Would you vote for Calexit?

[Zkribbler]

The seat of government would be Sacramento. Lets not be silly.

Sacramento is a silly place. It's over 1 million degrees in the summer, and much of the city is BELOW the water level of the river. If the levy breaks, it'll be Lake Sacrament. [Old Towne is cool though. ]

 

[Zkribbler]

Why on earth would we want a border with California?

California is warm. In the tongue of native Americans, "Canada" means, "Jesus H. Christ, it is cold!"

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The West Coast states in particular are extremely divided between the actual West Coast, a band along the immediate Pacific shore stretching inland roughly 100 miles at most, and a large, rugged (except the Central Valley) inland region with lots of people who are more similar to the rest of the interior West than to the coast. Those places don't like being ruled by the coast anyway, and they have enough weapons and rugged terrain to carry on a sustained and very annoying insurgency.

I have to ask you to define "lots of people." Yes, there are inland areas of California populated by people who would be more supportive of the failing mid-America program than the coastal people of their own state. However, the word "lots" does not really apply. Every county in California that split significantly pro Trump last Tuesday has a smaller population than my neighborhood.

If they wanted to take their counties and stay with the RSA they wouldn't be terribly missed, as they are of similar support sucking stripe. However, I think if the chips were down they would recognize that being just a few anchors still attached to the economic engine would be a far better position than being just another small crowd of people needing support among the many.

 

[Commodore]

I have to ask you to define "lots of people." Yes, there are inland areas of California populated by people who would be more supportive of the failing mid-America program than the coastal people of their own state. However, the word "lots" does not really apply. Every county in California that split significantly pro Trump last Tuesday has a smaller population than my neighborhood.

Being pro-Clinton doesn't necessarily mean pro-secession though. So your defining of who would be for or against the secession of California by how they voted in this election is a little...off.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Being pro-Clinton doesn't necessarily mean pro-secession though. So your defining of who would be for or against the secession of California by how they voted in this election is a little...off.

It's an indicator.

Truthfully, Californians have recognized for quite a while that we have no representation in federal government so this election might provide a tipping point but it isn't the totality of the problem. Funny thing is that the people who are most aware of not being represented are Republicans. In the gerrymandered districts (like mine) where we elect our token Republicans to congress it's always the same refrain. "I'm not crazy and I'll be your voice in Washington." Then they get elected and we never see them again, unless a photographer happens to catch them during their turn as the speaker's footstool.

I can go door to door all day long and present "Are you in favor of this? No? Do you know that our congressman, in solidarity with national party leadership, supports that totally?" to amazed 'California Republicans.' This district is a defense contractor company town. Republicans will get elected here until Democrats somehow upend the impression that they oppose defense spending, no matter what the GOP does...but there is very little common ground between us and the wingnut Republicans out of the Midwest that run the party.

 

[Commodore]

The problem with California seceding though is it won't achieve anything. You guys will just be brought right back into the fold by any means the federal government has at its disposal. And seeing as how the old Confederate states are still suffering from lingering effects of the "reconstruction" after the Civil War, I don't think Californians want to risk making a bid for independence that has a significant chance of failing. So, it may suck that there is such a disconnect between California and the rest of the nation, but you guys are kinda in it for the duration with the rest of us.

Plus, you guys give people like Clinton some sense of legitimacy. Think about it: without California, Clinton would have lost the popular vote and would have had 55 less electoral votes. That would have made Trump's win look like a resounding landslide and would have provided 100% vindication for his movement. Now though, because of California, he lost the popular vote, so while he may still be president, his supporters may feel more confident but they still know they are outnumbered.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Last time states tried to secede after a Republican won the elections, the result was not so good for them.

Dude I just laughed out loud. Well played.


I would not vote for secession. It's a really bad solution for a real problem.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's an indicator.

Truthfully, Californians have recognized for quite a while that we have no representation in federal government so this election might provide a tipping point but it isn't the totality of the problem.

We are represented in federal government. Not in proportion to our numbers and economic contribution, but we are represented.

The federal government is paying for what, 90% of the cost of the massive expansion of medicaid here under Obamacare? MediCal now allows illegal immigrants to join the plan which was something that every.single.democrat including myself and the President claimed would never be allowed to happen. But Obamacare makes it possible and the Federal government has not stopped that from being implemented. The Supreme Court, which was 5/4 Republican, sustained the law. This has made a massive difference in the quality of life of our citizens.

Even Trump came out today in favor of some of the key provisions of Obamacare.

Then there was the stimulus package which pumped $31B into the California economy and employed a lot of people in construction. Add to that the military bases, educational and nutritional grants, welfare block grants and all sorts of federal money that is sent our way after being voted on by our representatives.

I understand that we send out a lot more tax revenue to the federal government than we get back. But if losing out on the balance of tax dollars collected versus received means that people in the more impoverished regions of our country benefit from infrastructure and social spending then I'm all for it. I don't mind building bridges in Alaska if they're needed.

If we can collectively afford to help improve the lives of our fellow national citizens then it is money well spent.

Edit: grammar and spelling.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The problem with California seceding though is it won't achieve anything. You guys will just be brought right back into the fold by any means the federal government has at its disposal. And seeing as how the old Confederate states are still suffering from lingering effects of the "reconstruction" after the Civil War, I don't think Californians want to risk making a bid for independence that has a significant chance of failing. So, it may suck that there is such a disconnect between California and the rest of the nation, but you guys are kinda in it for the duration with the rest of us.

Plus, you guys give people like Clinton some sense of legitimacy. Think about it: without California, Clinton would have lost the popular vote and would have had 55 less electoral votes. That would have made Trump's win look like a resounding landslide and would have provided 100% vindication for his movement. Now though, because of California, he lost the popular vote, so while he may still be president, his supporters may feel more confident but they still know they are outnumbered.

You aren't getting the point. Calexit isn't about one state secession. It's about a widespread and mutual agreement that we just aren't one nation that can be governed by a single federal system. There won't be one 'renegade state' and a forty-nine state unified response of outrage. All the states that are saying "eight years of Obama nearly ruined us and who knows what the *******s will do in 2020 want California gone...and our liberal neighbors to the north right along with us...and those hated New York *******s and their New England buddies too. The federal government has failed, it's just a question of getting that pointed out and agreed to.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We are represented in federal government. Not in proportion to our numbers and economic contribution, but we are represented.

The federal government is paying for what, 90% of the cost of the massive expansion of medicaid here under Obamacare? MediCal now allows illegal immigrants to join the plan which was something that every.single.democrat including myself and the President claimed would never be allowed to happen. But Obamacare makes it possible and the Federal government has not stopped that from being implemented. The Supreme Court, which was 5/4 Republican, sustained the law. This has made a massive difference in the quality of life of our citizens.

Even Trump came out today in favor of some of the key provisions of Obamacare.

Then there was the stimulus package which pumped $31B into the California economy and employed a lot of people in construction. Add to that the military bases, educational and nutritional grants, welfare block grants and all sorts of federal money that is sent our way after being voted on by our representatives.

I understand that we send out a lot more tax revenue to the federal government than we get back. But if losing out on the balance of tax dollars collected versus received means that people in the more impoverished regions of our country benefit from infrastructure and social spending then I'm all for it. I don't mind building bridges in Alaska if they're needed.

If we can collectively afford to help improve the lives of our fellow national citizens then it is money well spent.

Edit: grammar and spelling.

The line in bold counters your entire argument, other than the moral grounds and your opening statement that we are represented.

On representation, you'll need to get used to this but no, we have no impact in Washington at all. The federal government is hamstrung by Republican control of the house, and the house is engineered to maintain that situation. Since Californians from both parties actually want things to happen that specifically means that we aren't represented.

As to the moral position, I wouldn't mind building bridges in Alaska either. The problem is that by giving political power to the people who can't afford to build their own bridges we have invited them to destroy the conditions that allow us to pay for their bridges in the first place...and they are bent on doing so.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I realize I've only lived here since February but moving to California has been a life goal of mine for the last decade. I'm dug in and I am not going anywhere.

So I upped my pronoun game to 'we'

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The line in bold counters your entire argument, other than the moral grounds and your opening statement that we are represented.

On representation, you'll need to get used to this but no, we have no impact in Washington at all. The federal government is hamstrung by Republican control of the house, and the house is engineered to maintain that situation. Since Californians from both parties actually want things to happen that specifically means that we aren't represented.

As to the moral position, I wouldn't mind building bridges in Alaska either. The problem is that by giving political power to the people who can't afford to build their own bridges we have invited them to destroy the conditions that allow us to pay for their bridges in the first place...and they are bent on doing so.

Yup, we want progress on the national level. It didn't happen as much as we'd like.

But we didn't regress either. It sucks and I really, really want Congress to enact more liberal policies.

It's different here though-

We raised our own minimum wage. We extended healthcare benefits to immigrants. We reformed our own death penalty laws, we passed strict gun control measures and are now sin-taxing the royal crap out of smokers of two legal drugs.

The federal government has not progressed on those fronts which is sometimes regrettable. But the people of Arkansas don't want that progress. Luckily for both groups, the national government hasn't enforced progress or regression on these issues on either state.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Also, being disproportional taxed does not mean we are not represented. This isn't 1776.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yup, we want progress on the national level. It didn't happen as much as we'd like.

But we didn't regress either. It sucks and I really, really want Congress to enact more liberal policies.

It's different here though-

We raised our own minimum wage. We extended healthcare benefits to immigrants. We reformed our own death penalty laws, we passed strict gun control measures and are now sin-taxing the royal crap out of smokers.

The federal government has not progressed on those fronts which is sometimes regrettable. But the people of Arkansas don't want that progress. Luckily for both groups, the national government hasn't enforced progress or regression on these issues on either state.

However, the federal economic system has been stuck on trickle down for decades and the resulting wealth concentration will destroy us along with everyone else no matter how we try to buffer it at the state level. And the system as it exists prevents us from doing anything about the federal government because all it takes is one house of congress or a president to maintain the status quo no matter how clearly disastrous that status quo has demonstrated itself to be.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Also, being disproportional taxed via the mechanism of federal fund transfer does not mean we are not represented. This isn't 1776.

Examine congressional records. Find examples of representatives from California having any actual input on events. Republicans maintain gridlock, and even if Californians want it broken our congressional Republicans toe the party line. Democrats seldom if ever get anything done because Republicans maintain gridlock except for the very brief breakdowns in their locking mechanisms, like 2008-2010, which are nowhere near long enough to undo any significant portion of the damage they do.

 

[Commodore]

The federal government has failed, it's just a question of getting that pointed out and agreed to.

It hasn't failed. You are just being emotional because Hillary lost. I know this, because you would not be saying the federal government has failed if Hillary had won. You'd be singing the praises of our electoral system and our federal government, while the bitter Trump supporters would be the ones saying our system has failed and calling for the breakup of the union. Don't worry, you'll get your time in the sun again.

Keep in mind, I'm not insulting you by saying this, it just is what it is. The losing side in an election, especially one as emotionally charged as this one, always seem to think the system has failed, while the winning side believes the system is perfectly fine. The punchline though, is that neither one is right. The system has flaws and doesn't always produce a result that truly reflects the will of the people and some segments of the population get routinely shafted, but the system isn't completely broken either. The United States does not need to cease to exist simply because Californians are underrepresented in government. That would cause extremely negative consequences for not just US citizens, but for people all over the world. Now to say Californians' right to self-govern is more important than the well-being of the millions that would be negatively impacted by the dissolution of the US does strike me as a tad bit selfish. For better or worse, the US has positioned itself in such a way that it is in everyone's best interest that it remain stable and whole for the foreseeable future.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It is gridlock. But the worst results of it were that some pretty big liberal programs got pushed through and then nothing else. We've also been able to do our own thing on a state level, including passing a law that legalized a schedule 1 drug without federal interference. Obama dropped most of the DEA anti-medicinal operations during his second term. I think nationally a lot of progress could be made on many issues but so far, even with 2/3rds of the national government opposed to liberal policy positions, things did not really get worse for most people in the country.

It sucks that many people didn't see things like that.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I lived in Fayetteville, North Carolina for most of my childhood and teenage years. If you knew where to look, there were still rubble piles from the Civil War in the area.

I don't think a CalExit would really provoke another civil war but I've seen what would happen if it did and I would never vote to provoke that fate.

It's worth mentioning that most of Fayetteville (and for that matter all of North Carolina) got off easy in the war.

 

[Commodore]

I don't think a CalExit would really provoke another civil war but I've seen what would happen if it did and I would never vote to provoke that fate

Even without a civil war, you know the federal government would do everything in its power to either punish California if they ended up failing in their bid for independence, or wreck their economy to keep them from being successful if they did get independence.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't know that would happen with any certainty. But I certainly understand it is a potentially (and potentially devastating) outcome.