No, nothing Marjorie Taylor Greene says is remotely based in reality. There aren't secret Jewish space lasers either.
What could Trump do about it? It would be up to the courts, and both sides would have to argue the legality of the orders. It already happened with the “non Muslim ban Muslim ban” Trump tried to enact when he was president previously.
A “national divorce” would mean civil war, and nobody wants that. Even the people that want that don’t really want the reality of a war on US soil.
But the courts can't force the blue states to do anything either really. Just ignoring the orders would mean that trump would need to start hostilities to make them do anything. And if I understand things right, the military isn't allowed to get involved in a conflict inside the country. But maybe I am wrong there?
Traditionally it comes down to the national guard. During desegregation the national guard was deployed to several southern states to enforce the law when southern states tried to ignore it. They're not officially military so they don't run afoul of the posse comitatus act, but they effectively serve the same function within US borders.
But why would they follow trump. As far as I know they are state funded, and answer to the governor normally. What would actually compell them?
It’s not blue states and red states. It’s cities and just about everywhere else.
In cities, people can’t so easily live with their heads up their asses and pretend their country is something else entirely.
Are there any US cities that vote R as a majority?
Edit: A few, but still. Where there are people, there is more liberalism:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-election-map.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_the_50_largest_cities_in_the_United_States
The phrase “national divorce” is irritating but that wasn’t a horrible article, I suppose. Rep. Greene’s idea of “separate by red states and blue states” is ludicrous. I do have to wonder who benefits from spreading such soundly idiotic ideas such as secession, “divorce” or civil war. It sure as fuck would not be the average person or people who benefit from the US being strong or functional. Republicans are suckers for it because, as usual, they have serious intellectual and emotional issues. Conservative states would be completely fucked by being forced to be a separate country. The change in global political power would also be massive and I can only imagine the effects that would have even if the transition was quick and painless, which I doubt.
Anyway, there is not really any such thing as a “red state” or “blue state” and I miss the times before the media popularized those terms. They dramatically overstate the balance of population who support the one side in those states - a “red” state might be one where 60% of voters consistently back republicans, but calling the state “red” ignores the existence of everyone in the minority there. There are also the issues of voter suppression and unequal access to voting, which might make the state not so “red” if not present. So there isn’t any reasonable or fair way to partition the US and I wish people would stop taking such an incredibly stupid idea seriously.
Greene is Putin's lap dog. And Putin is the only guy who would really benefit from a split. He benefits just from Greene talking about a split.
I think China, and many countries in the middle East would benefit as well.
The article was mainly to meet the requirements of the sub. My real question is in the body. What could trump actually do if blue states ingore his orders. And in this case we are talking about the governments of the states, not the people, so blue and red really exist in that way. It seems using the military is highly questionable with a lot of confusing laws and exceptions. Enough that I bet most military commanders would refuse to act without supreme court clarification. So what could trump really do? The blue states could just practice civil disobedience essentially.
Withholding federal funding has historically been the first and only necessary action for states that refuse to follow federal law
There is no such thing as a "national divorce". What you are talking about is civil war. A civil war that Trump and his band of criminals wants to make happen. As of right now he couldn't do anything about it because he's not the president. I'm sure if it came down to it he would try to illegally deploy the military to achieve his nefarious goals, destroy democracy permanently, and plant himself in the position of dictator for life. He's said that he plans to do as much right out in public.
"I'm only going to be a tyrant the first day."
He said that as if we all hadn't seen how Palpatine seized power in Star Wars. Or, I don't know... Actual history or something.
I don’t think the military would follow. They wouldn't outright disobey, but they would stall with loopholes and what not. I read they were ordered to help with the rodney king riots, but when they were asked to do anything specific they denied the request based on legal questions about if they could. In the end they basically didn't do much at all. Most of the brass are poloticians, they know how to play the game.
If America is headed for a civil war, it will not look like one. I think Robert Evans' It Could Happen Here is probably the most realistic take.
Whenever I see any article about a potential second American civil war I can’t help but think, “Robert has already released a far better and more realistic version of this article”
If Trump wins the election, quite possibly. It honestly wouldn't be irrational for blue states to just start ignoring federal bans on abortions - or for states to introduce stricter smog/clean air standards and sue their neighbors.
Could blue states just practice civil disobedience as a "protest" against trump orders? What could Trump do about it?
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News