politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Can they even do this? What leverage does CA have here? Presumably any goods imported into the state would be subject to US tariffs because those are imposed at the Federal level, so it's not like Newsom can offer to exempt other countries imports from tariffs if they're bound for California.
Well, OK, in one sense he could, but he'd literally have to direct officials in California to defy US federal law, and possibly get into direct conflict with Federal agents operating in the state, right?
Assuming he's not going to do that, how does this play work? What does he offer in return for other countries exempting CA from their counter tariffs?
Also, how is this not a stepping stone towards an independent California? (I strongly suspect the answer to that last question is "it is, end of answer")
Off the top of my head,
Yes, this is an explicit step away from the authority of the federal government
It is FAR from California's first step (recognizing gay marriage; sanctuary state; legal weed; etc)
It is not a complete defiance of federal law per se. I suspect that the way California is going to try to negotiate will be by offering breaks on its own state and local taxes. California has a decent slew of state level taxes on many things. The state may be willing to reduce its own state taxes to offset the federal taxes as part of a separate deal with foreign nations.
Well they may not have to defy federal law. Could be a good faith deal. Where if California imports something the tariffs are still paid by the ordering companies, but California gives some kind of kick back or assurance that they will remain a better trading partner for a lesser retaliatory tariff. If say China says no tariffs on California, it would make many companies flock to doing all business that ships to China go through California. Making their industry possibly not hurt as bad, or even thrive.
If states start to see they are hurting much more than California, more states may flock to the ideals that are proping up said trade.
It's all very big IF's
Like the law fucking matters now in the era of Trump.
Refusing to levy the federal tariff and daring Trump to do something about it as the only way this could work I could think of too. That could go pear shaped very fast
Half of all fruits and vegetables grown in the country come from California. Something like 99% of all almonds are grown here, too.
We are the land of fruits and nuts. 🤪
I'd be for it. Then we could yell STATES RAIGHTS as we do it.
Why does it matter? Trump ignores the constitution regularly.
Yeah the customs at California ports is run by the federal agency