|
With everyone saying that Calexit isn't going to happen makes it feel another Trump debacle will happen. 
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:With everyone saying that Calexit isn't going to happen makes it feel another Trump debacle will happen. Don't worry. We will never let you go. Never. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:With everyone saying that Calexit isn't going to happen makes it feel another Trump debacle will happen. If it makes you feel better California voted against Trump by a 30 point margin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:If it makes you feel better California voted against Trump by a 30 point margin. I just hope someone punches that limey gently caress in his gob.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
Necroskowitz posted:Watch out folks, Nigel is coming for us. Why would any Democratic Californian vote for that split? If I'm reading this right, it basically creates a new red state, while not significantly decreasing California's population (which is the source of California's electoral underrepresentation). Plus it's not like the red inland parts of the state are dragging down the rest of CA, since we have a Dem supermajority in both houses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Why would any Democratic Californian vote for that split? If I'm reading this right, it basically creates a new red state, while not significantly decreasing California's population (which is the source of California's electoral underrepresentation). Plus it's not like the red inland parts of the state are dragging down the rest of CA, since we have a Dem supermajority in both houses. People are dumb
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:People are dumb
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:Also Inland California would be (somewhat) balanced by DC statehood according to the article iirc. Which DC has been fighting for since Ben Franklin has been chasing older women.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:With predictable results I hear the 91 expansion has done jack loving poo poo for the general use lanes. Also I really hate that they advertised their wording, "two express lanes and one general use lane added." No, no general use lane was added, it was re labeling the car pool lane as a general lane, and it didn't go any faster than the rest, so no. Stop driving so much
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:Stop driving so much New thread title.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
If Calexit ever became a political movement, as opposed to a crazy late-night drunk idea run by an expatriate to Russia, I think the rest of us could quickly shut it down with "It worked so well when South Carolina tried it." Seriously, the Constitution has no provisions for "I'm taking my ball and going home", as established by a rather large war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:If Calexit ever became a political movement, as opposed to a crazy late-night drunk idea run by an expatriate to Russia, I think the rest of us could quickly shut it down with "It worked so well when South Carolina tried it." Seriously, the Constitution has no provisions for "I'm taking my ball and going home", as established by a rather large war. California couldn't do it unilaterally, but if they convince enough legislators, couldn't an Act of Congress allow it to happen? Or would it require a Constitutional Amendment?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:California couldn't do it unilaterally, but if they convince enough legislators, couldn't an Act of Congress allow it to happen? Or would it require a Constitutional Amendment? Nobody knows. But the odds that the U.S. Congress will say, "Gee, yeah, sure, take an enormous tax base out of the U.S. economy, we're cool" are nil.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Inland Empire went blue the last 3 elections, I don't wanna be lumped in with those red state dorks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Calexit is a dumb lovely idea, regardless of which side you may be on. It'd be a disaster for both California and whatever is left of the US, and hopefully most of California knows that.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Nobody knows. But the odds that the U.S. Congress will say, "Gee, yeah, sure, take an enormous tax base out of the U.S. economy, we're cool" are nil. Are you sure? There are many similar economic reasons not to pursue what our government is currently pursuing, and yet the persist. I feel like quite a few Republicans might think "wow, this will guarantee us a majority in Congress for the next 10-20 years, yes please!" LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:Calexit is a dumb lovely idea, regardless of which side you may be on. It'd be a disaster for both California and whatever is left of the US, and hopefully most of California knows that. Oh, yeah, absolutely. That being said, since I was born in California, I wonder if I'd be eligible for citizenship separately from my US citizenship if that happened.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
The case of Sherman v. Georgia showed that the states have the right to suck it in regards to seccession.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:The case of Sherman v. Georgia showed that the states have the right to suck it in regards to seccession. That's a nice steaming hot take, but nobody here is arguing that California can secede unilaterally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
No instead you're dreaming up some scenario where the US allows a state to leave.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:No instead you're dreaming up some scenario where the US allows a state to leave. Yeah. I am. Which makes your objection irrelevant. Thanks for playing, though! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind seeing California go down in flames if it meant those lousy East-coasters left in the US went down with it. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Honestly the East Coast ain't bad. Their biggest flaw is thinking they compare to the Best Coast in any way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:I wouldn't mind seeing California go down in flames if it meant those lousy East-coasters left in the US went down with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:I honestly don't get the obsession with proving California is a shithole. Right-wingers cannot tolerate California being seen as a bastion of liberal values and a socialist utopia because it goes against everything they believe in. Radically leftist states should all be miserable communist shitholes. That's what the Invisible Hand of Capitalism would want!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Right-wingers cannot tolerate California being seen as a bastion of liberal values and a socialist utopia because it goes against everything they believe in. Radically leftist states should all be miserable communist shitholes. That's what the Invisible Hand of Capitalism would want!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
This is dumb. If billionaires have a problem with yayhoos running into the field, they should just trespass them and eject them permanently. This seems like the kind of law that gets proposed just by lobbying and results in someone somewhere getting arrested by an off duty cop for stepping on the grass at a middle school football game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Why would any Democratic Californian vote for that split? If I'm reading this right, it basically creates a new red state, while not significantly decreasing California's population (which is the source of California's electoral underrepresentation). Plus it's not like the red inland parts of the state are dragging down the rest of CA, since we have a Dem supermajority in both houses. That seems to indicate the split would keep CA in the union but split it into an inland (and presumably conservative) state and (presumably much less) coastal state rather than having it leave, which is an interesting idea insofar as it's never happened before. You'd have to do it proper and go full Russian model though: split cities off as entirely separate federal subjects from the states that surround them. Hell, do it for the whole of the US. If we can wrangle it such that every federal city gets their own two senators, go for it! In a weird way, it's just sort of readjusting the legislature so that it fits the modern version of the original concerns that led to creating the House and Senate as separate bodies in the first place, sort of. But it'd never happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
My sincere hope is that Nigel Farage gets eaten by a great white at a presser.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:There are conceivably enough dorks in norcal that think The State of Jefferson (and the ability to plunder trees and coast) would be a sweet deal. Yeah, I lived up in redwood land for a while and saw the State of Jefferson stickers now and then, but I never got a single satisfactory answer for how the gently caress a state like that would function. The population is tiny, the economy is awful (unless like you like trimming weed two months a year), and the whole region's infrastructure is massively subsidized by outside tax revenue. How they could possibly lower taxes and still have paved roads and airports and ambulances and rural fire departments and the rest is beyond me, and (apparently) everyone else I've ever asked about it. Plus, what would be the capital? loving Redding is the biggest town up there, but according to the purists that's still too far south. I really don't think that anyone is going to go for a state with Yreka as the capital, probably including the Yrekans. FCKGW posted:Inland Empire went blue the last 3 elections, I don't wanna be lumped in with those red state dorks. Yeah, the LA metro basically breaks any attempt the split California in two and there's really no way to carve out a reasonable-looking inland state that would actually be reliably republican. Even Fresno went for Clinton last year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 11:40
|
|
|
It would make more sense to do some kind of north-south split, but that would just result in two blue as hell states instead of one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 16:50
|
|
Tarezax posted:It would make more sense to do some kind of north-south split, but that would just result in two blue as hell states instead of one. can we do this but secretly operate as one state as we have been and just gain 2 senators?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
The only reasonable way to split California is to find whatever line it is that splits the people who say "I'm taking the 101" from the people who say "I'm taking 101" and split on that
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:15
|
|
Elyv posted:The only reasonable way to split California is to find whatever line it is that splits the people who say "I'm taking the 101" from the people who say "I'm taking 101" and split on that separate california based on whose teenagers say "hecka" versus "hella"
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Elyv posted:The only reasonable way to split California is to find whatever line it is that splits the people who say "I'm taking the 101" from the people who say "I'm taking 101" and split on that
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:Yeah, I lived up in redwood land for a while and saw the State of Jefferson stickers now and then, but I never got a single satisfactory answer for how the gently caress a state like that would function. The population is tiny, the economy is awful (unless like you like trimming weed two months a year), and the whole region's infrastructure is massively subsidized by outside tax revenue. How they could possibly lower taxes and still have paved roads and airports and ambulances and rural fire departments and the rest is beyond me, and (apparently) everyone else I've ever asked about it. Plus, what would be the capital? loving Redding is the biggest town up there, but according to the purists that's still too far south. I really don't think that anyone is going to go for a state with Yreka as the capital, probably including the Yrekans. quote:separate california based on whose teenagers say "hecka" versus "hella"
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Tarezax posted:It would make more sense to do some kind of north-south split, but that would just result in two blue as hell states instead of one. Plus we'd wind up with one state having most of the people while the other has most of the water and arable land. Greater LA and the Bay are both super built up (and resistant to high rises) with exploding housing/homelessness crises in both areas, so I'm starting to think the future of growth in CA will probably involve building up central California and turning places like Santa Barbara/Santa Maria, San Luis Obispo, and Fresno into bigger cities. Having a state line in the middle of that would cause a lot of problems, not the least of which would be totally loving high speed rail. Elyv posted:The only reasonable way to split California is to find whatever line it is that splits the people who say "I'm taking the 101" from the people who say "I'm taking 101" and split on that I've lived in San Diego, Santa Cruz, and Humboldt and all three places called it "the 101" maybe that's a college town phenomenon though. The "hella" split is real though. No one says it in SoCal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
As long as we get lake tahoe you fucks can do whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:can we do this but secretly operate as one state as we have been and just gain 2 senators? Way to go dipshit, next you're going to spill the beans on hyperloop actually being a railgun aimed at trump's border wall.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
We clearly just need to find the line between "freeway" and "highway"
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:We clearly just need to find the line between "freeway" and "highway"
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 19:58
|
|