US US politics 2025

[Lou]

I think that him going after California is a much bigger deal - I was reading some comments and Californians are "saying" lets join Canada and take Oregon and Washington state with us..... you would be most welcome.... California is the 4th largest economy in the world and has more republicans that voted for tRump than any other state - he just loves to cut off his nose to spite his face IMO.

Emma JC
Find your vegan soulmate or just a friend. www.spiritualmatchmaking.com

I don't know what the current breaksown is. Maybe I'll look it up but for a long time California voters register almost 2:1 democratic

I've posted this. before but its so good, its worth reposting. however some of the references are out of date.

Dear Red States: ​

​

We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. ​

​

In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all of the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California. ​

​

To sum up briefly: ​

​

You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. ​

​

We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay. ​

​

We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood. ​

​

We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. ​

​

We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. ​

​

We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. ​

​

We get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You get to make the red states pay their fair share. ​

​

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms. ​

​

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire. ​

​

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Stanford, Cal Tech, MIT, and University of California. ​

​

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. ​

​

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you. ​

​

Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals than we lefties. ​

​

By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico. ​

​

Peace out, ​

California (original source unknown)​

​

 

[Lou]

But seriously folks,
I used to be in favor of what we used to call Calexit. but then I learned that the movement was funded by Russia.
However with all the stuff going on - it might be time to take a second look.
I almost finished this book last year. Time for me to check it out of the library again and finish it,

Better Off Without 'Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession​

Chuck Thompson​

Better Off Without 'Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southe…​

Dubbed “savagely funny” (The New York Times) and “wickedly entertaining” (San Francisco Chronicle), acclaimed travel writer Chuck Thompson embarks on a controversial road trip to prove that both sides might be better off if the South were to secede once and for all.“​

 

[Lou]

Went to my first protest since 2019. I can't remember what we protested then but I think it was the supreme court
Anyway like many people since Trump got elected I got into the mindset of "what's the use". Even though I knew that was wrong.

the No Kings protest in San Mateo was in the same place as the one in 2019. The 2019 one stretched just a half a block. Today's went for 4 and something blocks. And it wasn't 8x bigger. it was like 20 x bigger. It seems like maybe this is the beginning of a movement.

Still the optimistic numbers are that a million people showed up today. the big question is how many millions of people are needed to sway an election?

 

[Jamie in Chile]

That "Dear Red States" includes rather optimistically as "blue states" some swing states. I know it's probably intended and reposted more as a joke, but I did think about it seriously for a while if you could split the US into three countries while keeping them geographically contiguous. I can't remember if I posted about this or not when I thought about it a few years ago.

California, Oregon and Washington state would be the Western country and then both Nevada and Arizona would have to vote which way to go. If Arizona votes blue that's better because then New Mexico and Colorado can vote to join, otherwise they'd be sort of marooned.

With the North-East country, you end up with needing to use lakes to create one country without splitting it, depending on who votes for what. So the border would have to go through the lake and democrats would only be able to travel around their own country by plane, boat, or crossing through a Republican border. You could get North Carolina to vote and then if it goes blue South Carolina can vote and then if it goes blue Georgia can vote.

I think the biggest complications are all the blue cities in red states, and red rural areas in blue states, and the fact that there is arguably more of a city/rural divide in the country than blue and red states. As well as the fact that it would all be incredibly complicated and takes years and years to sort out.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I think Trump has won this round.

All the liberals, and progressives have been easily played; easily manipulated.

As usual left wing types are just reactionary with no strategy and no thought about whether they are on the right side of public opinion.

It's disappointing to see Trump so easily win.

Basically all of this is highlighting that the left is against deportations and is therefore almost in favour of illegal immigration. It's a fine line to walk to claim that you are against people coming in illegally but also against deportations. That's like saying you are against some crime but don't think the police should be involved or anything should be done about it. Much more sensible position to be either in favour or open borders, or in favour of deportations. Harder to be against both. Sorry, maybe I should have put an unpopular opinion alert warning at the start of this.

Whereas Trump comes out as actually against illegal immigration, and actually doing something about it, which puts him on the side of the majority of people whether you like that or not.

The people protesting (and rioting) in LA are going to either have no meaningful effect or make people vote Republican a little more, but if you are stuck in your social media, left wing TV channel and friends bubble and don't go and talk to apolitical or right wing folk you'll probably miss that and think this is actually a vote winner. Lots of people are probably just seeing on their facebook people throwing stones at police cars.

It is odd how the left won't even say that illegal immigration is bad, or that such undocumented migrants should be removed, and the right has all this anti immigration rhetoric and yet when you look at undocumented immigrants being made to leave, it usually turns out to be about the same whether democrats are republicans are in power. Republicans just a bit better on the rhetoric which is why polling shows they are consistently better on this issue.

To me the better option would be to not protest or try to stop the removal of undocumented immigration except in special cases. I would focus on areas that are more likely to be popular, whatever they are. Like focus on how ridiculously the Republicans failed in every way with the guy from El Salvador, and how awful it makes Trump look.Remind people about the separation of children and adults in immigrants from years ago. Or focus on Trump damaging the economy with tariffs, or push for action on the lefty opinions on healthcare and the environment that have 60% of people in favour.

Trump's really a threat to democracy, as are perhaps the Republicans more broadly and the whole country is steadily drifting in a more authoritarian direction. Just do whatever it takes to stop that, thinking strategically.

You can start by not attending any of these protests.

 

[Lou]

That "Dear Red States" includes rather optimistically as "blue states" some swing states. I know it's probably intended and reposted more as a joke, but I did think about it seriously for a while if you could split the US into three countries while keeping them geographically contiguous. I can't remember if I posted about this or not when I thought about it a few years ago.

It is a joke. but I'm happy you thought about it seriously. One thing that is clear is that there is no such thing as a red state or a blue state.

You can start by not attending any of these protests.

I think it was Churchill who said something like all that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

 

[Second Summer]

Whereas Trump comes out as actually against illegal immigration, and actually doing something about it, which puts him on the side of the majority of people whether you like that or not.

He was, until recently, when he had to pause the immigration raids in certain sectors.

Trump to pause raids on agriculture and hospitality industries

US President Donald Trump has decided to temporarily suspend raids on farms, hotels and restaurants, according a media report.

www.euronews.com

He might restart the raids again in these sectors at a later point, but it shows that the immigration issue is complicated even for Trump.

The Democrats are just too divided on the issue, that's their problem. Which makes it very hard for them to respond to the current situation.

Like focus on how ridiculously the Republicans failed in every way with the guy from El Salvador, and how awful it makes Trump look.Remind people about the separation of children and adults in immigrants from years ago. Or focus on Trump damaging the economy with tariffs, or push for action on the lefty opinions on healthcare and the environment that have 60% of people in favour.

Agreed, these are all good things.

Trump's really a threat to democracy, as are perhaps the Republicans more broadly and the whole country is steadily drifting in a more authoritarian direction. Just do whatever it takes to stop that, thinking strategically.

You can start by not attending any of these protests.

I don't think people should refrain from protesting. And my impression was that the 'No Kings' protests weren't specifically about immigration, so I don't see those as problematic.

And as for just doing whatever it takes to stop the country from drifting towards authoritarianism: What exactly does that entail?

I think focusing on Trump's failings are important, but the Democrats also need to address their own issues, so perhaps a rebranding would be in order. They could become 'the New Democrats' with a set of popular progressive policies that actually takes the US forward instead of back to a past that never was and can never be anyway.

 

[Lou]

This is still a half baked thought in my head, but I'm pretty sure I read an editorial on this a few years ago.

When the Democrats are in charge, all the Republicans can come together just to oppose them in general. And the democrats have to build a consensus among their members which are pretty diverse. I think at one time the term Big Tent was used to describe the Democratic coalition. lots of types trying to work together.
When the Republicans are in charge the Democrats don't take the easy way and just oppose everything. However the Republicans also oppose each other which means little can be accomplished.
In a way Trump 2.0 might be good for the Democratic political machine. Trump can be opposed on every front. And have we already seen some weaknesses or fractures among the Republicans?

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I think it was Churchill who said something like all that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

Doing something is only half of the battle, though. It also depends what you do. Some protests alienate public opinion or cause a backlash which could mean that doing nothing at all is better.

I do think the "No Kings" is good branding/marketing if you can call it that and a protest movement that used that is generally focusing on Trump's over reach of power across various areas - rather than defending the rights of undocumented immigrants - could be successful.

However, I would like to see the protestors opposing actions taken, planned or considered by the President that a) they disagree with personally AND b) are also opposed by more people than support them (in surveys). I think that is the sweet spot where you unite centrist and left opinion to defeat the right/Republicans/Trump.

Whereas if your protest are about far left/left issues that only a minority of people support then they may not work.

There is a counter argument that you have to protest in order to get debate and make more people consider the issue, and then get to majority support later, if you're prepared to wait years or decades to find out if you win. After all, I recollect that a majority of people did NOT support Martin Luther King's protests at the time.

However in the specific case of defending the rights of undocumented immigrants, I don't think that is going to work.

 

[Lou]

After trump was elected ( I was not as surprised as I was in 2019), I became dismayed/dejected/and depressed. I knew few people who has already started orgainzing for the midterm. I didn't think it was obviously futile but I could not get even a little bit enthusiastic. Before I even go to the corner the protest was supposed to be, I saw hundreds of people heading for the corner. Cars honking. People chanting. And this time, not just a corner but 4 blocks and on both sides of the street plus down some side streets too. Almost everyone had a sign or a flag or a musical instrument. Being there just felt good. I'm calling a We The People moment.

a movement can gain momentum. The one has a good start. The will of the people and all that....

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Do you mean 2016?

But yes there can be benefits of protest marches for those that protest, in addition to any positive effects of the protest.

There were a lot of teenagers and 20 ish in the climate protest I attended with Greta Thunberg in Bristol in 2019 and it looked like the memory of this protest would likely have some positive effect on a fair number of them.

However if the protests are strategic and successful in their aims I think these positive feelings will be just as good in the short term, and maybe better long term.

Instead of protesting against the removal of any undocumented immigrant, which is where in my view the heart of the protests are, I would focus more on the specific egregious cases.

Some of you will probably know about this one.

Rümeysa Öztürk, who was legally in the US on a student visa, wrote the following Op-ed last year

Op-ed: Try again, President Kumar: Renewing calls for Tufts to adopt March 4 TCU Senate resolutions - The Tufts Daily

The independent student newspaper of Tufts University

www.tuftsdaily.com

demanding that her University acknowledge the Palestinian genocide and divest from Israel etc.

Really tame stuff.

She was then arrested this year by the Department of Homeland Security who revoked her visa and handed over to ICE who said she was a Hamas supporter but have provided no evidence and it seems like they might ave arrested her and tried to deport a legal immigrant for writing a tame, Pro-Palestinian opinion piece.

She wasn't even sole author, but co-author, which makes it worse in my view.

Eventually a judge ordered her release from detention.

It's difficult to know what to make of this one. Did she really support hamas, but they haven't been able to prove it? Honestly, I doubt it, (and I'm not sure that supporting hamas should even be grounds for arrest of deportation anyway, depending on the specifics of the case). Were the authorities simply incompetent and mistakenly arrested someone thinking there was more to it than there really was? Could be.

I see two possibilities here that may be slightly more likely. It could be that they were genuinely trying to deport her for writing a tame opinion piece, because they really are that awful. Another possibility is that they knew a judge would reverse the detention but they wanted to put a message out there to try and shut down pro Palestinian opinion, to demonstrate that even if we can't deport you or have you convicted of a crime we can arrest you and put you in detention for a while. In this scenario, things work out exactly as they planned and they may have achieve the goal of making people think twice before writing anything supportive of Palestinian opinion. Which is a freedom of speech issue.

I think protestors should focus on this kind of issue where probably the majority of Americans would oppose the actions taken against Rümeysa Öztürk.

 

[Lou]

Do you mean 2016?

yes.

But yes there can be benefits of protest marches for those that protest, in addition to any positive effects of the protest.......

However if the protests are strategic and successful in their aims I think these positive feelings will be just as good in the short term, and maybe better long term.

Judging by history, protests are always less successful in the short term. and more successful in the long term.
Let's take equal rights for example. especially voting laws. It took decades for the suffragettes do get the right to vote. It took decades (maybe centuries ) for slavery to be abolished.

the cynical side of me says that the lawmakers were no so concerned with equality but they throught they could get reelected easier. an issue can be morally, ethically, even economically right but unless it translates to votes ....
So in a way these big flashy protests are just the peoples way to show how we feel about an issue and if there enough of us to sway an election. And you don't need hundred of millions of people. Recent elections have been much closer.

Instead of protesting against the removal of any undocumented immigrant, which is where in my view the heart of the protests are, I would focus more on the specific egregious cases.

From what I could tell at the No Kings protest, it was only partially motivated by a response against ICE. And not even ICE in general. I saw no signs proposing and abolishment for ICE. Instead it was more of a reaction to the policies, hypocrisy , racism, and authoritarianism that Trump represents.
ICE says that they are prioritizing national and public security. Then they raided the parking lot of Home Depot.

I saw signs showing support for Trans, Gays, Reproductive rights. Support of Ukraine and Gaza. And equality under the law.
It really was not a pro immgigrant rally but an Anti Trump rally.

I think protestors should focus on this kind of issue where probably the majority of Americans would oppose the actions taken against Rümeysa Öztürk.

Sure. actually the protesters have no shortage of issues.
Pick an issue. Make a sign. Show up and make some noise.

 

[Lou]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/16/us/protestors-voices-no-kings-trump

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Judging by history, protests are always less successful in the short term. and more successful in the long term.
Let's take equal rights for example. especially voting laws. It took decades for the suffragettes do get the right to vote. It took decades (maybe centuries ) for slavery to be abolished.

I think it varies. Your statement about the suffragettes taking "decades" is arguably not right. I assume you are referring to the UK. The suffragettes were only protesting mainly about 8 years from about 1906 to 1914 and they got the vote in 1918.

The 1964 civil rights act followed protests by Martin Luther King and others in 1963 in Birmingham, Alabama.

There are also some protest movements that can win even more quickly. For example the Ukrainians protesting in their square in Kiev once in around 2010 or the 2010s won and caused their President to flee, the Arab Spring toppled some leaders or caused some changes quite quickly. I think days to months was the timescale there.

The Sunrise / Extinction Rebellion/ Great Thunberg environmental protests of 2018-2020 absolutely had a positive effect on companies, governments within that very time frame. I don't think the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 would have happened without it, just to name one of many positive effects.

I think there's a time and a place for both types of protests: ones that demand some immediate result and succeed, and ones that have a much longer term goal, such as the vegetarian and vegan movement which hopefully had the long term goal of at least ending factory farming (and maybe even one day in the far future even ending the killing of animals for food?, even though there's no chance of this happening now).

 

[Lou]

The US suffrage movement, a decades-long struggle for women's right to vote, began in the mid-19th century and culminated with the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920.

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex. It was first introduced in Congress in 1923. And still hasn't been ratified.

Abolitionism in the United Kingdom was the movement in the late 18th and early 19th centuries to end the practice of slavery. The trade of slaves was made illegal throughout the British Empire by 1937,

In the United States, abolitionism, the movement that sought to end slavery in the country, was active from the colonial era until the American Civil War,

This one is debatable. The civil rights movement started in the 1950s and culminated with the civil rights act of 1964. However the roots of the civil rights movement goes much further back.

And howbout this one that we all hold dear: The animal rights movement. There have been many successes along the way. The roots of the movement go way back. Victorian England could have been the birthplace of the modern movement.

There are lots of movements that had faster results. but that many are slow is obvious. also to confuse the issue many have had only partial successes. For example there are still slaves all over the world, the ERA still hasn't been ratified, and animals are still routinely harvested.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Are protests less common in US?

I once was in London taking part in a maybe ~5,000 people protest march and we marched right through the tourist areas and I googled it next day and found very minor coverage in one local paper, and no mention at all anywhere else on national media, it was like it never happened, like I had just imagined it.

I also had the same experience in London while visiting, and a couple of times in Santiago. Huge protests of thousands that I happened across, or never would have known about.

There are always a few dedicated people near Parliament in London as well, there is a sort of green square next to the Parliament, and someone is more or less continually on it.

South America when I travelled through as well would be sitting in the plaza of a mid-size town and protestors would march through and a couple of days later the same thing would happen again.

Even saw a big one in the middle of the countryside once while driving around the motorway.

Greece, same thing happened, just randomly walking along in Athens, and protests go by.

I've been to the US plenty of times, but I can't recollect seeing any protests in person.

Are they less common, and the media covers all of them?

Or is it just like UK, there might be 5,00 people marching through Times Square all the time, and you would never know if you weren't by chance there on that day? And maybe just by chance I've never seen any (that I can recall now)?

How often have those of you who live in the US just randomly come across protests of hundreds or thousands of people by total chance?

 

[Lou]

I have never randomly ran into a protest.

As far as media coverage goes. I think it depends on several things. Is a march or protest connected to a bigger issue. For instance last weekends No Kings protest. Thousand of people in my community but it got national recognition because there were thousands of these little ones and like 50 really big ones.

The other thing is what news do you watch and how big a splash it makes in your community.

 

[Lou]

Just found this article in my NewsFeed and thought it provided some more counter point for my discussion with @Jamie in Chile.

Here are some highlights.

.... was among the biggest ever single-day protests in US history.​

​

.... turnout between four million and six million, which would be 1.2-1.8% of the US population. This could exceed the previous record in recent history, when between 3.3 million and 5.6 million people showed up at the 2017 Women’s March* to rally against Trump’s misogynistic rhetoric.​

​

The 1963 March on Washington, where Dr Martin Luther King Jr made his famous “I have a dream” speech was at the time one of the largest protests in history, with up to a half a million people in attendance. It was dwarfed in size by the first Earth Day protests in 1970, in which 20 million people helped spark the creation of the Environmental Protection Act.​

​

.... studied 323 revolutionary campaigns around the world that took place from 1900 to 2006. They found that all nonviolent movements that had the support of at least 3.5% of a population always succeeded in triggering change. No Kings, with its massive turnout, could be seen as a turning point.​

​

We’re not going to win if a lot of people show up at a protest one day,” Levin said. “We need people actually taking democracy seriously, and that’s not going to be done through a top-down action. It has to be done from the bottom-up. When pro-democracy movements succeed, it’s because of a broad-based, ideological, diverse, geographically-dispersed, grassroots organizing – not just mobilizing.”​

Were the No Kings protests the largest single-day demonstration in American history?

Depending on who you ask, between 4 and 6 million people showed up – and according to one theory, this could be a turning point

www.theguardian.com

-------------------------------------
* I was there with my pink pussy hat.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

That's way bigger than I would have guessed, thanks Lou.

 

[PTree15]

I went to the 2017 women's march in DC. It was an incredible atmosphere. I didn't get to go to any of the No Kings protests unfortunately. I'm glad there was such a big turnout. Our voices need to be heard.