Would you vote for Calexit?

[onejayhawk]

That's quite a link. I was impressed with the guy relaxing sideways in the air duct. Could fit loads of Jedi in there. Any idea Jay about what the renovations will be this time?

I'm glad you enjoyed it. History with pictures is so much more real.

Information on the current renovation is difficult to get, probably for security reasons. If you believe Tom Clancy, the war room dates to the 1960s. Think of the Terminator movie where they go to a mothballed Air Force bunker. Having the President out of town for an extended period makes possible many things which require a security clearance. That said, the last major facelift was done by Jackie Kennedy. Significant cosmetic work is likely. At the very least, updated wiring and data lines are necessary.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

The North actually didn't need the South for anything. Literally nothing. Agriculture in the North greatly exceeded the output of the South - even before the war. You have to remember that the North wasn't nearly as developed back then so there was a lot more land devoted to farming. And Illinois was and is fertile as hell and it was part of the North. A huge majority of the manufacturing infrastructure and rail links were in the North as well. The Northern states could have very easily lived on without the South but actively chose not to let that happen.

Then the North didn't just beat the South - they curbed stomped it and destroyed everything of value their soldiers could reach in some areas. The South was razed, don't let anyone ever mis-remember that.


This is why I argue so passionately against Calexit. To even tempt that fate is irresponsible to millions of people in this state.

Then to re-iterate the moral perspective on the argument, a lot of poor people in the rest of the country would be materially worse off without our tax dollars.

oh I see

The North needed the South for trade. It would be like USA losing Canda as a trading partner. That said, the Union had Canada and Europe. The Confederacy had no one. Europe, Mexico, and South America could have filled the gap eventually, but it would be a long hard road. There are books. An historian I know with is of the opinion that the Confederacy would become a 3rd world country. The Union would have continued west, possibly taking a chunk of British Columbia along the way. Imagine Canda without Vancouver.

J

 

[rah]

Out of all the sore loser threads, this one is the funniest.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Did you even read? If you are going to "argue passionately against Calexit", then at least do so on the basis of facts.

The people of California need to make clear that they do not want to be part of the union. The California state legislature needs to ratify Calexit. Then the onus falls squarely on Washington: either our " democracy" gives the people what they want, or it is Washington who is forcing California to stay against their will. It is Washington telling California what they want--not Californians who get to speak for themselves.

We have no precedent in this country for secession to happen peacefully. I don't even have to be able to read to know what that's like for I've seen the ruins.

It doesn't matter anyway because it ain't going to happen lol.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Problem is that the independent south would have replaced India as the source of cotton for the British textile industry, and the nascent US textile industry (which was the backbone of industrialization at the time) would have been crushed.

'Industrialization' implies there is a broader base of mechanization of the work force than a single narrow industry like textiles. The machines were the important factor, not what they made. For relatively little additional expense (compared to the initial capital outlay) you can re-tool machines to do different jobs. If cheap southern cotton got cut off, Northern businessman could have started producing paper products or whatever.

And it's not as if Cotton will not grow north of the Mason-Dixon line. More expensive southern imports would have caused more Northern farmers to grow it.

The North needed the South for trade. It would be like USA losing Canda as a trading partner. That said, the Union had Canada and Europe. The Confederacy had no one. Europe, Mexico, and South America could have filled the gap eventually, but it would be a long hard road. There are books. An historian I know with is of the opinion that the Confederacy would become a 3rd world country. The Union would have continued west, possibly taking a chunk of British Columbia along the way. Imagine Canda without Vancouver.

J

Can we even call it a 'need' if as you suggest, the North could have gotten on fine without North/South trade?

That's my point really. The North was not fighting because they needed Southern agricultural products and a great market for manufactured goods.

The North fought the war to prove an ideological point.

 

[Farm Boy]

The North fought the war to prove an ideological point.

Ayup! And it has already been said better at a worse time.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

 

[onejayhawk]

Can we even call it a 'need' if as you suggest, the North could have gotten on fine without North/South trade? That's my point really. The North was not fighting because they needed Southern agricultural products and a great market for manufactured goods. The North fought the war to prove an ideological point.

To some degree. There was also a lot of pushing back when pushed first. The South was the aggressor of necessity, but still the aggressor.

Ayup! And it has already been said better at a worse time.

I prefer

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.
​

J

 

[tetley]

Why on earth would we want a border with California?

Because it makes your border with the U.S. shorter.


More activity on the Calexit movement:
http://www.businessinsider.com/calexit-moscow-russia-embassy-2016-12

While it is fair to say that the name "embassy" is a bit dubious when California has not exited yet, it's clear from the story that the Calexit movement is getting no respect from the media. We need this proposition on the ballot. If the majority of Californians don't want to be part of the United States--just like the majority of civfanatics here support Calexit--then the media can no longer call it "fringe". Well okay, they can, but it will be all the more obvious that it is media spin.

 

[Commodore]

While it is fair to say that the name "embassy" is a bit dubious when California has not exited yet, it's clear from the story that the Calexit movement is getting no respect from the media. We need this proposition on the ballot. If the majority of Californians don't want to be part of the United States--just like the majority of civfanatics here support Calexit--then the media can no longer call it "fringe". Well okay, they can, but it will be all the more obvious that it is media spin

Californians can vote for secession all they want, they still won't be allowed to leave. One of the issues that was settled in the aftermath of the Civil War was that states do not have any legal right to secede from the Union unilaterally. The only way a state can legally secede would be if Congress votes to grant a state independence, which will never happen. The US is like the mafia: once you're in, you're in it for life.

 

[onejayhawk]

Californians can vote for secession all they want, they still won't be allowed to leave. One of the issues that was settled in the aftermath of the Civil War was that states do not have any legal right to secede from the Union unilaterally. The only way a state can legally secede would be if Congress votes to grant a state independence, which will never happen. The US is like the mafia: once you're in, you're in it for life.

They could leave. They just don't have the scratch for the buyout. Besides, they think that water is a free or very low-cost resource. That would bite them big-time.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Californians can vote for secession all they want, they still won't be allowed to leave. One of the issues that was settled in the aftermath of the Civil War was that states do not have any legal right to secede from the Union unilaterally. The only way a state can legally secede would be if Congress votes to grant a state independence, which will never happen. The US is like the mafia: once you're in, you're in it for life.

That's why I prefer the idea of dissolution over the 'one state secession' approaches. There are growing and already fairly strong currents in most regions in the "just let them go and while you're at it" vein. Much of the country is like Jay and considers liberal California and any other Democrat controlled state just a drag against their conservative utopia. A "the west coast can go and take the liberal northeast with them" measure would probably pass in many of the states that would be left in the new third world country. They would see it as THEY were the ones leaving for the promised land, of course.

Each state takes their share of the national debt, based on population. Takes over whatever federal land is in their borders. Enters into a mutual defense treaty with a unified command structure and a clear structure of obligations for the support of the combined defense for an extended period of time. Is allowed to combine with other states into larger entities, probably regional, should they choose. Extremely open immigration policies among the newly formed entities ensured for some period to allow those who find themselves in "the wrong state" an opportunity to correct their situation. A fixed term of trade policy restrictions on all new formed entities to prevent chaos due to sudden interruptions of what had been unrestricted interstate trade.

I suspect such a plan would find widespread support throughout the US at this point, and be seen as a solution to the deep and crippling ideological divides we have created.

 

[Farm Boy]

I do love the self righteous that see the problems of the world as separate from, and not created by, themselves. Especially the violently self righteous. They're great!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I do love the self righteous that see the problems of the world as separate from, and not created by, themselves. Especially the violently self righteous. They're great!

Is this connected to something in the discussion at hand, or just a non-sequitur?

 

[tetley]

This self-fulfilling prophecy of "Calexit will never happen, so don't even put it to vote" needs to stop. It DOES need to be put to vote. These illusions of how "useless" California is to the U.S. or how California wants to be part of the U.S. need to be put to rest.

 

[Farm Boy]

Just letting you know I love ya bigguy! And I listen to your self-descriptions to let you know I care enough to.

 

[onejayhawk]

I do love the self righteous that see the problems of the world as separate from, and not created by, themselves. Especially the violently self righteous. They're great!

I thought they were politicians.

This self-fulfilling prophecy of "Calexit will never happen, so don't even put it to vote" needs to stop. It DOES need to be put to vote. These illusions of how "useless" California is to the U.S. or how California wants to be part of the U.S. need to be put to rest.

So get off your duff and bring it to a vote.

J

 

[BirraImperial]

That's why I prefer the idea of dissolution over the 'one state secession' approaches. There are growing and already fairly strong currents in most regions in the "just let them go and while you're at it" vein. Much of the country is like Jay and considers liberal California and any other Democrat controlled state just a drag against their conservative utopia. A "the west coast can go and take the liberal northeast with them" measure would probably pass in many of the states that would be left in the new third world country. They would see it as THEY were the ones leaving for the promised land, of course.

Each state takes their share of the national debt, based on population. Takes over whatever federal land is in their borders. Enters into a mutual defense treaty with a unified command structure and a clear structure of obligations for the support of the combined defense for an extended period of time. Is allowed to combine with other states into larger entities, probably regional, should they choose. Extremely open immigration policies among the newly formed entities ensured for some period to allow those who find themselves in "the wrong state" an opportunity to correct their situation. A fixed term of trade policy restrictions on all new formed entities to prevent chaos due to sudden interruptions of what had been unrestricted interstate trade.

I suspect such a plan would find widespread support throughout the US at this point, and be seen as a solution to the deep and crippling ideological divides we have created.

So, are you pretty much saying it is more likely that the USA will cease to exist in its present form?? I don't think that's quite likely...I don't even think Calexit will have any chance of succeeding any time soon, but I find it more likely than an outright dissolution...Of course, I'm just a foreigner looking from outside, but correct me if I'm wrong...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So, are you pretty much saying it is more likely that the USA will cease to exist in its present form?? I don't think that's quite likely...I don't even think Calexit will have any chance of succeeding any time soon, but I find it more likely than an outright dissolution...Of course, I'm just a foreigner looking from outside, but correct me if I'm wrong...

I'm not saying that it's likely. No matter how much sense it might make it is a drastic action that would be a genuine record breaker as drastic actions go, so I wouldn't go anywhere near calling it likely.

Of course long about 1985 if someone had told me that in half a dozen years the USSR was going to peacefully dissolve I'd have laughed in their face and been dead wrong, so I'm also not ruling dissolution of the US in my lifetime totally out of the realm of possibility.

 

[CavLancer]

If we let Cali out Canada will want out next. The US could fall apart!

 

[Azem.Ocram]

The peoples of Western Washington and Western Oregon will gladly support CalExit in hopes of joining them shortly after (peaceful anexation), TExit will be inevetible once CalExit occurs.