in the show. But I could tell that we didn’t mean that in the same way. And the way he meant it but didn’t dare say aloud was a huge red flag lol.

(There were other red flags before that, but this one was the one that broke the camel’s back. I wish conservatives men wouldn’t try to pretend not to be conservatives to date liberal women.)

•

u/Vohdre Illinois 3h ago

That's why any woman who lists themselves as moderate or non-political was always an immediate skip. We know who you are.

45

u/yungcdollaz 19h ago

I don't agree the president was supposed to be trump. he would've ordered a cheeseburger at the end

8

u/deekaydubya 18h ago

no he would've left the nation at the first sign of trouble lol

9

u/Imapatriothurrrdurrr California 19h ago

Berder*

2

u/WalkingEars Georgia 18h ago

Well done with ketchup and no vegetables

11

u/SCViper 19h ago

Nick Offerman wasn't wearing a diaper during filming so they couldn't have made that parallel.

9

u/nigelfitz 18h ago

and nick is a good looking dude

nice hair, no obnoxious tan, nicely fitted suit

65

u/SomeMoistHousing 19h ago

I'm sure it was intentionally noncommital on left/right politics to be more broadly palatable, but I wish it had been honest and just made the bad guys be the bad guys

10

u/rokerroker45 18h ago

I'm sure it was intentionally noncommital on left/right politics to be more broadly palatable

no, they were pretty clear on the bad guys being ultraright, they just didn't spell out which states those folks were repping

13

u/BlisfullyStupid 17h ago

Civil War wasn’t really a movie about American politics though.

It never makes any real statement about either side, pretty sure they don’t even really explain why the secession happened. The whole movie was about journalism in the same vein Hurt Locker was about the dopamine kick the protagonist felt risking his life.

Making the movie “bipartisan” seems the correct approach when you look at it that way. The context of the civil war seems more like the pitch to intrigue you since the current political landscape is very receptive to it, but the most political statement it ever makes is the “what kind of American are you?”

9

u/jcrestor Foreign 18h ago

It really wasn’t necessary.

3

u/xflashbackxbrd 17h ago

Its most logical if you presume the fascist president is feuding with constitutionist military leadership, most of which are stationed in California and texas.

3

u/machogrande2 13h ago

Whatever you do, do NOT watch the Red Dawn remake. And not just because it was a shit movie. They didn't want to piss off China(which would have been at least kinda plausible) so they went with the batshit insane idea of North Korea invading and holding territory in the US.

4

u/RickToy 18h ago

Because thats not how it works. Basically no American citizen is ready to engage in a civl war, no matter what side they are on. Many of the "bad guys" would also be victims of different combatant groups fighting over territory. Many good guys might technically be in "enemy" territory and forced to participate in battle efforts, if just to keep food, water ready and available. Thats the best part of the movie, it shows the societal collapse that would happen, and how localized things would become.

20

u/gatorbater5 California 19h ago

i thought they liked being the bad guys

16

u/Elegant_Plate6640 19h ago edited 16h ago

They like being the bad guys, they don’t like to think about the consequences of their actions.

8

u/dunkolx 19h ago

I really like thinking about consequences for them. Like, a lot.

2

u/FinancialRip2008 California 13h ago edited 13h ago

i'm sad for the fools that got duped. especially the ones who are realizing when it's too late. i don't think the bad guys will ever suffer for their actions though.

9

u/UpperApe 19h ago

Wait you're telling the guys who fought for slavers and against abolishing slavery...

...were the bad guys?!

6

u/cosmicosmo4 19h ago

I see it as being because they wanted the movie to be about journalism during war, not about the political situation that led to the war. So they did their best to make it not make sense in today's actual political climate, but it's still super fucking clear that the divorced-from-reality, staying-past-his-term, FBI-dismantling white guy is more Trump than he is anyone else.

3

u/Emblazin 18h ago

Agreed. Which I think is important because it humanizes journalists who have been demonized since the advent of the internet and Russia's psy-op on the liberal world order started under Putin. Of course journalists have been demonized before then as well, but the same consolidating of power after the 1999 apartment bombings (Google Ryazan Incident) is possibly coming to America under Trump, or we move closer to the reality in Civil War...

4

u/cosmicosmo4 18h ago

Unfortunately, your post is more interesting and contains more actual insights on the state of journalism than the movie does. It had great sound design, though.

2

u/Emblazin 18h ago

I'm glad someone else noticed that. I saw it in theaters and I was blown away at how DEAFENING the shootout scenes were front to back. I want a movie version of Robert Evans' It Could Happen Here Season 1 podcast.

2

u/cosmicosmo4 18h ago

Good news, just stay put for like a couple years and you get to experience it with unparalleled realism.

7

u/Lucas_Steinwalker 19h ago

Cowardly move designed to make a movie about civil war in the US entirely apolitical.

I get that the movie is actually meant to be about journalism, not politics but for me it is a huge miss.

2

u/LaScoundrelle 18h ago

I think it’s also realistic to what tends to happen in real modern civil wars. People tend to form coalitions with those they aren’t 100% aligned with to amass power, and then things fall apart when they win. Also Texas and California are the two states that could raise powerful armies on their own.

1

u/MercantileReptile Europe 19h ago

Which was cowardly. Good movie, bad move to suppress realistic circumstances.

1

u/seriouslees 17h ago

And that's why I hold the writers in such low regards. What absolute cowards. The Right ARE bad guys, refusing to imply so in a film is... greedy at best.

1

u/aloxinuos 16h ago

Yeah, disappointing movie with so little to say. With little changes in the script it could be placed anywhere, even a made up country.

1

u/VirginiaMcCaskey 18h ago

There are no good guys in that movie, which is kind of the point