Awesome. Tell all of your friends to support us then. We need your help!

11/13/2016 11:10:43 AM

Quote :

"Look, politically, culturally, and economically, California has been on its own for quite some time. We feel like we've been repressed by the US government by not having sufficient participation in the US government, while sending billions of dollars each year to Washington to fund programs we didn't sign up for, that are a detriment to our goals, while getting little to nothing in return. If you want to know where all of this pent up frustration is coming from, go ahead and read the blue book found at the link I posted at the top of this thread. Read ALL of it. It does a far better job of explaining the reasons why California wants to leave than I have so far. "

Maybe I'm misguided, but my perception of California is a state with the greatest population and is recognized accordingly with the amount of congressional seats they have. Every large state will be pissed about having 2 senate seats but they've learned to deal with it. I also think California brings a lot of progressive policies and then ultimately browbeats the rest of the country to conform to their standards, if possible.

11/13/2016 4:20:15 PM

You're forgetting that we only get two senators, and 12 % representation in congress, while sending $16B a year to Washington that we get nothing in return for. How is CA supposed to improve its failing k-12 schools, it's horrible infrastructure, protect the environment, and protect minorities if all that money is being sent to states that essentially say "Thanks for your tax dollars, but fuck you" ?

I wish people would actually read the damn proposal in depth. It's 33 pages, but it's not that hard to understand.

11/13/2016 4:54:25 PM

I'm not sure what is dumber, the idea or using the term calexit

11/13/2016 5:43:26 PM

Quote :

"How is CA supposed to improve its failing k-12 schools, it's horrible infrastructure,"

...

Quote :

" wish people would actually read the damn proposal in depth"

Do you also want those people to read the laws regarding who runs CA's K-12 schools and its infrastructure (roads and such)? Because those (while federally assisted) are financed and governed by the STATE. So... While I applaud your motivation and fully support the peaceful protest of our government, I'm still going to say that you live in a bubble, and haven't done your homework as to the realities that apply to secession.

Quote :

"we only get two senators, and 12 % representation in congress"

This is a constitutional argument, similar to the electoral college. You should read the federalist and anti-federalist papers before attempting to argue the appropriate roll of the majority, (or the 12%) and how that applies to the great state of California.

11/13/2016 5:52:22 PM

UJW84 is so cute

11/13/2016 5:55:24 PM

you're conveniently ignoring this part:

Quote :

"while sending $16B a year to Washington that we get nothing in return for."

If CA had $16B more to spend how it sees fit, they would naturally allocate that money to areas its citizens want to improve.

11/13/2016 5:58:11 PM

Quote :

"If CA had $16B more to spend how it sees fit, they would naturally allocate that money to areas its citizens want to improve."

When lefties start parroting conservative talking points without even realizing it, you know you've won. Good job Trump, you did it.

11/13/2016 6:00:02 PM

You do realize that red states are takers, right?

11/13/2016 6:00:39 PM

Yeah, but California gets it all back with one road trip over that fucking bridge. I have a goddamn FasTrak toll tag with $20 loaded on it because it was cheaper than paying the fine!

11/13/2016 6:15:07 PM

Bridge toll sucks for sure. Does anyone member they raised raised from $2-$3 and everyone was pissed. I member!

11/13/2016 6:20:37 PM

Quote :

"you're conveniently ignoring this part:while sending $16B a year to Washington that we get nothing in return for. "

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

So... California ranks in the top 20% of states that are less dependent on the federal government in all categories. I guess you've got me there. I think you're being very short sighted when you say that you "get nothing in return for" your "$16B". I think you [CA] take advantage of an economy that benefits from shipping on two oceans, and the world's most powerful military force that maintains an international order favorable to that economy, not to mention the federal contracts that go to companies in CA and the 2% of all federal employees that work in that state. I recognize that I'm making a very realist (and industry-military-centric) argument, however I believe that your moral/ethical argument (while perhaps justified) falls short of any real litmus test.

11/13/2016 6:24:51 PM

Hey man, you don't have to agree with me. And I get every single attack every person has made about the plan. But it's really not impossible to have the nation come together and amend the Constitution. Just because we haven't seen it happen in our lifetimes doesn't mean it can't happen again. Oh and to all of you who say the rest of the states would NEVER let it happen:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/02/fox-news-poll-voters-reveal-which-state-want-kicked-out-union.html

And yes, I realize the irony of citing a fucking poll right now

11/13/2016 6:28:34 PM

Quote :

"But it's really not impossible to have the nation come together and amend the Constitution."

In general terms, no. In these very specific terms, yes, it is impossible. The country isn't going to vote itself into disintegration, as demonstrated by its entire history up to this point.

But OK, I'll accept your premise for the sake of argument. Let's say it could be done. It would be the most politically taxing undertaking this country has known since the Civil War, if not the writing of the Constitution itself. Economically it would be devastating. Considering this overwhelming cost in time and will, how could it possibly be the best choice? Surely there are alternatives that would redress these grievances (and again, I'm having to accept them for the sake of argument), at less cost, while still keeping the country intact.

But since you wanted me to read the little book, I did. And the people who wrote it are ignorant buffoons.

Quote :

"Q: “But if we spend less on the military, won’t we be invaded by another country? A: California doesn’t pose a threat to any other country so there would be no risk to California of being attacked by another country"

I did an honest-to-Christ spit take when I read this.

Quote :

"On top of that, this is the 21st Century. Unless you’re the Americans, countries typically don’t amass armies, cross oceans, and invade other countries anymore. "

This will be a relief to Iraq and Afghanistan, anyway.

Quote :

"However, since California has paid approximately $120 billion more in federal taxes than we have received in federal funding since 1981, we will obtain a credit from the United States in that amount"

"We're going to build a wall country, and Mexico America is going to pay for it!"

Quote :

" Many countries have already done away with their own currency and instead use international ones like the U.S. Dollar, so having our own currency is not something we absolutely must have."

I lived in one of those countries. If you went up to any Beninese person and told them what a good idea international currencies are, they would also do a literal spit take.

Quote :

"Remember, California’s independence will never deprive you of your U.S. citizenship - you will simply become eligible for dual citizenship in California and will suddenly be living in a foreign country"

So now the goal is to actively screw Americans, by making them pay you Social Security benefits even though you've quit paying into the system. Lovely.

I'll do more later, because this thing is the only bright spot in humor in this bleak week.

11/13/2016 7:25:19 PM

Here's a prediction: the country becomes more and more angry and pissed at immigrants and homosexuals creating an environment where large companies and institutions move to Liberal cities on the coast to attract talent. This creates even worse economic conditions for red states in the middle of the country. Not sure how this turns out......

11/13/2016 7:27:09 PM

I think the US would be surprised to find that they would have to continue to consider people who secede full citizens. I bet they'd offer an amnesty and then after a period of time require that you choose.

California is a large, important part of the US, but it cannot stand alone and it's foolish to think it can. Businesses would relocate, lots of citizens would leave, port freight would relocate, etc. There is no self contained power grid, itacks water, and many more infrastructure concerns make this a non starter.

11/13/2016 7:33:15 PM

Quote :

"But OK, I'll accept your premise for the sake of argument. Let's say it could be done. It would be the most politically taxing undertaking this country has known since the Civil War, if not the writing of the Constitution itself. Economically it would be devastating. Considering this overwhelming cost in time and will, how could it possibly be the best choice? Surely there are alternatives that would redress these grievances (and again, I'm having to accept them for the sake of argument), at less cost, while still keeping the country intact"

Hmm, like abolishing the Electoral College and overhauling the entire way elections are conducted in this country? We might want to stick around for that. Oh, but wait. That would also require amending the US Constitution. Darn

11/13/2016 7:34:29 PM

^bro,
You've made economic arguments and he's saying that if it were brought to referendum (like in 2019ish) that the cost would be overwhelming and therefore secession wouldn't be viable when compared to other political options. It's unfair for you to boil his whole argument down to a constitutional one.

Quote :

"Q: But if we spend less on the military, won’t we be invaded by another country? A: California doesn’t pose a threat to any other country so there would be no risk to California of being attacked by another country."

This question is flawed and so is the answer. These people have no understanding of international politics. there are multiple examples of nations being attacked despite having very little military. Kuwait in the early 90s, Georgia of recent and China in WWII... fuck, Poland, half of North Africa, and Western Europe in WWII. I give Mexico a 50/50 shot of annexing[?] California before they're able to become independent.

Seriously, you live in a bubble.

11/13/2016 8:24:28 PM

Who says CA wouldn't have military? It could certainly afford one. Plenty of other countries maintain one for less than $20B a year that have desirable land and resources that might make them a target of invasion. If the US let CA leave peacefully and on mutually agreed upon terms, why would anyone try to come attack CA knowing the US would likely retaliate since we'd be its closest ally and trade partner? The US would still be the most powerful country in the world with the most powerful military. Why all the doom and gloom and acrimony if this whole thing is rooted on mutual compromise and the desire to maintain a symbiotic relationship afterwards? CA is doing pretty OK for itself right now dealing with 40 million people and managing a huge economy, so why does the only possible way for this to happen have to be the most expensive undertaking in history?

I know these sound like ridiculous questions (because they essentially are at this point), but the two main arguments I'm hearing from everyone are:

1. The US would NEVER let it happen

We're not sure if this is true yet, since the process hasn't even really begun, and plenty of people on both sides could possibly be persuaded to work together.

2. It could only happen through violence

Not true either, since the movement is supposed to be rooted in peaceful and non violent compromise, and Californians aren't willing to engage in a violent war with the US to get what it wants. See argument one.)

At this point, all of this is nothing more than a discussion about a hypothetical solution for what could be done to solve the ocean of disconnect between Californians and the rest of the country. It's a conversation Californians (and people form the PacNw) are having with themselves and anyone who'll listen, because if shit really goes down like some of us are expecting, all bets are off for what happens to the US. If you want to dismiss and mock it, that's fine. If it pisses you off, why?

11/13/2016 9:38:40 PM

Mexico has essentially annexed California demographically already. It would be great from an electoral college perspective, to cut out all of the imported, big-gov dependent voters.

It would be a win-win. But as soon as the leftist elite realized they couldn't finance their feel-good spending without dragging the USA into debt, they would probably just move to Seattle and the immigrants would go there instead.

11/13/2016 10:52:17 PM

Navies aren't cheap. You'd have to start one from scratch. You can damn well bet that the US won't cede any of their materiel to you. Your 16B that you give to DC...how far would that go defending your coastline? And isn't CA one of the states that prohibited the military soliciting for recruits in HS's? Good luck staffing your army with those attitudes.

Also, think of what you would do to liberals if their presidential elections could no longer count on the 50+ electoral votes that are essentially gimmes from CA.

And lolz at you comparing Calexit to the Revolution. That's about the cutest thing I've ever seen you post.

11/13/2016 11:30:51 PM

No shit militaries aren't cheap. Being the sixth largest economy in the world and having nearly 40 million people sure helps a lot though. It would also help to remember that if this actually happened PEACEFULLY AND MUTUALLY AGREED UPON, the US and California would have a strong military alliance and be each other's largest trade partner. Why wouldn't they? Why does the departure have to be this huge dramatic doomsday scenario if everyone agreed to it? Why is everyone so terrified of the US actually agreeing to do something to make its citizens happier?

The funny thing about the Electoral College (besides the fact that's it's horrific and a terrible disservice to democracy: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/) is that all those covered EC votes would just simply vanish if CA seceded. The US would have to figure out how to re-proportion electors by subtracting the 58 that are missing, given 12% of it's population would have left. Maybe they could abolish the shitty joke of a system altogether while they're at it to prevent the North East from peacing the fuck out too.

And I'm glad you find the comparison adorable. If you're not smart enough to understand the parallels between the two and the spirit behind wanting to rule your own country autonomously because you have your own culture, values, economy, and political system, America sure did a great job teaching you about its own history and to think critically, didn't it?



[Edited on November 14, 2016 at 12:10 AM. Reason : .]

11/13/2016 11:59:28 PM

Quote :

"if this actually happened PEACEFULLY AND MUTUALLY AGREED UPON, the US and California would have a strong military alliance and be each other's largest trade partner. Why wouldn't they? Why does the departure have to be this huge dramatic doomsday scenario if everyone agreed to it? Why is everyone so terrified of the US actually agreeing to do something to make its citizens happier?"

You have set up your own scenario that we believe isn't possible for a variety of reasons that have been expressed here. And when we tell you why we think it's impossible using history, political science, or economic arguments, you just go back to your given scenario and say we're wrong because the scenario doesn't conform to any of those realities. Your making the argument that given 2+2=5 then 2+3=6, and when we tell you why we think your given conditions are wrong, or make poor assumptions you just point us back to them like they're factual.

So I guess the response is, "Sure, IF a peaceful and mutually agreed upon secession were to happen where the US and California were great allies with very interdependent economies, and mutually assured defense strategies, then yes California could live prosperously on it's own."

However, I'm still standing on

Quote :

"You live in a bubble, man. Be happy about that. But at least recognize it."

11/14/2016 7:33:15 AM

Why do you think it would go peacefully? In what scenario that is playing out in your head does the US give up most of its western coastline, and 3 large ports? Water access is still pretty important, and there's no agreement where the US is just going to let CA "peace out" with all that coastline.

But hey, let's test your independence. When the next major quake hits LA, petition your governor not to declare a state of emergency. Since you guys are so independent, fix it all yourself without federal funds.

11/14/2016 7:45:14 AM

It's gonna suck when I try and visit Sonoma next year and am not let in

[Edited on November 14, 2016 at 9:04 AM. Reason : CA still owes me back tax refunds. Assholes.]

11/14/2016 9:04:13 AM

California will peacefully leave, just like the southern states peacefully left in the 19th century.

11/14/2016 10:01:38 AM

It always amuses how side A in American politics ridicule thoughts or beliefs side B has, and then something changes, and side A starts having the same thoughts and beliefs.

I'm a regionalist on principle. Californians: have at it.

11/14/2016 10:04:28 AM

Quote :

"So I guess the response is, "Sure, IF a peaceful and mutually agreed upon secession were to happen where the US and California were great allies with very interdependent economies, and mutually assured defense strategies, then yes California could live prosperously on it's own.""

I think the issue here is that something like this would be completely unprecedented and could look entirely different than what people are envisioning right now. Just because we don't have a current or former model to look to, it doesn't mean one couldn't exist in the future. Maybe the compromise I'm talking about from both sides wouldn't be an overnight departure from the US where CA is totally on its own, given how chaotic that could be for both sides. Perhaps it might be a slow and steady transition from California being a state into its own nation. Maybe it could become something that's not quite a fully sovereign nation, but not retain its current form of a US state either. Maybe both sides could up with some type of agreement to make CA a much more autonomous zone with a specialized political and/or economic system, but still have a very close connection with the US. What exactly could that look like? I don't have the answer yet, and I don't think anyone else does either. All I've really seen is that people are frustrated and unhappy with the current situation, and those reasons (while some might not agree with them) aren't completely illogical.

As it stands, the probability of a peaceful California secession is obviously super low right now. All we have is a conversation and the desire to explore possible alternatives. I don't think it would be that difficult to get it on the ballot as an initiative, but getting it passed would be another story. If it did pass, all of those who said Californians would never agree to vote for it would have to reexamine their views, because having it pass would warrant a nationwide discussion.

One of the biggest obstacles I thought about was the issue with all of the US federal land owned by the US and how they wouldn't just give it up since they'd be getting nothing in return. But again, if you think about coming up with a compromise, maybe the US could loosen its stranglehold on these lands and allow CA to manage them more themselves.

So, for now, those of you who keep saying it's nothing but a waste of time because it's an absolutely impossibility, it's completely fair of you to think that way. But sometimes crazy ideas can actually work if people work together to make them not seem so crazy. I think coming up with a possible solution, even though I'm not quite sure what it looks like yet, is a lot better than sitting around being angry and disillusioned with the current state of affairs we have now.



[Edited on November 14, 2016 at 11:24 AM. Reason : .]

11/14/2016 11:20:57 AM

You're just not getting it.

This is not a precedent that the US is going to start. First CA, then Texas, then Vermont, Maine, NY.

It just isn't going to happen.

11/14/2016 11:29:03 AM

I'm willing to try and so are other people. If this terrifies you or gives you anxiety, good. The fact that nation is so overwhelmingly divided and contemplating splitting up is something you can choose to ignore if you wish, but for many people, myself included, they're ready to explore such options because they're more terrified of the status quo, while excited for the possibility of something new and better.

[Edited on November 14, 2016 at 11:37 AM. Reason : .]

11/14/2016 11:36:24 AM

That's right. When something doesn't go your way, take your toys and leave.

11/14/2016 12:17:29 PM

If you want to see it that way, that's fine. Many Brits still see Americans as petulant children for forming their own country, so you're welcome to feel the same way if it makes you feel better.

11/14/2016 12:27:38 PM

I thought all the celebs said they were moving to Canada?

Funny they go North instead of South... Wonder why that is... Oh. This is awkward.

11/14/2016 12:37:52 PM

Celebrities aren't representative of either the typical Californian, nor American. You already knew that though.

11/14/2016 1:32:35 PM

Where did I imply celebs were representative of all Californians? Do you even read bro

11/14/2016 2:00:10 PM

I guess I'm missing the point you're trying to make other than bashing celebrities for threatening to move to Canada.

11/14/2016 2:11:10 PM

This whole notion is just so bizarre... and I lived in the state for four years.

11/14/2016 4:11:42 PM

Thanks for this thread. It's proven to be highly entertaining.

11/14/2016 4:49:29 PM

Quote :

"Maybe the compromise I'm talking about from both sides wouldn't be an overnight departure from the US where CA is totally on its own, given how chaotic that could be for both sides. Perhaps it might be a slow and steady transition from California being a state into its own nation. Maybe it could become something that's not quite a fully sovereign nation, but not retain its current form of a US state either. Maybe both sides could up with some type of agreement to make CA a much more autonomous zone with a specialized political and/or economic system, but still have a very close connection with the US. What exactly could that look like?"

Is this serious, or are you just trolling?

Dear God... read any primary source document from the articles of the confederation and the early drafts of the US Constitution. Please go read the federalist and anti-federalist papers. The current model is the compromise between federal and state powers. You don't have an original constitutional argument!! The model you're describing exists... and you live in it.
Again, I fully support your ethical and moral objections to the current system of government, there are flaws there. But you simply haven't done an ounce of critical thinking with respect to this subject.

11/14/2016 5:17:29 PM

maybe all 50 states should exit at same time

11/14/2016 7:20:12 PM

I'm aware of how the US became a nation, thanks. I was thinking something either like the situation of Hong Kong being an SAR or maybe something similar to the current UK/Scotland dynamic, but obviously not a monarchy. Those obviously aren't great examples because they aren't they type of democracy we have in place right now, and a hypothetical working model of what I'm talking about doesn't currently exist. Yes, careful attention should be made to thoroughly examine all of the mistakes from previous secession attempts and the issues the US had trying to come up with a Federal/State arrangement, but you're suggesting one previous model and outcome of disastrous and catastrophic failure means that no other alternatives exist.

11/14/2016 7:21:21 PM

^I'm not suggesting that other models don't exist or couldn't exist within this Union. I'm saying that all of the factors you've addressed (and presumably are being addressed in this movement) have all been debated before. And, to believe that California is somehow new, different, special, or an exception to the previously attained conclusions is very short sighted, and perhaps (dare I say) elitist.
There are plenty of constitutional changes you could advocate for that would make sense and may not pass, but would at least be logical. Saying that California could and should peacefully secede because of poor representation in an electoral system it ratified ~150 years ago is too far out there to have any real hope of becoming a reality.
Yes, every empire has fallen, and when the time comes perhaps California will lead other states in secession, but to believe that the US as it exists today, or any time in the near future is going to ratify any state's attempt to secede is ridiculous and simply not based on any sort of logic or factual analysis. And assuming that when it does happen it will somehow be a peaceful signature on a piece of paper without anyone pointing a gun at anyone else shows a complete lack of understanding of the history of nation-foundation. Every time any of us has said that you've just returned with 'why not?' and we've given you answers, and you respond with why does it have to be 'THAT way?' or 'why are you afraid of this'. I don't guess it HAS to be that way.. but world disarmament (not world peace) is a prerequisite for your scenario. I don't believe any of us on this message board are 'afraid' of this happening, we're just attempting to put some realism into the discussion... and for whatever reason, your cognitive dissonance has made you ignore it.

11/14/2016 8:07:35 PM

I'm not ignoring it all. I'm honestly trying to hear as many logical attacks against the idea as I can to try to come up with reasonable answers or rebuttals to them. So far, it's been pretty difficult. I've already said multiple times I don't think it's going to work, but I'm not going to abandon the idea altogether, since it's ultimately something I'd like to see happen someday. As a rhetorical exercise, this is certainly more interesting and inspiring than trying to guess what horrible decisions Trump is going to make next.

And as for California being 'special' in this case, it is in some ways. It's got 40 million people and a huge economy. I'm not trying to say Californians are better than everyone else, but we have some reasons to think we'd be OK if we left.

[Edited on November 14, 2016 at 8:21 PM. Reason : .]

11/14/2016 8:19:20 PM

Quote :

"Hmm, like abolishing the Electoral College and overhauling the entire way elections are conducted in this country? We might want to stick around for that. Oh, but wait. That would also require amending the US Constitution."

Yes, that is one of several prominent examples. I am aware that they would require amending the Constitution. They would still be more likely to pass and less traumatic to all involved than secession.

Another often-touted option is splitting California into several smaller states, which could increase the electoral influence of Californians both individually and as a mass.

Quote :

"Why all the doom and gloom and acrimony if this whole thing is rooted on mutual compromise and the desire to maintain a symbiotic relationship afterwards?"

You don't get to have it both ways: if part of your argument is that the rest of the country wants to be shot of you, that's not a basis for "compromise" and "symbiosis."

Also, you're asking us to assume way too many things that are either without basis in experience, or are actively opposed by it. In your vision, not only are we going to let California go without a fight, but we're also going to be happy about it and also foot the bill for their defense and pay all their citizens social security and generally just roll barrels full of money over to them in exchange for nothing. Worse than nothing, really, given that we're the losers in this whole arrangement.

Quote :

"1. The US would NEVER let it happen We're not sure if this is true yet"

In some asinine 10th grade philosophy class sense of "you can't really be sure of, like, anything, man," this statement is true.

In a real sense, we've seen secession attempted exactly one time, and it was met with the bloodiest war in American history and the total subjugation of the secessionists.

Quote :

"At this point, all of this is nothing more than a discussion about a hypothetical solution for what could be done to solve the ocean of disconnect between Californians and the rest of the country. "

There isn't a disconnect between Californians and "the rest of the country." There are other states that are just as blue or bluer. We're all painfully well aware that a majority of voters nationwide sided with the majority of voters in California regarding the election. And let's not forget that minority, the rural Californians who are far more like rural North Carolinians than they are the wealthy San Francisco/San Diego/Los Angeles folks who are clearly at the heart of this half-assed secession attempt. You've got a plenty wide ocean of disconnect within California itself.

Quote :

"Why does the departure have to be this huge dramatic doomsday scenario if everyone agreed to it?"

OK, let's take a step back. It sounds like what you're asking is, "If California seceded and everything went fine and everybody was happy with it on both sides, would everything be fine and would everybody be happy?" In which case I guess the answer is...uh...sure, I guess.

But that's such an out-there hypothetical you might as well ask us our thoughts about life if we were all smurfs and benevolent papa smurf was in charge and we all had to take turns banging smurfette.

The doom-and-gloom comes from the only plausible outcomes from attempting to implement Californian independence, and even "plausible" is used loosely here, because this will all be forgotten in a month.

Quote :

"If this terrifies you or gives you anxiety, good."

It doesn't, but this thread is such an easy punching bag that it offers a moment of quiet reprieve among the shitshow that is the rest of TSB. At least here we don't have to watch kdogg preen. We get to dismantle a proposal that is just detailed enough to offer a wealth of opportunities for mockery, but not thought out enough to offer much of a challenge.

Quote :

"The fact that nation is so overwhelmingly divided and contemplating splitting up"

It isn't.

Quote :

"Many Brits still see Americans as petulant children for forming their own country"

They don't.

11/14/2016 8:50:30 PM

YES THEY DO! I SAW IT ON CNN!

11/14/2016 8:51:24 PM

^^I'm mad at your post because you have replied about 1/2 as much as I have, and have made roughly the same points in half the time.
Also I was going to use a Superman Vs. Batman analogy rather than your Smurfs one which is funnier... so I'm jealous about that.

Quote :

"I'm honestly trying to hear as many logical attacks against the idea as I can to try to come up with reasonable answers or rebuttals to them. So far, it's been pretty difficult."

While I'm fully confident in MY answers in this thread, I would caution you from looking to TWW to do your critical thinking for you. It is the 3rd google suggested result when you search for Gr*g Hy*r, and was also responsible for closing myriad business in Raleigh, so this may not be the font of wisdom you're hoping for.

11/14/2016 10:42:31 PM

Well I'd rather NYC become its own state.

That's less crazy.

11/15/2016 6:23:37 AM

Quote :

" Yes, that is one of several prominent examples. I am aware that they would require amending the Constitution. They would still be more likely to pass and less traumatic to all involved than secession. Another often-touted option is splitting California into several smaller states, which could increase the electoral influence of Californians both individually and as a mass."

So you agree that there are are at least two areas for both sides to establish common ground? Well that's good.

Quote :

" You don't get to have it both ways: if part of your argument is that the rest of the country wants to be shot of you, that's not a basis for "compromise" and "symbiosis." Also, you're asking us to assume way too many things that are either without basis in experience, or are actively opposed by it. In your vision, not only are we going to let California go without a fight, but we're also going to be happy about it and also foot the bill for their defense and pay all their citizens social security and generally just roll barrels full of money over to them in exchange for nothing. Worse than nothing, really, given that we're the losers in this whole arrangement."

I'm not trying to have it both ways. You're sort of creating a straw man by suggesting that an independent California wants the US to foot all of its expensive bills in exchange for nothing while also sending over "barrels of money", which is pretty ironic given that's how many of us feel right now about the US right now (it's well established CA sends more federal tax dollars to Washington than it receives back).

The reality is that many people would be happy to see CA leave the US for cultural and political reasons and that California's immigration and environmental policies are holding the US back. If you don't believe that common ground could ever be established and a reasonable compromise could ever be met for any reason, that's fine, but brighter minds than mine who are better at negotiation and policy might not be so dismissive. I'm not running for president or anything If anything, you're the one caught up in the assumption that the US would be total losers and getting zero in return, when the US could potentially be more of the 'winning' side, depending on how it all shook out.

As for the military and defense, there's already been the suggestion to let the US keep all of its major military bases in CA (much like it keeps bases in Italy, South Korea, etc) while the new CA military would look like the Swiss or Israeli model (mandatory service and training for all citizens). I don't think that's a bad idea, but maybe I'm missing something.

As for Social Security, that's a great point of contention, so you've mostly got me there for now. But given that the new CA wants to have universal healthcare and tons of other social programs it will fund with its tax structure, maybe new Californians would be willing to forgo benefits as a compromise. I think a better argument would be how all of those federal government workers owed pensions in CA would give them up so readily. SS checks are a drop in the bucket compared to paying a good chunk of someone's salary for the rest of their lives.

Quote :

" In a real sense, we've seen secession attempted exactly one time, and it was met with the bloodiest war in American history and the total subjugation of the secessionists."

I've already pointed out the major differences between the Civil War and this independence movement. There's no moral justification or human rights issue here. And we have a sample size of exactly ONE actual attempt, so again assuming the worst possible out come is an absolute inevitability is a bit dramatic.

Quote :

" There isn't a disconnect between Californians and "the rest of the country." There are other states that are just as blue or bluer. We're all painfully well aware that a majority of voters nationwide sided with the majority of voters in California regarding the election. And let's not forget that minority, the rural Californians who are far more like rural North Carolinians than they are the wealthy San Francisco/San Diego/Los Angeles folks who are clearly at the heart of this half-assed secession attempt. You've got a plenty wide ocean of disconnect within California itself."

You act as if you live, work, went to school, and pay taxes here. Have you ever done so? Please go and read all of the twelve ballot initiatives that passed and get back to me if you think it wasn't a resounding "FUCK NO" to what was being offered to everyone by Trump and friends. And while yes, there are other states that are just as blue, not a single one of them has the same population size and economy that we do. New York is as close as it gets, but it's only because of NYC. If NYC wants to have a Hong Kong like situation, I'd say let them go ahead. Face it, there's no place on earth quite like California in terms of geographic and human diversity, relative to its size. Again, I'm not trying to sound super elitist, but this is a unique situation of circumstances.

And have you actually ever lived in Northern CA or Southern CA? I have lived in both. I've been to all 58 counties. Have you? While they do have some some obvious differences in culture, it's a pretty friendly rivalry, overall. People have families in both parts and travel back and forth all the time. SoCal people love our wine country, Tahoe, Yosemite, redwoods, and Shasta, while we love the beaches, Disneyland, Joshua Tree, and Death Valley. Both urban California residents HATE how bad traffic is and we're trying to work on our mass transit issues. We're all appalled out how awful our K-12 schools are, despite the state having some of the top universities in the world (Stanford, Cal Tech, Cal, UCLA, etc).

I've also spent plenty of time in the far northern parts out in the tress and mountains and I can tell you that most of those folks, while they love their guns, have a very, very strong desire to protect the environment which they feel the federal government is completely mismanaging. They hate Sacramento and DC about the same, and mostly just want to be left alone. I have family members in rural NC and no, they're not the same as these folks. They still visit San Francisco once and a while or go down to Disneyland and their worldview isn't anywhere as close to rural NC in terms of religion. The eastern side of the Sierra (the most beautifully underrated part of CA) is hard to generalize so easily, as is the Central Valley. The CV is steadily sprawling towards the Bay (Stockton is now part of the Bay Area CSA) and LA, and if HSR actually happens (odds aren't looking great, but it's not dead yet), that's going to draw people in closer and more together. You're assuming this is a total liberal/Bay Area thing, when it isn't. The point is actually to take common ideals that most Californians share (the environment, education, healthcare) and use it as a bridge to work together towards a better CA. I love ALL parts of CA, some more than others, but I'd want us to remain as a whole, even if it meant subdividing it into different states or regions to make everyone as happy as possible.

That ocean of disconnect you're envisioning about CA sounds like someone who hasn't really explored the state all that much. Just sayin'

Quote :

" OK, let's take a step back. It sounds like what you're asking is, "If California seceded and everything went fine and everybody was happy with it on both sides, would everything be fine and would everybody be happy?" In which case I guess the answer is...uh...sure, I guess. But that's such an out-there hypothetical you might as well ask us our thoughts about life if we were all smurfs and benevolent papa smurf was in charge and we all had to take turns banging smurfette. The doom-and-gloom comes from the only plausible outcomes from attempting to implement Californian independence, and even "plausible" is used loosely here, because this will all be forgotten in a month. "

Yeah it's a hypothetical at this point. If it gets on the ballot initiative expect the conversation to take a turn. It's pretty easy to get something on the ballot, you know.

Quote :

" It doesn't, but this thread is such an easy punching bag that it offers a moment of quiet reprieve among the shitshow that is the rest of TSB. At least here we don't have to watch kdogg preen. We get to dismantle a proposal that is just detailed enough to offer a wealth of opportunities for mockery, but not thought out enough to offer much of a challenge."

Well I'm glad you're entertained. So am I.

Quote :

" It isn't. "

Says you. Trump hasn't even made it into office and already tripping all over himself. You can be optimistic if you want, but don't blame us for wanting a backup plan.

Quote :

" They don't. "

Again, says you. I haven't conducted a scientific poll (LOL polls...), but I've been to England before. That sentiment definitely exists.

[Edited on November 15, 2016 at 12:48 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2016 12:43:34 PM

Quote :

"I would caution you from looking to TWW to do your critical thinking for you."

Oh, trust me I'm not. However, if I wanted a pure echo chamber I could easily go on reddit or other forums. Some of you people are actually pretty smart and I value your input, but don't flatter yourself into thinking that I'm copying off your homework or anything, pal. You still haven't formed a rebuttal to the plausible alternatives I mentioned like Hong Kong or UK/Scotland, so I'd like to hear a response.

11/15/2016 12:46:36 PM

So... I don't believe you've said anything about HOW California's secession would turn into a relationship like Hong Kong or Scotland and those are very specific examples for you to base your model on. So perhaps the onus is on YOU to further describe your model, and explain how you think California might get there.

But here's some homework you can copy...

Purely with Hong Kong, with just a tad bit of Wikipedia "research" I'm going to argue that British colonialism and the fall there-of after WWII, combined with the some realities of a regime change in communist China around that time led to a very specific set of circumstances (economic, political and social) to allow for the current Hong Kong-China relationship, which has only been effective for ~20 years.
It seems to me that an application of this to CA secession would be the USA 'returning' CA to Mexico, but CA and Mexico seem to be politically, economically, and socially close enough that you wouldn't need a harder to define system, like you need between communist China and colonial Hong Kong. Again, just my thoughts after 2 min on Wikipedia.

11/15/2016 5:02:50 PM