Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I maintain that even with the full support of the federal government Trump will be unable to enact his sanctuary city elimination. His stated plan is to cut all federal funding. As far as I can see, he has no way of doing this in a manner that doesn't target the city's entire population. Doubly so if it's the metropolitan area that gets hit rather than the "city".

The largest cities in America are sanctuaries. You're telling me Trump plans to lay financial siege to NYC, and Chicago, and LA, and dozens of others at the same time? I almost hope he does, it'll be a glorious clusterfuck and shake some sense into anybody living urban who's deluding themselves about him. Hell, it could even result in there being more sanctuary cities, if protested right.

[wierd]

I remind you about the nascent distaste for urbanites in rural areas. If trump moved that way, it would be RADICALLY popular in much of the US.

[Baffler]

And those places are already too blue for more people turning blue to make a difference.

[wierd]

doesnt matter-- Much of the rural areas in the red states, like CA itself, would get behind "taking LA off the teat."

We arent talking "red states vs blue states", we are talking rural areas.

[Frumple]

I remind you about the nascent distaste for urbanites in rural areas. If trump moved that way, it would be RADICALLY popular in much of the US.

... if by much, you mean a fraction of less than half, I guess. For all there's a lot of antipathy out here for cityfolk, shit like that would still turn a hell of a lot of people off. There's only so much you can fuck with so many american citizens before even their countrymen that don't particularly like them start getting pissed off. Especially considering plenty of people out here still got family in one or more of those cities, due to that whole sizable chunk of the US population thing. Full federal cut for sanctuary metropolitan areas wouldn't fly even in the boonies, by and large. Some places, maybe, but most, not so much.

[wierd]

Need I remind that the difference in popular vote for trumps election this year was only a few hundred thousand, out of millions of votes cast?

Good media propaganda spin could easily keep the momentum going during such a thing.

By this, i mean Trump can swing it along the lines of "Look, I dont like strangling innocent people financially. Just give up your illegals, and things will go back to normal, this isn't hard", and when the cities naturally refuse, he just paints them as radically antigovernment, and anti-america.

[smjjames]

Seems like something that would just be another wedge between Rural and Urban, Democrats and Republicans.

Good media propaganda spin could easily keep the momentum going during such a thing.

For which side? There's also like two different mainstream medias here, the conservatives and liberals.

[wierd]

One will be under economic blockade. Remember that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's not about turning people blue, god damn this thread's electoral strategy erection. US is more urban than rural, and more importantly the urban groups are concentrated. Trump could fuck with the concrete half of the country to please the grass half, but that does not invoke success. It's an economic crisis and a political crisis all in one.

I'll also remind everybody that Trump is not popular. He got fewer votes than Romney, and he's looked upon with distaste much as Clinton was/is. That's also secondary.

What I'm talking about here is Trump creating a domestic problem for himself. Think about what the antiwar protests did to Bush. The war didn't stop, and therefore the antiwar movement constantly stood in Bush's way even with a supportive Congress. That is the kind of thing that takes a chunk out of an administration permanently. Half the Republicans are already afraid to be seen in the same room as Trump for the sake of their own elections. They got a shot in the arm from him winning the election, but as Obama's run-in with the Tea Party shows that can evaporate fast.

If we really are going to talk about electoral strategy (uggggghhh), I'll remind YOU that the issue isn't turning people blue, it's convincing them to vote. Obama got ten million votes that Clinton didn't, and those votes didn't go to Trump either. They stayed home. Fucking with the cities is a fast track to making people not stay home.

More likely Trump just won't actually get around to it, but hey, if he does it only helps.

[smjjames]

Plus, trying to lay financial siege to NYC, which includes the financial nerve center of the US, is guaranteed to send the stock market spinning.

Oh, and btw, Trump has properties in NYC and Chicago, trying to do anything in those cities would definetly screw his brand.

[wierd]

True that-- but it will be 4 years off before they can turn that train around.

A LOT can happen in 4 years.

(Yes, hitting NYC with a financial blockade is doomed to failure. The fatcats there alone could press the nuclear monetary football buttons, and destroy the feds financial power.)

[Frumple]

Though that said, the scenario of the gov't cutting federal funding for these places and them deciding to, say, reciprocate by not paying taxes... it's outlandish fantasy, and it would be ruinous for the country, but it's oddly enticing as a thought. You almost want to actually see it, just for that few moments of gazing into the eye of pure absurdity. You don't actually want to, because holy hell, but still. It's a shiny thought.

[smjjames]

Need I remind that the difference in popular vote for trumps election this year was only a few hundred thousand, out of millions of votes cast?

Good media propaganda spin could easily keep the momentum going during such a thing.

By this, i mean Trump can swing it along the lines of "Look, I dont like strangling innocent people financially. Just give up your illegals, and things will go back to normal, this isn't hard", and when the cities naturally refuse, he just paints them as radically antigovernment, and anti-america.

If he didn't like strangling innocent people financially, he wouldn't be who, or where, he is.

[sluissa]

Though that said, the scenario of the gov't cutting federal funding for these places and them deciding to, say, reciprocate by not paying taxes... it's outlandish fantasy, and it would be ruinous for the country, but it's oddly enticing as a thought. You almost want to actually see it, just for that few moments of gazing into the eye of pure absurdity. You don't actually want to, because holy hell, but still. It's a shiny thought.

We are stepping closer and closer to making Escape from New York/LA a reality.

[Rockphed]

Dude, it would be worse for them if they didn't have the below-minimum-wage jobs. They would have even less money if they worked back in Mexico. You can't paint this as a clearly my-side-is-moral-yours-is-unethical kind of thing.

A) cost of living in mexico is quite lower
B) I don't see why poor of one country are a problem to another country

Refugees? I'm fine with that. Economic migrants? Get a visa and play by the rule like everyone else.

the moment you establish legality can be bent for special cases, a country comes apart (and you saw it quite clearly in this election cycle, so I don't know why there's more proof needed)

The price of housing might be lower, but from my trips there, food prices are about the same.  And wages are significantly lower.