r/politics • u/sweatycat New York • 1d ago

California to Negotiate Trade With Other Countries to Bypass Trump Tariffs

https://www.newsweek.com/california-newsom-trade-trump-tariffs-2055414
92.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

6.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

19.8k

u/wankbollox 1d ago

If Texas can ignore the federal government and make its own immigration policy, then I guess California can make its own trade policy. Seems fair. 

6.8k

u/TinFoilBeanieTech 1d 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.

525

u/palmerama 1d ago

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

382

u/Faux-Foe 1d ago

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

351

u/Emblazin 1d ago

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

270

u/rainzer 1d ago

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

99

u/InsuranceToTheRescue I voted 1d ago

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

45

u/Vohdre Illinois 1d ago

Which should have been 5 minutes after Homelander was introduced

38

u/animatroniczombie 1d ago

They're not the sharpest knives in the drawer

7

u/ActOdd8937 1d ago

Heck, they aren't even the sharpest spoons!

1

u/Silidistani 1d ago

Gah, beat me to it! 🫵🏼

→ More replies (0)

1

u/JTitch420 15h ago

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

2

u/thefirecrest 18h 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.)

1

u/Vohdre Illinois 16h ago

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

1

u/ButterscotchHappy515 10h ago

THis is just like hecking star wars

45

u/yungcdollaz 1d ago

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

8

u/deekaydubya 1d ago

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

10

u/Imapatriothurrrdurrr California 1d ago

Berder*

2

u/WalkingEars Georgia 1d ago

Well done with ketchup and no vegetables

11

u/SCViper 1d ago

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

7

u/nigelfitz 1d ago

and nick is a good looking dude

nice hair, no obnoxious tan, nicely fitted suit

65

u/SomeMoistHousing 1d 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 1d 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

14

u/BlisfullyStupid 1d 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?”

11

u/jcrestor Foreign 1d ago

It really wasn’t necessary.

3

u/xflashbackxbrd 1d 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 1d 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 1d 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.

21

u/gatorbater5 California 1d ago

i thought they liked being the bad guys

16

u/Elegant_Plate6640 1d ago edited 1d ago

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

8

u/dunkolx 1d ago

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

2

u/FinancialRip2008 California 1d ago edited 1d 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 1d ago

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

...were the bad guys?!

7

u/cosmicosmo4 1d 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 1d 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 1d 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 1d 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 1d ago

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

6

u/Lucas_Steinwalker 1d 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 1d 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.

2

u/MercantileReptile Europe 1d ago

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

1

u/seriouslees 1d 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/VirginiaMcCaskey 1d ago

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