Would you vote for Calexit?

Well, would you? Huh? What?

  • Yes! I WOULD vote for CALEXIT!

  • Nope

  • I'm tired of polls darnit!


Results are only viewable after voting.
Better than California will be a failed state by the transitive properties of Zimbabwe.
 
So when you say "Canada is financing its shenanigans with oil export and other natural resources" what does that mean, then? Are the shenanigans being a sovereign country? That can't be it.
It means Canada can afford to be liberal. And so can Australia. California being a state would just cause mass emigration, and the die-hard promoters of secession would flee first(irony). Again you really think these people are capable of doing anything? Honestly.

 
Apparently the entire population of California is depicted in that Youtube video, posted by Roller123
 
It is commonly defined as in to spend resources on supporting people not deserving it.

What sort of spending, and what is "not deserving it", though? Give me some specifics, man.
 
What sort of spending, and what is "not deserving it", though? Give me some specifics, man.

You know...the "lesser than." Non-whites, for starters. People who disagree with the Alt-Right blowhards also, of course.
 
specifics on what? Canada and Australia being resource based economies? You can look that up on wiki.

What spending you're talking about, and on whom. You described Australia and Canada as "being able to afford to be liberal" which must mean that you think the two countries are spending money on certain things you consider to be "liberal" policies. You also described that spending as going to "undeserving" recipients, which must mean you have in mind schemas of deserving and undeserving people. I want to know what spending you're talking about in what policy areas, and who the undeserving are. You must know this, because you said these things.
 
What spending you're talking about, and on whom. You described Australia and Canada as "being able to afford to be liberal" which must mean that you think the two countries are spending money on certain things you consider to be "liberal" policies. You also described that spending as going to "undeserving" recipients, which must mean you have in mind schemas of deserving and undeserving people. I want to know what spending you're talking about in what policy areas, and who the undeserving are. You must know this, because you said these things.
Yes well i admit it is an interesting topic but i don't think it is relevant to the thread we are currently located in. The relevant part is that California can not become another Canada, because these regions are not alike at all, and Californian income comes from stuff that is primarily American, thus i find statements like "China will not stop buying Californian products" particularity absurd.
 
So people will stop buying iPhones if California leaves?

So people will stop buying Tesla cars if California leaves?

So people will stop using Oracle products if California leaves?

So people will stop shopping at Amazon if California leaves?

So people will stop watching Netflix if California leaves?

So people will stop watching porn if California leaves?

So people will stop buying weed if California leaves?

So people will stop visiting San Francisco if California leaves?

So people will stop using facebook if California leaves?

You say California is a place without natural resources, but there isn't another place with the combination of favorable weather, an active and available port and 2 top-10 worldwide Science, Engineering, and Computer Science universities within 50 miles of one another. The Bay Area did not become the center of the tech world by accident.

LA is the center of the mainstream film world, and the center of the YouTube world due to inertia: it's the place with all the acting, editing, and directing talent. It's the place with all the money interested in financing film. It's the place with all the steady work offers for talent. Many have tried to take Hollywood's spot as film capital of the world. They have all failed because, at the end of the day, it's simply easier to get your movie made if you do it in LA Unless you see a MASS mass exodus, that's not going anywhere.
 
wait wait wait a second, you guys are actually arguing how California would be better off not part of the union? What are you smoking? The state with the biggest number of illegal immigrants, the highest proportion of people on welfare, a state with a gigantic trade deficit, a state with virtually no water reserves?

Just read their wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California#State_finances

"California imports more electricity than any other state, primarily hydroelectric power from states in the Pacific Northwest (via Path 15 and Path 66) and coal- and natural gas-fired production from the desert Southwest via Path 46.[173]"
"California, with 12% of the United States population, has one-third of the nation's welfare recipients.[166] California has the third highest per capita spending on welfare among the states, as well as the highest spending on welfare at $6.67 billion.[167] In January 2011 the California's total debt was at least $265 billion.[168] On June 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed a balanced budget (no deficit) for the state, its first in decades; however the state's debt remains at $132 billion.[169][170]"

The only way for them to sustain those policies would be to print their own money but it wouldn't be backed like the US dollar is so who would have faith in it? You'd get rampant inflation and economy falls apart. California is one of the worst off stats fiscally. I mean people can dream about some utopian liberal country where it's all like silicon valley everywhere but that's not realistic. They would end up either bankrupt or kicking people out/stopping immigration and/or having to cut spending dramatically. The only thing they have going for it is pure size and scale of economy but they'd still be dwarfed by the rest of the US.

https://www.mercatus.org/statefiscalrankings
Jesus christ since when did caring for the poor, the sick and the hungry become a goddamn weakness?

Stop talking about your fellow Americans like a burden. We look out for one another and we can damn well afford it.
 
California's fiat would be stronger than the US dollar. This wouldn't even be a good thing.

Brb switching from my California designed phone to my California designed computer to flesh this out.
I could lone you a rocket and space ship built here too but I'm too busy stuffing my face with avocados.
 
Jesus christ since when did caring for the poor, the sick and the hungry become a goddamn weakness?

Stop talking about your fellow Americans like a burden. We look out for one another and we can damn well afford it.

Probably when JESUS said to cull the weak by letting them die of disease and starve.
 
Growth economics 101:
If your economy is driven by natural resources, you end up poor.
If your economy is driven by advanced labor, you end up rich.

Growth economics 201:
Investment flows towards talented labor
talented labor flows towards investment
(fun fact: investors are talented labor (NB London, New York, and now San Francisco are eternal centers of capital orchestration))
 
On the poll... 'Calexit' has won the popular vote! 17-16! over 'Nope'. However, 'Nope' wins the election by the electoral college! Woohoo, its NOPE! Yay!
 
Back
Top Bottom