|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 14 2025 23:46 LightSpectra wrote:He can join the hallowed ranks of Bill Cosby, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Jim Jordan, Rudy Giuliani, and Rush Limbaugh in receiving the award. Who wouldn't clamor from the grave to join those sex abusers and war criminals?
Of course!
I’m also waiting for the Onion News satire article entitled “Trump masterfully orchestrates 10-hour ceasefire in the Middle East so that both sides can be well-rested before resuming kidnapping and murder.”
|
On October 13 2025 02:02 ChristianS wrote:The thread’s slowed down a bit, so how about this: I have a hare-brained scheme, maybe you guys can tell me why it’s a bad idea (or offer improvements!). Some blue state or states (CA is the obvious choice) create an agency dedicated to combatting illegal overreach by federal agents. It has three arms: - Data collection: Tracking activity by federal agents (ICE, FBI, DEA, etc.) and publishing the information for public consumption.
- Legal: Suing in court when feds break the law, to get injunctions, TROs, or even arrest warrants in place as rapidly as possible.
- Enforcement: If/when the feds are breaking an injunction/TRO, agents enforce those orders and arrest those responsible.
They would have jurisdiction over federal activity within their state, or they could possibly be deployed to other states with each state’s consent. No jurisdiction over charging private citizens (except maybe if private citizens are being recruited by feds for illegal activity). There are existing institutions that serve some of these purposes (journalists, ACLU, ICEblock) but this would be resourced by (in CA’s case) the largest tax base in the country, requires only state-level action to exist, and would have full legal authority to actually *enforce* the law once feds are breaking the law. The right will cry about blue states defending criminals or whatever, of course, but at least you get to throw all their states-rights, fear-the-government, “I want a federal government small enough I could drown it in a bathtub” rhetoric back at them. And anyway who cares if they whine, they have no authority to prevent it. Thoughts?
Sure, the problem is that they have basically no power to do anything because unless they stop internal entities from paying taxes to the federal government, a goodly portion of their funding will evaporate in retaliation. If they do stop CA residents and businesses from paying federal taxes (and accepting federal money, subsidies, medicare, etc.), the entire economy would be thrown into complete turmoil. That's a soft secession and the rest of the country would absolutely do everything in their power to ensure the experiment crashed and failed. States may have rights to make their own laws but they are still very much under the federal government's thumb where finance, infrastructure, and the like are concerned.
|
On October 15 2025 02:08 Phyanketto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2025 02:02 ChristianS wrote:The thread’s slowed down a bit, so how about this: I have a hare-brained scheme, maybe you guys can tell me why it’s a bad idea (or offer improvements!). Some blue state or states (CA is the obvious choice) create an agency dedicated to combatting illegal overreach by federal agents. It has three arms: - Data collection: Tracking activity by federal agents (ICE, FBI, DEA, etc.) and publishing the information for public consumption.
- Legal: Suing in court when feds break the law, to get injunctions, TROs, or even arrest warrants in place as rapidly as possible.
- Enforcement: If/when the feds are breaking an injunction/TRO, agents enforce those orders and arrest those responsible.
They would have jurisdiction over federal activity within their state, or they could possibly be deployed to other states with each state’s consent. No jurisdiction over charging private citizens (except maybe if private citizens are being recruited by feds for illegal activity). There are existing institutions that serve some of these purposes (journalists, ACLU, ICEblock) but this would be resourced by (in CA’s case) the largest tax base in the country, requires only state-level action to exist, and would have full legal authority to actually *enforce* the law once feds are breaking the law. The right will cry about blue states defending criminals or whatever, of course, but at least you get to throw all their states-rights, fear-the-government, “I want a federal government small enough I could drown it in a bathtub” rhetoric back at them. And anyway who cares if they whine, they have no authority to prevent it. Thoughts? Sure, the problem is that they have basically no power to do anything because unless they stop internal entities from paying taxes to the federal government, a goodly portion of their funding will evaporate in retaliation. If they do stop CA residents and businesses from paying federal taxes (and accepting federal money, subsidies, medicare, etc.), the entire economy would be thrown into complete turmoil. That's a soft secession and the rest of the country would absolutely do everything in their power to ensure the experiment crashed and failed. States may have rights to make their own laws but they are still very much under the federal government's thumb where finance, infrastructure, and the like are concerned.
But why would it be that much of a problem to identify where the feds are acting illegally and sue to stop them? If they can’t get a federal court order saying it’s illegal, then CA would have no grounds to stop them. But if they can, is it really “soft secession” to insist the feds follow the law?
If so that kind of implies that for federal agents, breaking the law is a necessary and inseparable part of their jobs. If that’s true, I mean… we all agree that would be a problem, right?
|
On October 15 2025 02:38 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2025 02:08 Phyanketto wrote:On October 13 2025 02:02 ChristianS wrote:The thread’s slowed down a bit, so how about this: I have a hare-brained scheme, maybe you guys can tell me why it’s a bad idea (or offer improvements!). Some blue state or states (CA is the obvious choice) create an agency dedicated to combatting illegal overreach by federal agents. It has three arms: - Data collection: Tracking activity by federal agents (ICE, FBI, DEA, etc.) and publishing the information for public consumption.
- Legal: Suing in court when feds break the law, to get injunctions, TROs, or even arrest warrants in place as rapidly as possible.
- Enforcement: If/when the feds are breaking an injunction/TRO, agents enforce those orders and arrest those responsible.
They would have jurisdiction over federal activity within their state, or they could possibly be deployed to other states with each state’s consent. No jurisdiction over charging private citizens (except maybe if private citizens are being recruited by feds for illegal activity). There are existing institutions that serve some of these purposes (journalists, ACLU, ICEblock) but this would be resourced by (in CA’s case) the largest tax base in the country, requires only state-level action to exist, and would have full legal authority to actually *enforce* the law once feds are breaking the law. The right will cry about blue states defending criminals or whatever, of course, but at least you get to throw all their states-rights, fear-the-government, “I want a federal government small enough I could drown it in a bathtub” rhetoric back at them. And anyway who cares if they whine, they have no authority to prevent it. Thoughts? Sure, the problem is that they have basically no power to do anything because unless they stop internal entities from paying taxes to the federal government, a goodly portion of their funding will evaporate in retaliation. If they do stop CA residents and businesses from paying federal taxes (and accepting federal money, subsidies, medicare, etc.), the entire economy would be thrown into complete turmoil. That's a soft secession and the rest of the country would absolutely do everything in their power to ensure the experiment crashed and failed. States may have rights to make their own laws but they are still very much under the federal government's thumb where finance, infrastructure, and the like are concerned. But why would it be that much of a problem to identify where the feds are acting illegally and sue to stop them? If they can’t get a federal court order saying it’s illegal, then CA would have no grounds to stop them. But if they can, is it really “soft secession” to insist the feds follow the law? If so that kind of implies that for federal agents, breaking the law is a necessary and inseparable part of their jobs. If that’s true, I mean… we all agree that would be a problem, right?
what the law says and what is enforced is veeeeery different. you should know by now that written laws constraining government action mean nothing and will not be followed by this administration, and there is broad popular support for that because frankly, the people are getting what they want. a simple form of government for simple minds. they want a dictator, and they are getting it. you can document all you like, it's not going to change anything. there will be no nuremburg trials, because nobody is going to invade america. they are doing what they want, and they will get away with it, simple as. There will be elections in 2028, but they will not be free or fair. it's far easier to just give up and accept what's happening. shikata ga nai
|
|
|
Having spent any amount of time with zillenial men, yes this is how they are. The internet has absolutely convinced them this is okay. Expect awful things in 20 years when they're really in *power*.
|
Nothing surprising here. They've long since lost the benefit of the doubt. They're not just innocent and ignorant; they are malicious and hateful.
|
On October 15 2025 05:40 Phyanketto wrote:Having spent any amount of time with zillenial men, yes this is how they are. The internet has absolutely convinced them this is okay. Expect awful things in 20 years when they're really in *power*.
I see no reason to think they're any worse or better than the segregationists that ruled the country between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act, they're just edgier and worse at concealing it.
|
On October 15 2025 03:50 Phyanketto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2025 02:38 ChristianS wrote:On October 15 2025 02:08 Phyanketto wrote:On October 13 2025 02:02 ChristianS wrote:The thread’s slowed down a bit, so how about this: I have a hare-brained scheme, maybe you guys can tell me why it’s a bad idea (or offer improvements!). Some blue state or states (CA is the obvious choice) create an agency dedicated to combatting illegal overreach by federal agents. It has three arms: - Data collection: Tracking activity by federal agents (ICE, FBI, DEA, etc.) and publishing the information for public consumption.
- Legal: Suing in court when feds break the law, to get injunctions, TROs, or even arrest warrants in place as rapidly as possible.
- Enforcement: If/when the feds are breaking an injunction/TRO, agents enforce those orders and arrest those responsible.
They would have jurisdiction over federal activity within their state, or they could possibly be deployed to other states with each state’s consent. No jurisdiction over charging private citizens (except maybe if private citizens are being recruited by feds for illegal activity). There are existing institutions that serve some of these purposes (journalists, ACLU, ICEblock) but this would be resourced by (in CA’s case) the largest tax base in the country, requires only state-level action to exist, and would have full legal authority to actually *enforce* the law once feds are breaking the law. The right will cry about blue states defending criminals or whatever, of course, but at least you get to throw all their states-rights, fear-the-government, “I want a federal government small enough I could drown it in a bathtub” rhetoric back at them. And anyway who cares if they whine, they have no authority to prevent it. Thoughts? Sure, the problem is that they have basically no power to do anything because unless they stop internal entities from paying taxes to the federal government, a goodly portion of their funding will evaporate in retaliation. If they do stop CA residents and businesses from paying federal taxes (and accepting federal money, subsidies, medicare, etc.), the entire economy would be thrown into complete turmoil. That's a soft secession and the rest of the country would absolutely do everything in their power to ensure the experiment crashed and failed. States may have rights to make their own laws but they are still very much under the federal government's thumb where finance, infrastructure, and the like are concerned. But why would it be that much of a problem to identify where the feds are acting illegally and sue to stop them? If they can’t get a federal court order saying it’s illegal, then CA would have no grounds to stop them. But if they can, is it really “soft secession” to insist the feds follow the law? If so that kind of implies that for federal agents, breaking the law is a necessary and inseparable part of their jobs. If that’s true, I mean… we all agree that would be a problem, right? what the law says and what is enforced is veeeeery different. you should know by now that written laws constraining government action mean nothing and will not be followed by this administration, and there is broad popular support for that because frankly, the people are getting what they want. a simple form of government for simple minds. they want a dictator, and they are getting it. you can document all you like, it's not going to change anything. there will be no nuremburg trials, because nobody is going to invade america. they are doing what they want, and they will get away with it, simple as. There will be elections in 2028, but they will not be free or fair. it's far easier to just give up and accept what's happening. shikata ga nai
And we’re already inevitably going to get, what, a thousand-year Reich?
I don’t really buy that all this is that popular. I might buy that the system is already too far gone to fix itself by normal measures (like what I’m proposing here), but I don’t really see that as a downside to trying. Compared to your prediction “soft secession” doesn’t sound so bad, y’know?
|
On October 15 2025 10:56 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2025 03:50 Phyanketto wrote:On October 15 2025 02:38 ChristianS wrote:On October 15 2025 02:08 Phyanketto wrote:On October 13 2025 02:02 ChristianS wrote:The thread’s slowed down a bit, so how about this: I have a hare-brained scheme, maybe you guys can tell me why it’s a bad idea (or offer improvements!). Some blue state or states (CA is the obvious choice) create an agency dedicated to combatting illegal overreach by federal agents. It has three arms: - Data collection: Tracking activity by federal agents (ICE, FBI, DEA, etc.) and publishing the information for public consumption.
- Legal: Suing in court when feds break the law, to get injunctions, TROs, or even arrest warrants in place as rapidly as possible.
- Enforcement: If/when the feds are breaking an injunction/TRO, agents enforce those orders and arrest those responsible.
They would have jurisdiction over federal activity within their state, or they could possibly be deployed to other states with each state’s consent. No jurisdiction over charging private citizens (except maybe if private citizens are being recruited by feds for illegal activity). There are existing institutions that serve some of these purposes (journalists, ACLU, ICEblock) but this would be resourced by (in CA’s case) the largest tax base in the country, requires only state-level action to exist, and would have full legal authority to actually *enforce* the law once feds are breaking the law. The right will cry about blue states defending criminals or whatever, of course, but at least you get to throw all their states-rights, fear-the-government, “I want a federal government small enough I could drown it in a bathtub” rhetoric back at them. And anyway who cares if they whine, they have no authority to prevent it. Thoughts? Sure, the problem is that they have basically no power to do anything because unless they stop internal entities from paying taxes to the federal government, a goodly portion of their funding will evaporate in retaliation. If they do stop CA residents and businesses from paying federal taxes (and accepting federal money, subsidies, medicare, etc.), the entire economy would be thrown into complete turmoil. That's a soft secession and the rest of the country would absolutely do everything in their power to ensure the experiment crashed and failed. States may have rights to make their own laws but they are still very much under the federal government's thumb where finance, infrastructure, and the like are concerned. But why would it be that much of a problem to identify where the feds are acting illegally and sue to stop them? If they can’t get a federal court order saying it’s illegal, then CA would have no grounds to stop them. But if they can, is it really “soft secession” to insist the feds follow the law? If so that kind of implies that for federal agents, breaking the law is a necessary and inseparable part of their jobs. If that’s true, I mean… we all agree that would be a problem, right? what the law says and what is enforced is veeeeery different. you should know by now that written laws constraining government action mean nothing and will not be followed by this administration, and there is broad popular support for that because frankly, the people are getting what they want. a simple form of government for simple minds. they want a dictator, and they are getting it. you can document all you like, it's not going to change anything. there will be no nuremburg trials, because nobody is going to invade america. they are doing what they want, and they will get away with it, simple as. There will be elections in 2028, but they will not be free or fair. it's far easier to just give up and accept what's happening. shikata ga nai And we’re already inevitably going to get, what, a thousand-year Reich? I don’t really buy that all this is that popular. I might buy that the system is already too far gone to fix itself by normal measures (like what I’m proposing here), but I don’t really see that as a downside to trying. Compared to your prediction “soft secession” doesn’t sound so bad, y’know?
Lol, definitely not a thousand year Reich. There are two ways I see:
Scenario A: Trump lives and is reasonably coherent in '28, runs and wins again, either through continued loyalist from his base or electoral riggingtoni a la putinesca. Dies or becomes incompetent in office and during this time the legislative and administrative framework is paved for a clear successor, either Vance or Miller. These younger, more vital men lack trump's (frankly, bizarre) level of cult of personality appeal, and essentially fumble the bag in maintaining popular appeal, and (keeping a happy thought) some level of legal accountability is applied to them in a way nobody has been able to with teflonald. Things slowly return to normality after over a decade or so, with no Sulla to Trump's Marius.
Scenario B: same as A, but there is no clear successor, and an internal power struggle ensues. In this scenario, whoever is in charge of the unleashed and extremely empowered national security apparatus will be able to seize power if they can play nice with the corporations. This is the scenario we ought to be worried about, because the even the trump base will be alienated, and we'll be in a putin situation where the consent of the oligarchs and a very powerful surveillance state are all that's required. Miller seems like the one to watch for this, but also there are probably some middle-level people in the alphabet soup who could do exactly what Putin did. This wouldn't happen immediately, and would probably take 4-8 years before they solidified their power. Whatever you say about trump's fascist dictatorship, it's incredibly disorganized and terminally dependent on the viscissitude and caprice of the tyrant, so it would be hard for anyone to follow it up, and like in scenario a, hard for anyone to make it work because they don't have inexplicable messianic appeal of cheeto benito. That will be what causes them to crack down on dissent in order to solidify power, and will not have very much imoact on the day-to-day freedoms of most Americans. Conveniently, this is when the US plans to be at war with China during.
Scenario C: Trump doesn't run for a third term with no clear successor, and is viewed by the right as some sort of Cincinattus, leading to whoever follows having the benefit of a lot more goodwill in 28 than scenario a or b, while still benefitting from election rigging that they are absolutely creaming themselves to play with. Everything they accuse democrats of, they will either attempt or surpass in order to "combat the corruption of the left".
|
If Trump is allowed to run again, assuming no new rules/laws are passed, the Republic allready failed, that such an illegal election would be rigged is more likely than not.
|
It's obviously not the first time that our country has meddled with other countries' leadership, but here is Donald Trump directly interfering with Argentina's election and trying to force that country to keep right-wing control:
Trump threatens to pull support for Argentina if its politics move leftward
President Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened to pull assistance for Argentina — led by a political kindred spirit whose philosophy is similar to that of the Republican administration — if the nation’s internal politics don’t align with his interests in upcoming elections.
The comments came during a meeting with Argentine President Javier Milei, whose country is set to hold midterm elections for its legislative body later this month. U.S. presidents typically do not weigh in on the candidates in other countries’ democratic elections.
Referring to an opponent who was “extremely far-left” and encompassed a “philosophy that got Argentina into this problem in the first place,” Trump warned that the United States wouldn’t “waste our time” with largesse toward Buenos Aires if Milei does not prevail. In addition to the midterms that will be a referendum on his policies, Milei himself is up for reelection in 2027.
“We’re not going to let somebody get into office and squander the taxpayer money from this country. I’m not gonna let it happen,” Trump said from the Cabinet Room as he prepared to eat lunch with Milei. “If he loses, we are not going to be generous with Argentina.”
https://apnews.com/article/argentina-donald-trump-javier-milei-imf-c6f37a00c96f8aa321324ff443147b4e
|
South Americans famously love being told what to do by the United States
|
“We’re not going to let somebody get into office and squander the taxpayer money from this country. I’m not gonna let it happen,”
not for nothing, t, but isn't that what you're already doin'?
|
Waiting patiently to see if the Republican response to their Neo-Nazi groupchat is going to be whataboutism or "K-pop idols also say Heil Hitler"
|
On October 16 2025 00:52 Phyanketto wrote:Show nested quote +“We’re not going to let somebody get into office and squander the taxpayer money from this country. I’m not gonna let it happen,” not for nothing, t, but isn't that what you're already doin'?
It is the standard rightwing idea of "Rightwing people are good with money, and improve the economy. Leftwing people are bad with money and waste it (possibly on poor people!)".
This is a very persistent idea which they have, and this idea is very resistant to any evidence to the contrary. They know that this is true, so if ever something implies that this might be incorrect, that thing is either wrong or a rare exception.
|
On October 15 2025 15:35 Phyanketto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2025 10:56 ChristianS wrote:On October 15 2025 03:50 Phyanketto wrote:On October 15 2025 02:38 ChristianS wrote:On October 15 2025 02:08 Phyanketto wrote:On October 13 2025 02:02 ChristianS wrote:The thread’s slowed down a bit, so how about this: I have a hare-brained scheme, maybe you guys can tell me why it’s a bad idea (or offer improvements!). Some blue state or states (CA is the obvious choice) create an agency dedicated to combatting illegal overreach by federal agents. It has three arms: - Data collection: Tracking activity by federal agents (ICE, FBI, DEA, etc.) and publishing the information for public consumption.
- Legal: Suing in court when feds break the law, to get injunctions, TROs, or even arrest warrants in place as rapidly as possible.
- Enforcement: If/when the feds are breaking an injunction/TRO, agents enforce those orders and arrest those responsible.
They would have jurisdiction over federal activity within their state, or they could possibly be deployed to other states with each state’s consent. No jurisdiction over charging private citizens (except maybe if private citizens are being recruited by feds for illegal activity). There are existing institutions that serve some of these purposes (journalists, ACLU, ICEblock) but this would be resourced by (in CA’s case) the largest tax base in the country, requires only state-level action to exist, and would have full legal authority to actually *enforce* the law once feds are breaking the law. The right will cry about blue states defending criminals or whatever, of course, but at least you get to throw all their states-rights, fear-the-government, “I want a federal government small enough I could drown it in a bathtub” rhetoric back at them. And anyway who cares if they whine, they have no authority to prevent it. Thoughts? Sure, the problem is that they have basically no power to do anything because unless they stop internal entities from paying taxes to the federal government, a goodly portion of their funding will evaporate in retaliation. If they do stop CA residents and businesses from paying federal taxes (and accepting federal money, subsidies, medicare, etc.), the entire economy would be thrown into complete turmoil. That's a soft secession and the rest of the country would absolutely do everything in their power to ensure the experiment crashed and failed. States may have rights to make their own laws but they are still very much under the federal government's thumb where finance, infrastructure, and the like are concerned. But why would it be that much of a problem to identify where the feds are acting illegally and sue to stop them? If they can’t get a federal court order saying it’s illegal, then CA would have no grounds to stop them. But if they can, is it really “soft secession” to insist the feds follow the law? If so that kind of implies that for federal agents, breaking the law is a necessary and inseparable part of their jobs. If that’s true, I mean… we all agree that would be a problem, right? what the law says and what is enforced is veeeeery different. you should know by now that written laws constraining government action mean nothing and will not be followed by this administration, and there is broad popular support for that because frankly, the people are getting what they want. a simple form of government for simple minds. they want a dictator, and they are getting it. you can document all you like, it's not going to change anything. there will be no nuremburg trials, because nobody is going to invade america. they are doing what they want, and they will get away with it, simple as. There will be elections in 2028, but they will not be free or fair. it's far easier to just give up and accept what's happening. shikata ga nai And we’re already inevitably going to get, what, a thousand-year Reich? I don’t really buy that all this is that popular. I might buy that the system is already too far gone to fix itself by normal measures (like what I’m proposing here), but I don’t really see that as a downside to trying. Compared to your prediction “soft secession” doesn’t sound so bad, y’know? Lol, definitely not a thousand year Reich. There are two ways I see: Scenario A: Trump lives and is reasonably coherent in '28, runs and wins again, either through continued loyalist from his base or electoral riggingtoni a la putinesca. Dies or becomes incompetent in office and during this time the legislative and administrative framework is paved for a clear successor, either Vance or Miller. These younger, more vital men lack trump's (frankly, bizarre) level of cult of personality appeal, and essentially fumble the bag in maintaining popular appeal, and (keeping a happy thought) some level of legal accountability is applied to them in a way nobody has been able to with teflonald. Things slowly return to normality after over a decade or so, with no Sulla to Trump's Marius. Scenario B: same as A, but there is no clear successor, and an internal power struggle ensues. In this scenario, whoever is in charge of the unleashed and extremely empowered national security apparatus will be able to seize power if they can play nice with the corporations. This is the scenario we ought to be worried about, because the even the trump base will be alienated, and we'll be in a putin situation where the consent of the oligarchs and a very powerful surveillance state are all that's required. Miller seems like the one to watch for this, but also there are probably some middle-level people in the alphabet soup who could do exactly what Putin did. This wouldn't happen immediately, and would probably take 4-8 years before they solidified their power. Whatever you say about trump's fascist dictatorship, it's incredibly disorganized and terminally dependent on the viscissitude and caprice of the tyrant, so it would be hard for anyone to follow it up, and like in scenario a, hard for anyone to make it work because they don't have inexplicable messianic appeal of cheeto benito. That will be what causes them to crack down on dissent in order to solidify power, and will not have very much imoact on the day-to-day freedoms of most Americans. Conveniently, this is when the US plans to be at war with China during. Scenario C: Trump doesn't run for a third term with no clear successor, and is viewed by the right as some sort of Cincinattus, leading to whoever follows having the benefit of a lot more goodwill in 28 than scenario a or b, while still benefitting from election rigging that they are absolutely creaming themselves to play with. Everything they accuse democrats of, they will either attempt or surpass in order to "combat the corruption of the left".
I must say, you view the world much more deterministically than I do. I notice none of your scenario involve Trump dying before 2028. I’m no actuary but that’s gotta be decently likely, right?
Otherwise I don’t think it’s as simple as “they’re popular so they’ll stay popular, and even if they don’t they have the levers of power now so it doesn’t matter.” Popular opinion matters even in monarchies and dictatorships, I don’t think they’re that popular now, and there’s a lot that can go wrong in the next 3 years. What if the AI bubble pops and we get a big recession, for instance? I think this kind of cynical “eh, everything’s already fucked, no point in trying” stuff is self-soothing but not particularly justified by the facts.
|
On October 16 2025 01:15 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2025 15:35 Phyanketto wrote:On October 15 2025 10:56 ChristianS wrote:On October 15 2025 03:50 Phyanketto wrote:On October 15 2025 02:38 ChristianS wrote:On October 15 2025 02:08 Phyanketto wrote:On October 13 2025 02:02 ChristianS wrote:The thread’s slowed down a bit, so how about this: I have a hare-brained scheme, maybe you guys can tell me why it’s a bad idea (or offer improvements!). Some blue state or states (CA is the obvious choice) create an agency dedicated to combatting illegal overreach by federal agents. It has three arms: - Data collection: Tracking activity by federal agents (ICE, FBI, DEA, etc.) and publishing the information for public consumption.
- Legal: Suing in court when feds break the law, to get injunctions, TROs, or even arrest warrants in place as rapidly as possible.
- Enforcement: If/when the feds are breaking an injunction/TRO, agents enforce those orders and arrest those responsible.
They would have jurisdiction over federal activity within their state, or they could possibly be deployed to other states with each state’s consent. No jurisdiction over charging private citizens (except maybe if private citizens are being recruited by feds for illegal activity). There are existing institutions that serve some of these purposes (journalists, ACLU, ICEblock) but this would be resourced by (in CA’s case) the largest tax base in the country, requires only state-level action to exist, and would have full legal authority to actually *enforce* the law once feds are breaking the law. The right will cry about blue states defending criminals or whatever, of course, but at least you get to throw all their states-rights, fear-the-government, “I want a federal government small enough I could drown it in a bathtub” rhetoric back at them. And anyway who cares if they whine, they have no authority to prevent it. Thoughts? Sure, the problem is that they have basically no power to do anything because unless they stop internal entities from paying taxes to the federal government, a goodly portion of their funding will evaporate in retaliation. If they do stop CA residents and businesses from paying federal taxes (and accepting federal money, subsidies, medicare, etc.), the entire economy would be thrown into complete turmoil. That's a soft secession and the rest of the country would absolutely do everything in their power to ensure the experiment crashed and failed. States may have rights to make their own laws but they are still very much under the federal government's thumb where finance, infrastructure, and the like are concerned. But why would it be that much of a problem to identify where the feds are acting illegally and sue to stop them? If they can’t get a federal court order saying it’s illegal, then CA would have no grounds to stop them. But if they can, is it really “soft secession” to insist the feds follow the law? If so that kind of implies that for federal agents, breaking the law is a necessary and inseparable part of their jobs. If that’s true, I mean… we all agree that would be a problem, right? what the law says and what is enforced is veeeeery different. you should know by now that written laws constraining government action mean nothing and will not be followed by this administration, and there is broad popular support for that because frankly, the people are getting what they want. a simple form of government for simple minds. they want a dictator, and they are getting it. you can document all you like, it's not going to change anything. there will be no nuremburg trials, because nobody is going to invade america. they are doing what they want, and they will get away with it, simple as. There will be elections in 2028, but they will not be free or fair. it's far easier to just give up and accept what's happening. shikata ga nai And we’re already inevitably going to get, what, a thousand-year Reich? I don’t really buy that all this is that popular. I might buy that the system is already too far gone to fix itself by normal measures (like what I’m proposing here), but I don’t really see that as a downside to trying. Compared to your prediction “soft secession” doesn’t sound so bad, y’know? Lol, definitely not a thousand year Reich. There are two ways I see: Scenario A: Trump lives and is reasonably coherent in '28, runs and wins again, either through continued loyalist from his base or electoral riggingtoni a la putinesca. Dies or becomes incompetent in office and during this time the legislative and administrative framework is paved for a clear successor, either Vance or Miller. These younger, more vital men lack trump's (frankly, bizarre) level of cult of personality appeal, and essentially fumble the bag in maintaining popular appeal, and (keeping a happy thought) some level of legal accountability is applied to them in a way nobody has been able to with teflonald. Things slowly return to normality after over a decade or so, with no Sulla to Trump's Marius. Scenario B: same as A, but there is no clear successor, and an internal power struggle ensues. In this scenario, whoever is in charge of the unleashed and extremely empowered national security apparatus will be able to seize power if they can play nice with the corporations. This is the scenario we ought to be worried about, because the even the trump base will be alienated, and we'll be in a putin situation where the consent of the oligarchs and a very powerful surveillance state are all that's required. Miller seems like the one to watch for this, but also there are probably some middle-level people in the alphabet soup who could do exactly what Putin did. This wouldn't happen immediately, and would probably take 4-8 years before they solidified their power. Whatever you say about trump's fascist dictatorship, it's incredibly disorganized and terminally dependent on the viscissitude and caprice of the tyrant, so it would be hard for anyone to follow it up, and like in scenario a, hard for anyone to make it work because they don't have inexplicable messianic appeal of cheeto benito. That will be what causes them to crack down on dissent in order to solidify power, and will not have very much imoact on the day-to-day freedoms of most Americans. Conveniently, this is when the US plans to be at war with China during. Scenario C: Trump doesn't run for a third term with no clear successor, and is viewed by the right as some sort of Cincinattus, leading to whoever follows having the benefit of a lot more goodwill in 28 than scenario a or b, while still benefitting from election rigging that they are absolutely creaming themselves to play with. Everything they accuse democrats of, they will either attempt or surpass in order to "combat the corruption of the left". I must say, you view the world much more deterministically than I do. I notice none of your scenario involve Trump dying before 2028. I’m no actuary but that’s gotta be decently likely, right? Otherwise I don’t think it’s as simple as “they’re popular so they’ll stay popular, and even if they don’t they have the levers of power now so it doesn’t matter.” Popular opinion matters even in monarchies and dictatorships, I don’t think they’re that popular now, and there’s a lot that can go wrong in the next 3 years. What if the AI bubble pops and we get a big recession, for instance? I think this kind of cynical “eh, everything’s already fucked, no point in trying” stuff is self-soothing but not particularly justified by the facts.
I should clarify that these are the scenarios if he survives and is lucid. If not, I don't have predictions beyond infighting and strongman, or infighting and return to normalcy.
|
On October 16 2025 01:06 LightSpectra wrote:
Waiting patiently to see if the Republican response to their Neo-Nazi groupchat is going to be whataboutism or "K-pop idols also say Heil Hitler"
I have a feeling that no one will really react to this, because, as our pals oBlade and Introvert will explain to you, "Racism is made up".
I had a call with a colleague, US one, somehow Bad Bunny NFL halftime show came up, imidiately he launched into:
1. Do you know how many Americans were doing the halftime NFL show in the last 10 years?
2. Do you know that half NFL teams have "end Racism" on their helmets?
3. Why, do they even know who their audience is?
4. Anyway, that is all so stupid, there is no racism in the USA...
I, as the woke antifa was twitching in my seat, my fiancee who was sitting next to me and heard it from my laptop was looking at me with a look that can only be described as "don't flip out" as I politely asked, without addressing most of this shit "Have you logged on to the app formerly known as Twitter lately? I think Racism is alive and well."
He replied with "ah, that's just the internet man" and I quickly changed the subject, but oh boy, was that revealing.
Not a bad guy, but a die hard Trump supporter who canceled his trip to Europe because "they hate us over there" and since 2024 he really started hating Canadians.
Brainwashing is real and pretty fucked up over there.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On October 16 2025 04:15 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2025 01:06 LightSpectra wrote:
Waiting patiently to see if the Republican response to their Neo-Nazi groupchat is going to be whataboutism or "K-pop idols also say Heil Hitler" I have a feeling that no one will really react to this, because, as our pals oBlade and Introvert will explain to you, "Racism is made up". I had a call with a colleague, US one, somehow Bad Bunny NFL halftime show came up, imidiately he launched into: 1. Do you know how many Americans were doing the halftime NFL show in the last 10 years? 2. Do you know that half NFL teams have "end Racism" on their helmets? 3. Why, do they even know who their audience is? 4. Anyway, that is all so stupid, there is no racism in the USA... I, as the woke antifa was twitching in my seat, my fiancee who was sitting next to me and heard it from my laptop was looking at me with a look that can only be described as "don't flip out" as I politely asked, without addressing most of this shit "Have you logged on to the app formerly known as Twitter lately? I think Racism is alive and well." He replied with "ah, that's just the internet man" and I quickly changed the subject, but oh boy, was that revealing. Not a bad guy, but a die hard Trump supporter who canceled his trip to Europe because "they hate us over there" and since 2024 he really started hating Canadians. Brainwashing is real and pretty fucked up over there.
and if you said anything in response you would have been the one that would have been called in to HR for "getting political"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
