600
Newsom requests Trump admin return National Guard control to California
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
600 points (98.9% liked)
politics
30954 readers
2144 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This is an example of somebody in a position of power fighting back. He may be a shitbag in general, but he is fighting back.
Fighting back would have been ordering them to withdraw using his lawful authority, and if they refused, ordering their arrest. This is just fucking around.
I’m torn.
On the one hand, CA has no military, so attempting diplomacy and formal protocol is logical, even responsible. By “responsible,” I simply mean that picking a fight you know you can’t win, and doing so on behalf of the people you represent, is usually irresponsible, since they will be the ones who suffer.
On the other hand, the closest thing to diplomacy Trump understands is some combination of posturing and quid pro quo. Historically, formal correspondence of rival leaders tends to have a varnish of politeness like this, even in the midst of bloody wars. (Indeed this “formal request” does convey a demand, an accusation, and a veiled threat.) But is someone with a demonstrably facile notion of power capable of understanding such subtext, or will they see only weakness?
Most importantly, I think there comes a time to commit to the inevitable conclusion. If you know the authoritarian will continue to threaten brutality against your people to ensure their compliance, it becomes your duty to say “do your worst or pound sand,” since you know compliance only delays and worsens their suffering, and a threat to the will of a people is always greater.
We do, it's just small. And shares membership with the national guard.
https://calguard.ca.gov/csg/
Same but even smaller.
"With a strongly-worded letter, no less!"
Is an insane thing for the Governor to claim when ICE was snatching random people off the street.
Paramount had a huge problem when ICE just started grabbing people out of the front of a Home Depot for being brown. That triggered the public backlash which got the news coverage which lead to Trump trying to launch a Fallujah style invasion of LA.
The situation was fully fucked by lawless ICE officially kidnapping people well before Trump tried to ratchet tensions further.
You're conflating two different problems. Yes, ICE kidnapping people was a problem before the national guard thing, but Newsom's words were specifically about a problem with the protests.
I dont interpret that as conflation, more pointing out, why doesn't Newsom consider ICE kidnappings a problem?? He's only concerned about the unrest just like he pretends to be addressing homelessness by criminalization
"Continued chaotic federal sweeps, across California, to meet an arbitrary arrest quota are as reckless as they are cruel.
Donald Trump’s chaos is eroding trust, tearing families apart, and undermining the workers and industries that power America’s economy."
Newsom condemning ICE raids
Thank you, yes he said that.
I'm saying that "We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty — inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed. Rescind the order. Return control to California." is a WTF level statement. Newsom will happily let ICE empty out people from homes as long as it is done politely.
Because that's not what this conversation is about. It was specifically about trump nationalizing the guard. There are other statements of him condemning ICE, it just wasn't in this particular sentence, because it wasn't the topic at hand.
Newsom "condemns" ICE the way Republicans condemn the deficit. I.e., not in any way that matters. And now events are forcing him to pretend to care.
You're moving the goal posts. This one comment that were a discussing has nothing to do with ICE, and everything to do with the national guard deployment.
You can not like the man, and many of us don't, but it's stupid to criticize him in the now for making moves in the right direction, albeit small moves. The enemy of my enemy and all that, and Newsom in the grand scheme of enemies, is far from the worst to ally with.
This conversation was about me saying no that is not conflation, and agreeing with the intent of the person you replied to. It's not any bigger than that.
The intent of the person you replied to being, WTF is "we didn't have a problem"?? Yes, everyone please clap for Newsom, he called ICE cruel! He sure told Trump off! I'll criticise Newsom all day long and you can call me stupid and complain about where I'm putting my goalposts.