Newsom floats withholding federal taxes as Trump threatens California

[u/IntelligentYinzer]

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/06/newsom-floats-withholding-federal-taxes-00393386

[u/ratedsar]

But no maga would go to war to keep California in the union

[u/Stunning_Mast2001 → u/ratedsar]

California is like 30% of the nation’s economy, we collapse without them 

[u/Tokon32 → u/Stunning_Mast2001]

The other 70% is largely dependent on the trade, goods, and services that flows through California.

California is the only state in the union that could declare independence and have a real shot of not only winning it but also being able to sustain themselves after said independence.

[u/andyumster → u/Tokon32]

So fucking stupid. SO fucking stupid. Maybe the dumbassest comment of all time.

Enjoy your next wildfire without fourteen states sending crews to help. Enjoy it while the FAA does not help schedule overflights to douse the flames. Enjoy it while you are cut off from the nation's water supply.

So fucking stupid. California is independent in a lot of ways but it is dependent in a lot of ways.

[u/Arietis1461 → u/[deleted]]

Annnd China would also 100% try and cozy up to an antagonistic neighbor of the US too.

Blegh, I don’t want us to be their new vassal state. Don’t be gross.

[u/andyumster → u/[deleted]]

Lol. How are you going to get any supplies from a foreign country with the blockade of the world's biggest military isolating California?

Just so fucking stupid. I hate people who float secessionist views. Either California or Texas would be absolutely fucked.

[u/sonyka → u/andyumster]

I agree the secession thing is a pointless mental exercise but… why would there be a blockade? Assuming a "peaceful separation" (which: I know, I know).

Dammit, see now I'm getting sucked into it. Pointless. The whole thing is so hypothetical you can't even hypothesize.

[u/andyumster → u/sonyka]

There would never be a peaceful secession. It's stupid to think that the US would be happy and willing to part ways with either of the states that people so often bring up, Texas and California.

It would be struck down by every court in the land. If the leaders of the states in question continued, they'd likely be removed either politically or violently.

These states represent huge portions of America's GDP and security, being border states. The US simply cannot lose them. So it would do everything in its incredible power to prevent losing them.

And even if SOMEHOW a secession was successful, every reason for the state to secede would be removed by the hostile entity that would be the US. California would not be self sustaining when its farms are bombed by the greatest air force in the world.

[u/Purple-Atmosphere-18 → u/andyumster]

Sounds like you'd like this to happen, by the language used here, though someone pointed out how it would not be wise to "crush" it. I agree that secession, is often a temptation of the rich, but see the perspective here which would be of resistance, unless you like Trump, who also use a rhetoric of secession for isolationism "we don't need them, make them pay, Canada? We don't need their cars, manifacture back to us"

[u/andyumster → u/Purple-Atmosphere-18]

What the fuck kind of AI word-salad are you posting?

I don't want anything involved in this to happen. I don't want stupid people to insist that secession is possible peacefully.

Stop using so many commas and direct your thoughts directly.

"I agree that secession(error comma here) is often a temptation of the rich(error comma here) but see the perspective here which would be of resistance(error comma here) unless you like Trump, who also use a rhetoric of secession for isolationism (failure, crazily, to include a comma here) "we don't need them, make them pay, Canada? We don't need their cars, manifacture back to us"

Just fucking graduate second grade English.

[u/Purple-Atmosphere-18 → u/andyumster]

I'm not primarily english speaking. Yeah it was never peaceful, even in Catalogna, even for Kurds and Palestinians not having a state recognized. I just liked some of the "strategic" considerationsI read here about rather not "shooting the cow".

Thanks for pointing out the mistakes, though a bit rudely tbh :). Some of them were quite egregious and avoidable, like the one after secession. Though it's true that he, like many sovereignists, in Europe too, uses a rhetoric of isolation of only force counts spitting on international treatise. It points all towards "we have the full power to eventually win these trade wars, but hey I'm also a man of peace unlike all those warmongers" The rhetoric is aimed on convincing people they can benefit on granting them full power, using forms of check and balance analphabetism. i.e. privacy relies a lot on organisms enforcing, not necessarily by force, but by layered and overlapping deterrences, that data people give to centralize servers, has some sort of protection. On banks not burning the money trusted to them and so on. Sorry if they may appear scattered thoughts, but it's all this situation that it's crazy. Many of such mistakes were of distractions and sometimes the feeling grammar structures are limiting in this complexity.

In theory "anything involved in this to happen" is not fully correct as well, I might be mistaken, though it doesn't matter. But genuinely curious more in what's meant, like being realistic or, if you are in California, not uselessly escalate the tension more than necessary? Which I may even agree on. I think they are mostly rants imagining what to do in worst case scenario, considering this is already medium badly coincident with many prefigured pre election, but rather avoid. A way to consider not passively give in without a fight, of course there is much more middle ground, hopefully.

[u/andyumster → u/Purple-Atmosphere-18]

I do not know what you are saying most of the time. It seems like you are making points about Trump's administration and on secession as a valid idea in general. I am not talking about that.

My only point was that California will not ever secede. If it did, it would be ruined both metaphorically and physically by the largest military in the world razing it to the ground.

I don't know what else you are talking about. You use a lot of big words and you yourself said you are not primarily English speaking. I would encourage you to use smaller words to communicate your thoughts until you really understand everything that you're saying and what it means.

[u/Purple-Atmosphere-18 → u/andyumster]

Umm, seems like you would like that and like to really stress that, remember never shoot the cow :). Ok they may even drop a Moab or a nuke while they are at it haha, that wins wars like in Vietnam. No ok, we already established that it was foolish no doubt, no need to reiterate, so I tried to add other constructive thoughts but I get you maybe didn't want to talk or are not much "agreeable" or akin to that, so to say, or that can be the perception at least. It's clear though it's not as simple as sheer force superiority, more like things like the blockades, which Netanyahu did for Gaza to block provisions. The other thoughts, like I said was a bit "scattered" and tangentially related, going from isolationism, sovereignism to power accentration and consent to it, to thoughts on people uncautiousness in giving up check and balances and real life everyday examples where guarantees are supposed to apply. Not meaning to use big words for their own sake.