proposal that would establish California as separate nation

[yankeefan98121]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/27/officials-announce-proposal-that-would-establish-california-as-separate-nation.html

"America already hates California, and America votes on emotions," Marcus Evans, vice president of Yes California told the Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-coming-to-a-clipboard-near-you-1485483444-htmlstory.html). "I think we'd have the votes today if we held it."

No, Americans do not hate California, I personally hate the liberals in California (not just a California plague though). California is a very beautiful state.

Now, LA, yeah I fucking HATE LA and everyone there [ROFL2]

[Skip]

Yes you can.

Where I send donations?

[bobbyfairbanks]

I'm willing to sacrifice the 8th largest economy in the world to have a more stable country.

[Monky]

How do we vote yes on this?

[bobbyfairbanks]

We should all move there in 19 so we can help kick them out

[Skip]

We should all move there in 19 so we can help kick them out

I don't think we could make a dent in California's crazy one way or another.

But we could help Conservative CAers move here so we can take back CO.

[bobbyfairbanks]

Well if cali jumps ship a bunch of CO libtards will most likely pack their shit

[Skip]

Well if cali jumps ship a bunch of CO libtards will most likely pack their shit

I'm still not seeing a downside :)

[Ranger353]

This is such a tall endeavor. It would still have to be approved by a super majority in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, and then signed by the President. What is more likely would be a stand-off with CANG against U.S. Armed Forces stationed there. Remember we played this once before at Fort Sumter, South Carolina and that didn't turn out well for the traitors.

[asmo]

They secede, we invade. Turn them into a puppet.

Failing to see the downside here.

[Great-Kazoo]

Well if cali jumps ship a bunch of CO libtards will most likely pack their shit

San Francisco bound?

[CS1983]

This is such a tall endeavor. It would still have to be approved by a super majority in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, and then signed by the President. What is more likely would be a stand-off with CANG against U.S. Armed Forces stationed there. Remember we played this once before at Fort Sumter, South Carolina and that didn't turn out well for the traitors.

Didn't turn out well for a better equipped, better supplied, better conscription numbers army of aggressors either.

On topic: let em go, let em go, turn away and slam the door...

[Ranger353]

Didn't turn out well for a better equipped, better supplied, better conscription numbers army of aggressors either.

On topic: let em go, let em go, turn away and slam the door...
No comparison, a Regimental Combat Team of U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton is probably the most lethal force on the face of the planet. (Drop the mic)

[newracer]

No comparison, a Regimental Combat Team of U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton is probably the most lethal force on the face of the planet. (Drop the mic)

But who would they fight for?

This will never happen.

[CS1983]

No comparison, a Regimental Combat Team of U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton is probably the most lethal force on the face of the planet. (Drop the mic)

Then why did you initiate the comparison?

[TAR31]

Good riddance, we would never have to worry about another obama getting elected if they leave.

[Firehaus]

Texas wants to secede!

Liberals: Stupid rednecks, that's un-American!

California wants to secede!

Liberals: This is genius! It's about time!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[izzy]

Would that mean Colorado would keep all its water afterwards? They'd get pretty damn thirsty in CA without it.

[ray1970]

I'm against it.

Our luck it would drive them here in droves to make Colorado their new state.

[CS1983]

I'm against it.

Our luck it would drive them here in droves to make Colorado their new state.

I'm sure the good folks in Grand Junction could run a border patrol

[bobbyfairbanks]

San Francisco bound?
That would be fine but any place in CA IS ALSO OK

[SG1]

I say we let them go, then when everything falls apart we "liberate" the nation and annx it.

[SG1]

I say that we wall off LA, SD, SF, SC. Way easier.

[DireWolf]

They secede, we invade. Turn them into a puppet.

Failing to see the downside here.
This would be the only way I'd be for it, along with a "no mercy, no prisoners" approach to reclamation...The idea that we should have to happily part with what is ours without one hell of a fight is bogus, but if they want to leave peacefully or swim into the ocean, well that'd be ok too...

Would be a great way to put a stop to a whole lot of excess carbon emissions (CO2).....

[brutal]

This is such a tall endeavor. It would still have to be approved by a super majority in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, and then signed by the President. What is more likely would be a stand-off with CANG against U.S. Armed Forces stationed there. Remember we played this once before at Fort Sumter, South Carolina and that didn't turn out well for the traitors.

Toured that last spring. Cool place.

[Dave_L]

This would make my year/decade/life if this happened.

[rondog]

Can I vote on this? I'd sure like to help.....

[Skip]

Can I vote on this? I'd sure like to help.....

Do you think they'd send us mail in ballots in CO?

If illegals can vote in CA why not a Coloradan?

[Delfuego]

Only if Texas succeeds back to become North Mexico again. Can we also get rid of Michigan too? Michigan is just America's Syria anyway...


I'm willing to sacrifice the 8th largest economy in the world to have a more stable country.5th actually.

[ray1970]

Only if Texas succeeds back to become North Mexico again. Can we also get rid of Michigan too? Michigan is just America's Syria anyway...


Well, if we're getting rid of multiple states, I'd like to toss New York into the mix. Too much diversity in that place. Maybe we could give it to France or Canada?

[Irving]

I'm against it. Quit whining California. You can't take your ball and go home when it's not your ball to take.

[Dave_L]

Arent they still in massive debt? Last I knew they had $400+ billion in debt? Good luck with that.

[bobbyfairbanks]

It would cheaper to take there debt and then let them go.

[hurley842002]

I'm against it. Quit whining California. You can't take your ball and go home when it's not your ball to take.

Yup, don't like it, move to another country, but that beautiful chunk of land belongs to the USA!

[Skip]

Yup, don't like it, move to another country, but that beautiful chunk of land belongs to the USA!

You didn't build that.

[Zundfolge]

55 automatic Democrat electoral votes and the bulk of the (likely illegal) votes that put Hillary over the like in the popular vote?

Yeah, I say let 'em go ... good riddance.

[CS1983]

It is certainly their ball to take unless one subscribes to the erroneous post-civil war accretion of the singularity of the unity of states, wherein statehood is merely an accident and the corporate understanding is essential.

[Honey Badger282.8]

I'd rather not lose the country's largest agricultural producer.

[yankeefan98121]

I'm sure the good folks in Grand Junction could run a border patrol

I would certainly help, weekend warrior


Arent they still in massive debt? Last I knew they had $400+ billion in debt? Good luck with that.

yes, there was something of 1.5 billion dollar accounting error

http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/01/california-budget-error/

[JohnnyDrama]

"America already hates California, and America votes on emotions," Marcus Evans, vice president of Yes California told the Los Angeles Times. "I think we'd have the votes today if we held it."

Wouldn't it be easier and less expensive to just stop making everybody hate you?

Or would that be the grown up thing to do?

Wait, I get it. No children, no nanny state.....

[XC700116]

Well if cali jumps ship a bunch of CO libtards will most likely pack their shit

I wouldn't bet on it, about the time they figure out just how completely screwed they'd be, they'd jump off that sinking ship like rats and we'd have a LOT more of them here. I'd almost bet on it.

[bobbyfairbanks]

Don't kill my dreams man

[asmo]

68942

[Aloha_Shooter]

I'm willing to sacrifice the 8th largest economy in the world to have a more stable country.

It would quickly drop if they had to pay export taxes to the rest of the US, had US shipping divert to Portland and Seattle, had to pay for their own infrastructure and defense, and kept electing Hillary and Obama types. OTOH, Trump would definitely have won the popular vote if CA was a different country.

[Aloha_Shooter]

It is certainly their ball to take unless one subscribes to the erroneous post-civil war accretion of the singularity of the unity of states, wherein statehood is merely an accident and the corporate understanding is essential.

Ulysses S. Grant actually had a good response to that mistaken idea. You might make a claim that one of the original 13 states had a right to secede but every other state after them was explored, settled, and developed through the collective efforts of the unified nation.

[yz9890]

I wonder how many Calexit supporters think that this ballot initiative is all it's going to take. They're gathering petition signatures to get it on a state ballot. They'll probably get those signatures. If the "1 in 3 Californians support it" polling data is accurate, it will probably fail. But if it succeeds, then what? The proposal is to change the language in their state constitution regarding being tied to the United States. Is that when they start lobbying the rest of the country to allow them to separate?

I was at a funeral in California a couple of months ago and was embarrassed at how many of my otherwise intelligent cousins thought Californian independence was right around the corner. It wasn't really the place to get into political arguments but I did let them know that California doesn't decide if it separates. The United States does. Regardless of the petition and ballot initiative.

[CS1983]

Ulysses S. Grant actually had a good response to that mistaken idea. You might make a claim that one of the original 13 states had a right to secede but every other state after them was explored, settled, and developed through the collective efforts of the unified nation.

Can you expand on this? If I am understanding you correctly in interpreting Grant's position, Grant's position has a major problem insofar as it provides two glancing blows to the very concept it seeks to defend:

1) it raises up the original 13 states to a status which is grandfathered into essentially a super-status over all subsequent states.
2) pursuant to 1, it shows that the "union" is in fact an early example of the same problem which faces the EU now, insofar as it essentially makes statehood an accident or secondary characteristic in deference to the federal level.

Taken together, these two things destroy subsidiarity in practice and leave little room for it in theory.

One describes a situation where the flow of not only power but also determination is found in sequence, allowing each to do its part with input from the lower, such that the highest is in fact with the least power except as determined by its position to handle that which the lower cannot and which demands input to determine its final course of action: man | family | town | county | state | country > nation; the other (Grant's) describes either a piping of country into all other lower spheres with redirection post source -- this effectively makes the lowest sphere a cog rather than a self-determining entity ( country | state > county > town > family > man ).

In essence, one is a pyramid which narrows towards the top and the other is a pyramid which narrows toward the bottom -- in extremis, it not only narrows on its edges, but the middle has a direct flow from fed to individual. Dress it in stars and stripes all one wants, but that doesn't make it good. Take to its logical conclusion in development, one arrives at the reality of Soviet style politics.

[Great-Kazoo]

I wonder how many Calexit supporters think that this ballot initiative is all it's going to take. They're gathering petition signatures to get it on a state ballot. They'll probably get those signatures. If the "1 in 3 Californians support it" polling data is accurate, it will probably fail. But if it succeeds, then what? The proposal is to change the language in their state constitution regarding being tied to the United States. Is that when they start lobbying the rest of the country to allow them to separate?

I was at a funeral in California a couple of months ago and was embarrassed at how many of my otherwise intelligent cousins thought Californian independence was right around the corner. It wasn't really the place to get into political arguments but I did let them know that California doesn't decide if it separates. The United States does. Regardless of the petition and ballot initiative.

There are a good portion of us here who not only believed it was in our best interest to separate from CO , we also voted in favor of it. However we wanted to remain a part of the U.S, not become a sovereign nation.
That got us labeled a White Trash, uneducated hicks who were butt hurt over Dem rule.

Now it's acceptable to do so, because the proponents are Dems. Once again hypocrisy at it's finest.

Om a serious note CA should approach it as wanting reunification with the original owners, Mexico. Really feed in to the La Raza and Reconquista movement. Which might be the "trigger" that finally gives CA it's 2 separate states wish. Keeping CA within U.S boundaries BUT moving the popular vote to a somewhat equal division of votes on both sides.

[Bailey Guns]

How do we vote yes on this?

Screw voting. How do we force them out of the union?

[yz9890]

There are a good portion of us here who not only believed it was in our best interest to separate from CO , we also voted in favor of it. However we wanted to remain a part of the U.S, not become a sovereign nation.
That got us labeled a White Trash, uneducated hicks who were butt hurt over Dem rule.

Now it's acceptable to do so, because the proponents are Dems. Once again hypocrisy at it's finest.

Om a serious note CA should approach it as wanting reunification with the original owners, Mexico. Really feed in to the La Raza and Reconquista movement. Which might be the "trigger" that finally gives CA it's 2 separate states wish. Keeping CA within U.S boundaries BUT moving the popular vote to a somewhat equal division of votes on both sides.

I think the desire to separate from a nation is completely legitimate and rational. I just wonder how many understand the process (or lack thereof). I read that the Virginia initiative had a provision that the individual counties would decide if they would separate on not. That could be interesting if applied to California.

I also wonder how reasonable it is for some people take a snapshot of California's economic situation today and assume it would be similar if it wasn't part of the United States. It would think it would be very different if the state had to administer and fund its own transportation infrastructure, negotiate its own trade agreements, lost all federal subsidies, etc.

[DOC]

I think we should just split it up into 5 smaller freedom loving states. Or cut off the coastal cities and make 2 separate states. Then join 2 of the smaller ones of the east coast so we will still have 50 states.

[rondog]

"President Pelosi of the Sovereign Nation of Commiefornia".

Has a nice ring to it.....

[yz9890]

"President Pelosi of the Sovereign Nation of Commiefornia".

Has a nice ring to it.....

I bet it would be Obama or Clinton. It would be great to watch someone so use to distributing federal tax dollars try to govern without that tax base.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Can you expand on this? If I am understanding you correctly in interpreting Grant's position, Grant's position has a major problem insofar as it provides two glancing blows to the very concept it seeks to defend:

1) it raises up the original 13 states to a status which is grandfathered into essentially a super-status over all subsequent states.
2) pursuant to 1, it shows that the "union" is in fact an early example of the same problem which faces the EU now, insofar as it essentially makes statehood an accident or secondary characteristic in deference to the federal level.


I don't have it handy but it was in Grant's autobiography and he offers a very cogent and concise rationale as to why states do not have the right to secede from the union. I said you MIGHT be able to argue that the original 13 could secede, not that the argument would be successful -- one of the reasons it would likely fail is the very "super status" you cite. It does NOT as you claim relegate statehood to an accident or secondary characteristic because being part of the union doesn't do this -- ignoring the Tenth Amendment and allowing the federal government to supercede states (as in the way Obama overrode Arizona on immigration enforcement) is what does this.

Sorry but I don't believe your logic flows in this case. Making the union of states inseperable does not create a pyramid; it simply acknowledges that the bond between states is strong and they need to work together in Congress to respect each others borders and cultures rather than threatening to pick up their toys and go home any time there's a disagreement.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I had a moment to pull up Grant's memoir on Project Gutenberg and search quickly. His rationale is in Chapter XVI but I would encourage people to read Chapter III on his view of the causes of the Mexican War first. Grant's memoir does a good job in dispelling the common picture of him as a drunk who paled before the brilliance of Robert E. Lee but somehow won anyway.

There is a lot more to read on why he thought secession was a bad idea but that the Founding Fathers would have explicitly written in the right to secede if they had foreseen the Civil War. The specific paragraph on why he thought the states DIDN'T have the right to secede is below with key points bolded and italicized by me:

Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders. It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution.

[wctriumph]

I'm sure the Teamsters and the Longshoreman union would have something to say about that. Could they function in two separate countries?