Fair points. The idea of an SAR for something as big as CA doesn't quite work, whereas for something like NYC would make a good amount of sense.

I think the UK/Scotland model or the UK and commonwealth model of nations is much closer to what I'm loosely envisioning. And yeah, I do realize that Scotland didn't vote 'yes' to leave the UK, and it overwhelming voted 'no' to Brexit, so yeah it's not a great example either. While all the other commonwealth nations pay lip service to the Queen, it's mostly just symbolic. They've still got their own governments and elections. As far as currency goes, I have mixed thoughts. I think using the US dollar would be easier given proximity and trade, but California has enough wealth to back its own currency if it wanted to to distance themselves a bit. The US might like this to prop up its own dollar.

I guess my point is that neither of these unique situations stemmed from anything as bloody and costly as the US civil war, which is what everyone assumes would have to happen.

[Edited on November 15, 2016 at 5:18 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2016 5:12:29 PM

Quote :

" 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. "

Explain how. Even just give me a couple of examples of how a country losing an entire coastline, huge chunks of territory, and a massive piece of its economy could be said to "win."

Quote :

"But given that the new CA wants to have universal healthcare..."

Here you go, making even greater leaps and assumptions before you've even settled up the initial questions. You don't know what "the new CA" wants. A single referendum isn't going to establish independence and an entire government.

Quote :

"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. "

I would argue - and President Lincoln's own words back me up here - that the primary impetus for the Civil War, from the North's point of view, was preserving the union. Abolishing slavery was not Abe's primary goal, and by his own admission he would have kept it intact if he thought it would have kept the country likewise. The question of a "human rights issue" didn't play into it. The South wanted to keep slavery, yes; but the North, first and foremost, wanted to keep the Union.

And it's only a small sample size depending on how narrow you approach it. There's only been one real secession effort at the state level or larger, yes. But countless smaller affronts to national union and federal authority of also been met with overwhelming military might, both before and since.

---

As to whether I've spent significant time in California - no, I haven't. My girlfriend was born and raised there, and traveled extensively within it; she broadly concurs with my assessment. Not that anecdotes matter. We can look at any county-by-county map of this election and see that, yep, there's a pretty big disconnect, and rural/northern CA counties certainly did not give a "fuck no" to Donald Trump: they voted for him instead.

---

Now let's go back to the Little Blue Book for more hilarious excerpts.

Quote :

"The U.S. Government spends more on its military than the next several countries combined. Not only is California forced to subsidize this massive military budget with our taxes..."

...but if we were independent, we could get the U.S. to subsidize our defense for free! Or something. Because later on we make that claim about how they'd be our closest ally and would have our backs against all enemies.

Quote :

"3. TRADE AND REGULATION"

This whole paragraph is a riot. The U.S. has a burdensome trade system that hurts our trade and businesses! And also, they support free trade agreements that make trade easier but we, um, disagree with them!

Quote :

" We will therefore take control of our natural resources and be the sole beneficiary of royalties collected if and when they are extracted from our lands."

Ah yes, nationalizing all the land and natural resources. Call Africa and ask how great that works out.

Quote :

"Further, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that treaties ratified by Congress are the supreme law of the land. In 1945, the United States ratified the UN Charter, a treaty that guarantees peoples the right to self determination in Article I."

OK, fair's fair: I don't have a lot of experience with life in California, but the stoners who wrote this nonsense clearly have even less experience with the Constitution, the UN Charter, and international law. Ratifying the UN charter does not obligate anybody to accept secession movements.

Quote :

"Regardless, if the original 13 American colonies didn’t pursue their independence from the British Empire because King George and the government in London said they had no right to do so, then this country wouldn’t exist today."

Seems like an odd example to bring up in your pamphlet about how you're going to peaceably separate with everyone being happy and nobody having to fight anybody.

11/15/2016 8:49:56 PM

Alright, instead of taking the time to respond to each of the specific points you've brought up on the blue book, I'll point out that 'YesCA' is a PAC, and there's actually a political party with an actual platform:

http://www.californianational.party/en_US/

The two are related, but they don't have the same goals or platforms and kinda try to distance themselves from each other. I had issues with a lot of the policies or hypothetical outcomes in the blue book (why the fuck do they bother talking about the Olympics ???), but I agreed with a lot of the justifications for wanting independence- nearly all of them. I'm still not convinced of the actual political platform either, but I'd like to learn more about it, given they have more logical solutions for the military issue which is a pretty big fucking deal. All of this stuff is pretty new to me, and like I've said, I still don't think it will actually happen. But am I curious? Absolutely. Do I like the idea of an Independent CA? Without a doubt, especially given the current circumstances.

If this clunky and naive proposal was all that was on the ballot, then yeah, there's no fucking way it would pass. But 2019 isn't exactly around the corner. There's some time to have a much more detailed and feasible plan, if experts, policy wonks, historians, etc decided they wanted to take part.

[Edited on November 15, 2016 at 9:25 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2016 9:24:52 PM

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. "

Not having sufficient participation in the US gov't? What in the flying fuck are you smoking? Your one freaking state controls fucking 10% of the damn thing, INCLUDING the presidential election. What the hell would you consider "sufficient?" I'm sorry, but that's the most absurd thing I think I have ever heard.

Sending "billions of dollars to Washington to fund programs you didn't sign up for?" What is that 10% of the gov't you control doing? Or are you just complaining in general about the concept of pork, which I'll bet California gets more than its fair share of?

Have you forgotten about how California basically runs the US economy when it comes to environmental standards? For fuck's sake, we can't have gas cans that fucking pour gas any more because of your fucking state. We can't have fucking light bulbs that work in the attic without blowing out every 5 damned minutes because of your fucking state.

Seriously, what part of the US do you think isn't heavily influenced by your state? You are throwing a fucking tantrum because, for once, you didn't get your way. Get the fuck over yourself.

Quote :

"because we're ready to move on to address the immediate concerns of climate change and protecting citizens from having their rights taken away."

Yeah, except gun rights and religious rights, because fuck those. Just do what WE say, because WE know best.

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."

Actually, no, it doesn't really require amending the US Constitution. The issue is with how the Electors are chosen in a winner-takes-all fashion. Each and every state can change that internally. Hell, Maine and Nebraska already have! Of course, the Democrats in California, YOUR BELOVED, PERFECT STATE, isn't willing to give up its commanding 10% head-start for Democrats, so it's a pipe dream. Oh, shit, YOUR STATE is fucking things up for other people? How is that cognitive dissonance feeling right now?

Quote :

"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). "

It's not a strawman when that is what is being proposed. Hell, they've proposed a 120B credit be paid back to California and that the US do most of California's military protection. You also are arguing for dual citizenship, where the US pays SS benefits for Californians without CA paying into the system any more. Or do you not think that SS and Medicare represent a huge chunk of the US budget? This is the exact proposal and fantasy theory, is it not?

Quote :

"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"

AKA, the US keeps paying for CA's defense. But that's not paying "expensive bills," right?

Quote :

"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."

Sample size of 1? Try the entirety of human history. Are you really this fucking myopic? Come on, man.

11/15/2016 11:06:55 PM

I love how you took the time to read my posts and cherry picked certain parts of it to attack, while leaving off entirely relevant information I've supplied because you have no rebuttal- some of it it in the same freaking sentence. But you're aaronburro, so that's to be expected. I'm glad you're so worked up though

11/15/2016 11:17:04 PM

I see no rebuttals anywhere.

You argued that CA has insufficient political influence. I argue that it has over 10% influence over the national gov't. You complain that no environmental regulations that CA wants get passed; I show that large parts of the US economic system is heavily influenced by CA environmental regulations. Where is your rebuttal?

You tried to suggest that someone was making a strawman argument; I showed that the exact argument you claim isn't being made is actually being made by the "secessionists." Where is your rebuttal?

You think that US military protection for free isn't an expense. Where is your rebuttal?

You've repeatedly been called out for having a pie-in-the-sky belief that, somehow, someway, the entirety of human history is to be ignored when considering what happens when one part of a nation tries to separate from the rest of the nation. Literally, your only rebuttal to that has been "hey, maybe it'll be different this time!" Maybe. But maybe I'll shit a bucket of skittles tomorrow, too.

I don't know what you are smoking, but I want some of it.

11/16/2016 12:34:37 AM

Quote :

"I see no rebuttals anywhere. You argued that CA has insufficient political influence. I argue that it has over 10% influence over the national gov't. You complain that no environmental regulations that CA wants get passed; I show that large parts of the US economic system is heavily influenced by CA environmental regulations. Where is your rebuttal?"

If you think CA fully exerts 10% political influence over the US, I don't know what to tell you. Democrats here are taken for granted by the rest of the blue states and Republicans are essentially ignored, especially in presidential elections, which is why this movement is stating to gain much more attention and traction.

https://wallethub.com/edu/how-much-is-your-vote-worth/7932/

I've already pointed out that CA doles out more to the US in federal taxes than it gets back to fund taker red states. There's actual evidence of this in the link that was posted earlier.

As for the environment? You think we have too much environmental influence? Are you out of your mind? Y'all just voted for a climate change denier that thinks it's a hoax made up by the Chinese. Y'all think fracking is a good idea for fuck's sake. I'm sorry a gas can and replacing lightbulbs makes you so angry, but Californians have already moved on with the rest of the first world and we're trying to stop the melting of the polar icecaps, because if we don't the entire East Coast might be under water in our lifetimes. The US is holding not only CA back, but the rest of the progressive world who is trying to do things like ban the use of gasoline powered cars in favor of electric ones. You have your heads so far up your ass that you're beyond reasoning with. You've essentially made my point for me, so thanks!

Quote :

" You tried to suggest that someone was making a strawman argument; I showed that the exact argument you claim isn't being made is actually being made by the "secessionists." Where is your rebuttal? You think that US military protection for free isn't an expense. Where is your rebuttal?"

The US is totally OK with protecting other sovereign nations and playing world watch dog because it sees itself as the "good guy"- the rest of the world doesn't quite see it that way, and many nations see the US as an aggressive bully. That's been its MO since after WWII, and it's provided plenty of justification to launch wars in the Middle East over oil and meddle in other countries' affairs. The US gives billions in aid to Israel to have a "friend" in a hostile region for the pure sake of protecting its own influence and interests (i.e oil), and it has plenty of outposts scattered throughout the world to remind everyone how big and strong it is. I would call that self imposed responsibility the price of admission for all of the power it enjoys. Most other first world nations aren't interested in going to war with other countries, and Californians aren't either. As I pointed out before, and no one seems to want to address, California could easily adopt the Swiss or Israeli model by making military service mandatory for all citizens. Go ahead and keep your military installations all over CA, you're already paying for them anyway, and you'll actually have a more powerful ally in the Pacific, given that if shit goes down, you have an entire nation of 40M people who are ready to protect the US and itself if shit were to go down.
I don't see how this is a huge loss for the US at all.

Quote :

" You've repeatedly been called out for having a pie-in-the-sky belief that, somehow, someway, the entirety of human history is to be ignored when considering what happens when one part of a nation tries to separate from the rest of the nation. Literally, your only rebuttal to that has been "hey, maybe it'll be different this time!" Maybe. But maybe I'll shit a bucket of skittles tomorrow, too."

Yep, and I've acknowledged multiple time how low the probability is. It doesn't mean the cause isn't worth exploring for people who actually live here and feel the same way I do. I'm not sure why it bothers you so much, given that you don't even live here and dismiss every reason for wanting to leave I've provided.

I'm not even going to bother addressing your earlier claims about Californians' attack on religion, because it's a joke. You realize that Californians overwhelmingly support freedom of religion for EVERYONE, not just Christians, right? If you read the party platform it's one of the key points. It's a value that the US was founded upon, but now that people have to deal with 'undesirables' like Muslims, people are trying to find ways to cram Christianity down the rest of the country's throat and shoo away the 'turrists'.

Oh and that second amendment all of you Trumpsters love so much? Yeah, there's nothing on the platform that calls for the end to firearms altogether. Californians still love their guns too out in the woods where they're needed for protection and survival. We just don't want them in our cities and in the streets where drug dealers and gangs use them with abandon. Speaking of drugs, we're tired of fighting losing wars on them that waste precious tax dollars. That's why we legalized marijuana and we are open to the idea of decriminalizing other drugs and providing treatment facilities and education instead of continuing to overcrowd our prisons. You do realize the US has the highest prison population in the entire world right? Yeah, we get that this system isn't working out, so we're trying to reduce our overcrowded prisons. We didn't overturn the death penalty yet, but that one might take some time.

Quote :

" I don't know what you are smoking, but I want some of it."

Sadly, I haven't smoked a damn thing in a months. If I wanted to, I could, but since it's not available in recreation pot shops, I'd have to call up an old dealer or try to find a friend of a friend since I don't really have many stoner friends these days

[Edited on November 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM. Reason : .]

11/16/2016 11:20:41 AM

While this whole thing has just been fantastic, I think my favorite part is your suggested mandatory military service. Oh man that would go over so well

11/16/2016 11:36:22 AM

Actually, the platform says EITHER military service OR peace corps type service.

Quote :

" 1.California will adopt a stance of neutrality on the world stage. We will enter mutual defense treaties with the other nations of North America but will not participate in peacekeeping actions or military interventions elsewhere in the world. 2.All citizens will be expected to register for military service upon turning 18 and undergo basic training. This militia will be run similarly to the current national guard where citizen-soldiers undergo basic training and then have to show up for specific short training exercises on a periodic basis. Persons who object to military service on religious or moral grounds may serving in the militia may serve in a civilian peace corps instead. Citizens with physical disabilities preventing service in the field will have the option to serve in other capacities or in the peace corps. 3.After the age of 20 all citizens will be expected to report for 2 weeks out of every year for training and service. This service will be paid. Hardship will allow deferment but the time must be made up as soon as the hardship has ended. Read more at http://www.californianational.party/en_US/platform/peace-and-defense/#HCtZZHRHwu722rz5.99"

[Edited on November 16, 2016 at 11:47 AM. Reason : .]

11/16/2016 11:45:52 AM

if california goes the US should annex all of the colorado river

11/16/2016 12:44:52 PM

Quote :

"As for the environment? You think we have too much environmental influence? Are you out of your mind? Y'all just voted for a climate change denier that thinks it's a hoax made up by the Chinese. Y'all think fracking is a good idea for fuck's sake. I'm sorry a gas can and replacing lightbulbs makes you so angry, but Californians have already moved on with the rest of the first world and we're trying to stop the melting of the polar icecaps, because if we don't the entire East Coast might be under water in our lifetimes. The US is holding not only CA back, but the rest of the progressive world who is trying to do things like ban the use of gasoline powered cars in favor of electric ones. You have your heads so far up your ass that you're beyond reasoning with. You've essentially made my point for me, so thanks!"

LOL, the comedy. I love it. Keep it coming.



[Edited on November 16, 2016 at 12:45 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2016 12:45:00 PM

we're, like, totally tubular about the environment bro

11/16/2016 12:52:24 PM

^^ I'm glad you think climate change is a joke. It just proves my point for me.

11/16/2016 1:16:03 PM

Quote :

"If you think CA fully exerts 10% political influence over the US, I don't know what to tell you. Democrats here are taken for granted by the rest of the blue states and Republicans are essentially ignored, especially in presidential elections, which is why this movement is stating to gain much more attention and traction."

Well, it's got 10% of Congress. You seem to keep forgetting that little fact. It also gives the Dems a 10% head-start in every single presidential election and plays a pretty big role in selecting the Democratic nominee. But, yeah, there's no influence there at all.

Quote :

"As for the environment? You think we have too much environmental influence? Are you out of your mind? Y'all just voted for a climate change denier that thinks it's a hoax made up by the Chinese. Y'all think fracking is a good idea for fuck's sake. I'm sorry a gas can and replacing lightbulbs makes you so angry, but Californians have already moved on with the rest of the first world and we're trying to stop the melting of the polar icecaps, because if we don't the entire East Coast might be under water in our lifetimes. The US is holding not only CA back, but the rest of the progressive world who is trying to do things like ban the use of gasoline powered cars in favor of electric ones. You have your heads so far up your ass that you're beyond reasoning with. You've essentially made my point for me, so thanks!"

Where did I say you have too much? I said you have a significant amount, as evidenced by the gas cans and lightbulbs examples. I'm not crying about those (except the gas cans, because fuck that mess) as much as I am pointing out that those are examples of CA's influence on environmental issues in the country. Our cars are engineered almost exclusively to meet CA environmental regulations, and they aren't the only thing where that happens. You can't ban gas cars yet? Boo fucking hoo. You've already done a damned good job reducing their emissions here in the US.

Quote :

"The US is totally OK with protecting other sovereign nations and playing world watch dog because it sees itself as the "good guy"- the rest of the world doesn't quite see it that way, and many nations see the US as an aggressive bully. That's been its MO since after WWII, and it's provided plenty of justification to launch wars in the Middle East over oil and meddle in other countries' affairs. The US gives billions in aid to Israel to have a "friend" in a hostile region for the pure sake of protecting its own influence and interests (i.e oil), and it has plenty of outposts scattered throughout the world to remind everyone how big and strong it is. I would call that self imposed responsibility the price of admission for all of the power it enjoys. Most other first world nations aren't interested in going to war with other countries, and Californians aren't either. As I pointed out before, and no one seems to want to address, California could easily adopt the Swiss or Israeli model by making military service mandatory for all citizens. Go ahead and keep your military installations all over CA, you're already paying for them anyway, and you'll actually have a more powerful ally in the Pacific, given that if shit goes down, you have an entire nation of 40M people who are ready to protect the US and itself if shit were to go down. I don't see how this is a huge loss for the US at all."

Sure, we're totally OK with protecting other countries, when we have a reason to do so. Europe is basically a buffer against Russia. Israel is all about religious-righters' obsession with letting Jesus come back. The rest of the middle east is about cheap oil. The idea that we will willingly pay for the military bases in CA, on our own, while losing CA's tax dollars which had been paying the lion's share of the expenses is so laughable as to basically destroy any ounce of credibility you might have had left. That is simply not a subsidy that the US will pay. The US isn't going to cede meaningful arms or equipment to CA; it will just pack them up and take them home. You'll be left with buildings and nothing more. Likewise, the notion that a state whose universities and high schools have repeated banned military recruiters and ROTC units on campus is going to submit to compulsory military service, much less serve as any kind of military ally in any conflict is equally laughable. You'll have a whole state with tens of millions of peace corps volunteers. Upon secession, CA would be a country with an enormous economy and absolutely no military. I'll give you three guesses as to how that will end, and the first two don't count.

Quote :

"Yep, and I've acknowledged multiple time how low the probability is. It doesn't mean the cause isn't worth exploring for people who actually live here and feel the same way I do. I'm not sure why it bothers you so much, given that you don't even live here and dismiss every reason for wanting to leave I've provided."

Umm, actually, yes, it does mean the cause isn't worth exploring. If your entire premise rests upon something which has literally never happened being the thing which prevails over the complete and total obliteration of your "country," then I would say it is certainly worth taking a step back and pausing to reflect.

Quote :

"Oh and that second amendment all of you Trumpsters love so much? Yeah, there's nothing on the platform that calls for the end to firearms altogether. Californians still love their guns too out in the woods where they're needed for protection and survival. We just don't want them in our cities and in the streets where drug dealers and gangs use them with abandon."

Dude, at this point, you've totally jumped the shark. The pro-gun people in California are essentially the Republicans. The Democrats in CA are some of the most ardent supporters of outright gun bans and confiscations. You really think that, given independence, and with a nearly 2-to-1 advantage in voters, CA isn't going to act on those desires within its borders? And you really think that the pro-gun rights people in CA are oblivious to that? Likewise, do you really think those same Republicans, who are largely ignored within CA today but at least have a supportive voice from many other states in Congress, are going to willingly jump into a 2-to-1 disadvantage in a new country? The more likely scenario is an immediate civil war within CA when the confiscation attempts happen (remember, you have no military to speak of), with the US coming in to act as a peace-keeper and eventually turning CA back into a state again. At best (in your eyes) CA would become a territory similar to Puerto Rico, and the US would get your tax dollars while you'd have little to no representation in Congress.

Quote :

"Speaking of drugs, we're tired of fighting losing wars on them that waste precious tax dollars. That's why we legalized marijuana and we are open to the idea of decriminalizing other drugs and providing treatment facilities and education instead of continuing to overcrowd our prisons. You do realize the US has the highest prison population in the entire world right? Yeah, we get that this system isn't working out, so we're trying to reduce our overcrowded prisons. We didn't overturn the death penalty yet, but that one might take some time."

I agree with you on both of these, in case you didn't know. And much of the country is rapidly moving towards at least the same stance on marijuana, if not drugs in general. Leaving right now over this, when you'll basically get it within the next 10-15 years anyway, would be the height of stupidity. The fight over for-profit-prisons is a different beast, but I don't really see CA leading the way at all on that or advocating against it on the national stage, other than its general hatred for capitalism.

Quote :

"Sadly, I haven't smoked a damn thing in a months. If I wanted to, I could, but since it's not available in recreation pot shops, I'd have to call up an old dealer or try to find a friend of a friend since I don't really have many stoner friends these days "

Eh, it was worth a shot

11/16/2016 9:01:40 PM

Again, you're cherry picking parts of my posts to attack, while ignoring facts or logic I've posted.

What is your response to the wallet hub link I posted? Californians have the least say of any state in presidential elections, and that's what prompted this whole discussion for many of us in the first place. On top of that, we rank dead last when you look at Senators. We get two, while Wyoming and Vermont get two as well? We have 40 million people. In what world is that fair? This isn't the 1700s anymore when there were thirteen colonies, you know. So 10 % representation in congress is supposed to make up for these two huge deficits? Um ok? 90% of the rest of congress can essentially do whatever it wants and it frequently does, regardless of what anything California has to say about it. You're also still not acknowledging the reality that California sends out more federal tax dollars ($16B btw) than it receives. We are essentially funding states like Mississippi and Arkansas who have some of the worst poverty in the nation and we can't even tackle our own as a result.

As for global warming, you haven't acknowledged Donald Trump being a climate change denier either. Claiming global warming was a hoax invented by the Chinese were actually words that he said:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en

Are you going to deny he said them? Or do you want us to give him a chance or assume he wasn't being serious? The mother fucker came to California and claimed there is no drought!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/28/donald-trump-tells-californians-there-no-drought/85082174/

Y'all keep insisting that California and Americans don't view the world differently, but this is about as glaring of an example as I can think of.

I'm not going to bicker with you back and forth about a potential military strategy somewhere down the line in a country that doesn't even exist yet, but I will say this. You don't see the US as an imperialist and bully, while I do. I come from a very long line of US military vets and have a lot respect for their service to America, but the America they fought for just elected Donald fucking Trump, so let that sink in for a minute. As a general principal, I'm opposed to going to war with other countries for any reason but self defense or a direct attack on our closet/immediate allies. I never enlisted or joined ROTC because I felt like the US was waging wars I couldn't bring myself to fight in. I'm not at all suggesting anyone who risked their lives and fought for my freedom was "wrong" for doing so, and I extend my overwhelming gratitude and respect to them, but morally and ethically I just don't buy into America playing the role it does. Bash me all you want for it, but I'd rather fulfill whatever hypothetical mandatory military obligations a new California Republic demanded of me to earn citizenship (so long as I knew I wouldn't be shipped off on some imperial mission across the world) than voluntarily sign up to take part in the US' watchdog and imperialist efforts. Can you for a second try to see where I'm coming from now?

And finally, the whole gun issue- and again, this is based on a hypothetical scenario somewhere down the line in a country that doesn't even exist yet- is going to have to be determined by the new CA government. I would suspect that separate states or regions would have different laws and regulations that would determined when the new government was formed. In order for that to happen, people are going to have to compromise. You're making a really faulty assumption about how all liberals view guns btw. I'm pretty damn liberal, but I don't hate guns and want to take them away from everybody- at least not in practice (a world without any gun violence would be wonderful). I do want it more difficult for crazy and violent people to get them, and I do think handguns in urban areas don't mix very well, but I also have parents who are gun enthusiasts and enjoy hunting. This whole straw man of liberals trying to take away every single person's gun needs to stop. Switzerland has an incredibly high gun ownership rate, yet they don't have our gun violence problems. Is it perhaps a cultural thing? At any rate, if you actually look at the CNP platform, it doesn't discuss guns at all. Hmm. I wonder why? It talks about universal health care, free college for everyone, and even the idea of exposing the concept of a universal basic income (huh???), but I can't find anything about guns. Perhaps it's because the issue is too polarizing to deal with right now, and the goal of the movement is to try to appeal to as many people as possible?

I'm fine with people trying to pick apart scenarios for what would need to happen down the road, but I still think Californians should be able to present a case for why they want to become independent. I thought America was supposed to be a democracy where citizens get to vote for the government of their choosing...

This guy gets it:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-waters-calexit-right-secession-20161115-story.html

[Edited on November 17, 2016 at 3:24 AM. Reason : .]

11/17/2016 3:21:52 AM

why do you keep talking about californians like they are a unified group when california is politically split in ways that mirror the rest of the country

you use donald trump to highlight how california thinks differently from the rest of america, but here is how california voted in the presidential election:

3.6 million people voted for trump, california is split like everywhere else



[Edited on November 17, 2016 at 8:18 AM. Reason : thats over a million more idiots than north carolina]

11/17/2016 8:09:56 AM

Climate change isn't a joke. Never has been, always has been part of the planet. Alarmist, cripple the economy to appease Gaia, climate change however, is. California is doing itself zero favors by shutting down it's nuclear power plants. And large parts of California have historically had droughts, so it's ironic to see unsustainably high population centers built in dry climates and then cry about water problems.

But I don't want to sidetrack the main points of the Calexit debate here, so please carry on with the lunacy.

11/17/2016 9:11:11 AM

Quote :

"ignoring facts or logic I've posted."

LOL

This has to be the best thread of the year. Highly entertaining.

11/17/2016 10:56:27 AM

^^^That map is misleading in the same way the map of the US to show blue/red states is misleading too.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/10/improved-election-map-cartograms/

Here's the population breakdown of some of those red counties that look huge, but have so few people. A lot of them have less less than 30k people.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-voting-history/

The only ones of them that have any substantial population are Kern county and Tulare county. Aside from that, Orange County, an ethnically diverse, populous Republican stronghold, went blue for the first time since 1936.

And again, the whole point of a new CA would be to allow more local government at all levels.

Quote :

"High-level beliefs 1. California is a diverse place and has widely divergent views on a range of issues. Our Party and the political structures we advocate post-independence should reflect that. 2. We believe that unless there is a compelling reason for something to be decided nationally or regionally it should be decided at the most local level possible. 3. The default should always be that a more local government can overrule higher levels unless a power has been explicitly delegated to the higher body. 4. In cases where there is a compelling reason for regional or national planning, we need more effective tools in place to facilitate it. 5. We believe the American two-party system is fundamentally undemocratic and want to ensure that California does not duplicate that system. Read more at http://www.californianational.party/en_US/platform/independence/#OhtrdwGCQEXfEqoO.99"

[Edited on November 17, 2016 at 11:01 AM. Reason : .]

Quote :

"Climate change isn't a joke. Never has been, always has been part of the planet. Alarmist, cripple the economy to appease Gaia, climate change however, is. California is doing itself zero favors by shutting down it's nuclear power plants. And large parts of California have historically had droughts, so it's ironic to see unsustainably high population centers built in dry climates and then cry about water problems. "

You don't know what you're talking about because you're a global warming denier- you should read a book sometime. You think it's a bunch of alarmist bullshit, when the vast majority of the scientific community agrees that rising sea temps are the direct result of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions. There's no hope for you if you think it's just a bunch of hippies appeasing Gaia.

[Edited on November 17, 2016 at 11:06 AM. Reason : .]

Quote :

" LOL This has to be the best thread of the year. Highly entertaining."

Whenever I post something with numerical data, like the voter index article or the article showing that CA gives more than it receives, nobody wants to discuss it. But I'm glad you're entertained too



[Edited on November 17, 2016 at 11:09 AM. Reason : .]

11/17/2016 11:01:02 AM

Quote :

"Here's the population breakdown of some of those red counties that look huge, but have so few people. A lot of them have less less than 30k people."

that's how the rest of the country is too, california is like the rest of the country. you just live in a blue oasis and don't realize that just because there are a shitload of liberal people in a couple parts of your state, not everyone agrees with you. californians have diverse political opinions like the rest of the country.

look, trump got 3.6 million votes in california, so when you say:

Quote :

"Y'all keep insisting that California and Americans don't view the world differently, but this is about as glaring of an example as I can think of. "

in response to trump quotes it's nonsense because california views things pretty similarly to the rest of the country

[Edited on November 17, 2016 at 11:30 AM. Reason : .]

11/17/2016 11:27:34 AM

It's literally 45 minutes from the Bay Area to Stockton. Not sure you could have two areas so close yet so far apart.

11/17/2016 11:36:36 AM

^ wat? Stockton voted blue dude. And you're right, they are night and day places.

^^Yes, I realize 3.6M people voted for Trump. Clinton still won 60%+ of the vote and it wasn't just in the "blue oasis" I'm living in. And for the last time, I'm not denying there aren't cultural differences within CA. You still haven't addressed some of the progressive ballot initiatives that passed with 60% + of the vote or higher. Prop 52 passed in all counties, so did 54 and 58. All but 5 counties voted to extend taxes on the wealthy for the next 12 years. Prop 57 passed by 63% and the vast majority of counties. Those are LOCAL issues that affect Californians directly.

http://projects.sfchronicle.com/2016/election/


Oh, and go back and read the context behind my statement when I said there were glaring difference between the US and CA. I was talking about the environment. You may not think so, but most Californians care a lot more about the environment than other parts of the country. We have the laws to prove it, while people like TKE-TEG and aaronburro are pissed about lightbulbs and gas cans.



[Edited on November 17, 2016 at 11:53 AM. Reason : .]

11/17/2016 11:47:25 AM

what do you mean, "i haven't..."

you are the one talking about californians thinking different than the rest of the country, acting like they are unified, when its clearly evident that they have the same kind of different ideas as the rest of the country

[Edited on November 17, 2016 at 11:53 AM. Reason : .]

11/17/2016 11:52:35 AM

If California is just as divided as the rest of the country (which was nowhere near a 60/40 split), why was it able to pass progressive states laws like prison reform, taxing the wealthy, making legislation transparent, and bilingual education essentially by every county? And NO, the rest of the country wouldn't have voted for these things. I didn't even mention marijuana or school bonds which passed easily, I'm talking about other issues.

[Edited on November 17, 2016 at 11:56 AM. Reason : .]

11/17/2016 11:55:56 AM

Quote :

"You don't know what you're talking about because you're a global warming denier- you should read a book sometime. You think it's a bunch of alarmist bullshit, when the vast majority of the scientific community agrees that rising sea temps are the direct result of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions. There's no hope for you if you think it's just a bunch of hippies appeasing Gaia. "

So assuming your alarmist views of Global Warming are accurate, wouldn't it be more globally productive if you stayed a part of the system to effect policy change in the direction you think it needs to go? How does removing your self from the discussion actually benefit "progress" in decreasing global warming?

11/17/2016 11:57:54 AM

^^ 60/40 is not united

jesus fuck

11/17/2016 12:03:11 PM

^ 61.5% vs 33% is sure closer than how the rest of the country voted. And you're still not addressing the issues that passed in every county. Are they not progressive or a reflection of Californian values? Are they just a coincidence?

^^To be a leader? To not have to be held back by people who refuse to want to listen? There's a meme floating around with the image of an adult taking an oxygen mask down while on an airplane and putting on themself first before their child. It says something like, "before helping others, you must first help yourself"

Yeah, it's a condescending message, but it's still true.

[Edited on November 17, 2016 at 12:10 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2016 12:03:27 PM

I don't know what your definition of being a leader is, but completely removing any influence you have from the discussion is not among those qualities. But then again, you are being informed by internet memes, so there isn't much reasoning with that level of thinking.

11/17/2016 12:18:28 PM

Leadership by example. LA has demonstrably reduced pollution to pre 1990s levels despite huge population growth. It did so by passing aggressive emission laws. CA wants to be a world leader in solar and wind technology, while the US is busy fracking the shit out of America causing big earthquakes in Oklahoma. Energy companies in Wyoming are trying their very best to tap into Yellowstone to make money. How can you be a leader when those around you refuse to follow or take you seriously? Sometimes it's best to cut your losses and move on.





[Edited on November 17, 2016 at 12:27 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2016 12:23:21 PM

Quote :

"because if we don't the entire East Coast might be under water in our lifetimes. "

this sort of exaggeration is why deniers exist.

11/17/2016 12:36:55 PM

It's not an exaggeration. It's an actual possibility. Notice how I used the word "might" as a qualifier
I shouldn't have said "entire" east coast though. My bad. It would just be the parts that matter like NYC, Boston, DC, Philly and Miami [/NorCalSnob]



[Edited on November 17, 2016 at 12:47 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2016 12:42:33 PM

Quote :

"It's an actual possibility. Notice how I used the word "might" as a qualifier "

Well this thread has shown your great ability for logical assumptions, so I agree that we should give you the benefit of the doubt here.

11/17/2016 1:33:24 PM

I'm glad you agree!

Still waiting on that dtownral rebuttal to the ballot initiates that passed in every county. Oh, and Kamala Harris won in every county too for US senate.

11/17/2016 1:58:14 PM

Thread of the year

11/17/2016 3:05:11 PM

^^ i'm sorry, are you pretending like other states haven't passed ballot initiatives?

in addition to marijuana, 4 states increased minimum wages with targets exceeding california, arizona also has guaranteed paid time off, 2 other states passed new gun controls, main fucking passed rank voting, etc...

california only had so many ballot initiatives because the bar to get on the ballot was so low (which is dangerous). Am I supposed to pretend like california is more progressive than fucking vermont because they don't allow public ballot measures?

11/17/2016 3:46:35 PM

I'm just responding to the argument you personally invented about California being just as divided as the US is. For the last time, I never once said there aren't cultural and political issues between Californians- there's roughly 40 million of us; it's to be expected. However, 5/12 ballot initiatives passed in either every of California's 58 counties or close to it. I'm sorry you don't have a rebuttal for Kamala Harris winning every single county either. I guess you could make excuses or move the goal posts and say that the red counties didn't have a choice so they had to vote for her anyway (do you know how liberal she actually is? LOL), but it's a dumb argument, given how the GOP won plenty of seats in Congress, which happens in other populous and/or diverse states too. In this case, you simply don't know what they fuck you're talking about. You've presented logical rebuttals to some of my previous claims, and you generally know what you're talking about when it comes to most political matters, but if you're trying to suggest the CA and the US are just as divided, you don't have any quantifiable way to support it at the moment, unfortunately.



[Edited on November 17, 2016 at 4:15 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2016 4:04:15 PM

Quote :

"On top of that, we rank dead last when you look at Senators"

Asked/Answered/Ignored

Cognitive dissonance...

/Thread

11/17/2016 4:37:56 PM

Look, several of you made the claim that because many small, rural counties in CA voted for Trump (and Kern/Tulare counties), it means that the state is just as divided as America, and I guess you're implying that compromise will never happen. I am just relying on recent, quantifiable evidence to show that while, yes, Trump did earn 33% of the vote, the STATE passed a dozen progressive initiatives (5/12 with essentially all 58 counties voting 'yes) that will have a direct impact on issues in CA. Ballot initiatives aren't passed all that often here, so either these ones were expertly written and appealing, or maybe Californians agree on more than you all think. The fact that Kamala Harris won all 58 and is a hardcore and aggressive liberal is just icing on the cake at this point since nobody seems to be able to have an argument for it. In sum, California isn't nearly as divided as you are claiming. Move the goal post, change your argument, whatever; you don't have any proof other than "Well, Hillary only won by 61% to 33%, so there!"


[Edited on November 17, 2016 at 4:57 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2016 4:50:42 PM

We are all aware 1st generation immigrant anchor babies are dependent on big gov and vote for Clinton.

11/17/2016 6:13:59 PM

Over a million more Americans voted for trump in California than here in NC. California has left-right splits the same as everywhere else, I showed you the maps. Are they more progressive than some states, yes. Are the substantially different from all other states or the US? No. You are an idiot, and you rich California liberals are making democrats look terrible. Stop it.

11/17/2016 6:16:54 PM

11/17/2016 7:42:15 PM

Northern Califronia is very different but so is western oregon and Washington. Cascadia makes a lot of sense.

11/17/2016 7:49:29 PM

Quote :

"Leadership by example. LA has demonstrably reduced pollution to pre 1990s levels despite huge population growth. It did so by passing aggressive emission laws. CA wants to be a world leader in solar and wind technology, while the US is busy fracking the shit out of America causing big earthquakes in Oklahoma. Energy companies in Wyoming are trying their very best to tap into Yellowstone to make money. How can you be a leader when those around you refuse to follow or take you seriously? Sometimes it's best to cut your losses and move on."

The irony here is that thanks to fracking the US has reduced their CO2 emissions year over year. Something Europe hasn't been able to manage. All the while maintaining historically low energy prices. Certainly one of the triumphs of the Obama Admin. And it's quite telling that you don't seem to differentiate between alarmist global warming and climate change, especially when claiming that there's a consensus.

11/18/2016 9:22:49 AM

[Edited on November 18, 2016 at 10:37 AM. Reason : .]

11/18/2016 10:37:07 AM

sweet, one of my favorite gifs

11/18/2016 12:48:44 PM

Hey man, it's nothing personal. We just view the environment in completely opposite ways and we probably won't ever come to an agreement. I just have a huge problem with dtownral trying to minimize such differences and suggest that CA is the same thing as the rest of America when it really isn't. I've lived in many places in the US (NC, VA, NY, MD, AZ, and CA) and visited 44 of out the 50 states, I kinda get how the rest of the US and CA are pretty different.

Anyway, look! More news:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/canada-invite-liberal-us-states-break-away-donald-trump-america-a7418341.html

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/i-wish-we-all-could-be-californian.html

http://www.thenational.scot/news/14912848.After_Donald_Trump__California_s_dreaming_of_going_it_alone/

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/should-california-oregon-and-washington-join-canada-calexit-talk-envelops-west-coast/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/calexit-donald-trump/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/09/trump-win-california-secede-calexit-silicon-valley

[Edited on November 18, 2016 at 2:19 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2016 2:18:57 PM

I love the delusional view Californians have of their state from within their gated communities.

California is quickly declining into Mexico 2.0, with absurd taxes, regulations, inflation, and state debt.

When the orange man builds a wall, he should wall off Cali too, to quarantine the cancer.

11/18/2016 2:42:51 PM

Cool, so you'll help us pack our bags? Awesome!

11/18/2016 2:46:11 PM

Oddly enough, more people are leaving California than coming in. I guess the liberal policies that have resulted in taxes, debt, inflation, crime, riots, and no middle class aren't appealing to people unless they are crossing over from Mexico.

11/18/2016 2:53:27 PM

So, yes?

11/18/2016 2:54:58 PM