• athos77@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    They’re trying to provoke a reaction that they can sell to their media-fueled-paranoid Christonationalists to drive them to the polls.

    • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I was wondering about that. Because when it comes right down to it, Texas is NOT going to let the gubmint tit slide out its thankless mouth, nor do its leaders want to become instantly irrelevant to and derided by the other 49 states, nor do they have any intention of maintaining an instantly international border with New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana in addition to Mexico, nor do any of them want to leave Congress and lose their outsized legislative power over the other 49 states. All of that would be very bad for not only the state but its batshit insane leadership, and they don’t want that outcome at all.

      So the true motivation here must be something very, very short of actual secession.

      Jesus fucking christ I hope the dog catches the car. I so want to see these shitstirring mfrs panic.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      They should react, because ignoring this line-toeing is what causes them to just be bolder next time. Remember when all the Republican calls for banning abortion were just rabble rousing for political benefit and they didn’t really mean it? Trump telling his followers to fight? Republicans saying trans people are molesting kids?

      Ignoring their provocation isn’t winning 5D chess, it’s paving the way to actual violence. If a state says they’re going to block the federal government and calls for aligned states to send troops to support them, you need to shut that shit down.

      • APassenger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It’s going through the courts and I’m sure simply escalating has its own constitutional issue.

        The military is not a police force. You are asking that we activate the thing Trump wants to use for authoritarian rule.

        I’d rather have the all the guardsman found in contempt and then issued arrest warrants that are enforced. That’s one example of what could happen.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          This isn’t a question of law. The law is entirely clear that federal agents (a police force) have dominion over the border. They shouldn’t have gone through the courts in the first place, they should have simply showed up with a bunch of federal agents and started arresting anyone who stopped them. There’s nothing unclear about what the constitution says happens here. You don’t need a court to say blocking a federal agent from doing their job is illegal.

          They don’t need to bring in the military unless armed agents of Texas start resisting, in which case it is insurrection and the military is the right tool for the job. This idea that maybe we should just let Texas play at rebellion for 9 months until the court tells them (again) that federal supremacy is real is the ridiculous.