Would you vote for Calexit?

[Commodore]

This is why we are not going to get anywhere.

No, no I want to hear your logic on this. How is talking about punching someone in the face worse than actually punching someone in the face?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

How is talking about punching someone in the face worse

He's not talking about punching someone in the face. He's talking about punching people in the face.

You're whole argument is based on a false comparison. Then you double down and proclaim the Ferguson unrest was definitely like the riots of the 60's because cars burning.

 

[Gucumatz]

I dont want to leave a long comment on this thread - but a "Californian exit" is beyond stupid in both concept and application. California doesn't have the sense of unifying "nationalism" to rally enough people to stand up to the US military on a military level and it doesn't have the political power to leave on a diplomatic/congressional level. Not to mention the fact of if even somehow it was able to become a "thing" - who would end up running Cali? Current politics would shift so much as realities of a divide, war, governing needs, citizen needs, etc. would realign Cali to the point that its current aspirations/needs would look completely different than this mythical independent California.

Once you are in the Union as a state, you stay in the Union - I think most people would become pissed at Californians in the buildup of such a movement if this was an actual movement, which it isn't

 

[Commodore]

He's not talking about punching someone in the face. He's talking about punching people in the face.

Okay, but how is talking about punching people in the face worse than the actual political violence we have seen from those that oppose him? That's what I'm asking you because I'm trying to get you out of this false mindset that Trump supporters are the only ones threatening to use political violence to get what they want. You are falling into that "they are the bad guys, we are the good guys" trap and you are smarter than that.

No matter how harsh they may be, words are just words. They don't cause harm. If you say something that makes me extremely angry I say I want to burn your house down, that's not going to harm you in any way. Now if I actually do burn your house down, then I have actually cause harm to you. Now which do you think makes me a bigger threat: me saying I want to burn your house down, or me actually burning your house down?

Personally, I think the bigger threat would be those who have actually demonstrated a willingness to use violence. So far, that has not been Trump supporters, it has been his opposition.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Once you are in the Union as a state, you stay in the Union - I think most people would become pissed at Californians in the buildup of such a movement if this was an actual movement, which it isn't

Certainly wouldn't want to lose all the popularity we have built up by providing decades of economic support to the backwards states. I mean, their gratitude is so overwhelming why would anyone consider jeopardizing it?

That said, the only realistic "CalExit" comes as part of a larger dissolution. Basically, it is just letting all those "take our country back" folks in middle America have the conservative fantasy they so avidly desire...by pushing/letting the liberal parts of the country out to form their own countries. Win/win.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No matter how harsh they may be, words are just words. They don't cause harm. If you say something that makes me extremely angry I say I want to burn your house down, that's not going to harm you in any way. Now if I actually do burn your house down, then I have actually cause harm to you. Now which do you think makes me a bigger threat: me saying I want to burn your house down, or me actually burning your house down?

Where does the political leader encouraging you to burn his house down and promising to do his best to make sure you don't suffer any consequences fit in?

 

[Silurian]

They own the water and many of the reservoirs. They can charge the going rate to release the water. California has barely glimpsed water shortage. Go to the Middle East and see how things work.

You do realise that water runs down hill.

 

[Arwon]

LOL you just compared California to Vietnam. You do realize California by itself is the sixth richest state-sized region on the planet, right?

Its economy would be the 6th largest in the world, somewhere around France. There's nearly 40 million people there. The viability/prosperity argument is very silly. Of all the possible secessionisms in the world I can't actually think of a more viable one.

 

[Arwon]

I was in Oakland the next night. No sign of riots. I saw a lot of police on the highways. I assumed it was in response to everyone celebrating legal weed. Heard about the small riot the following afternoon.

It was the same in Ferguson but it was portrayed as massive civil unrest like the 60's.

It is almost impossible for large numbers of persons of colour to gather politically in the contemporary United States without being described as a riot. Law enforcement of course has a marked tendency to overreact and cause things to become riotous, but that probably isn't necessary to the labeling.

And any such event will inevitably be labeled in harsh vilifying light such as violent and criminal, regardlessof how important and righteous the anger involved. As opposed to, say, the pumpkin festival riot which was rowdy and funny.

 

[Bootstoots]

Certainly wouldn't want to lose all the popularity we have built up by providing decades of economic support to the backwards states. I mean, their gratitude is so overwhelming why would anyone consider jeopardizing it?

That said, the only realistic "CalExit" comes as part of a larger dissolution. Basically, it is just letting all those "take our country back" folks in middle America have the conservative fantasy they so avidly desire...by pushing/letting the liberal parts of the country out to form their own countries. Win/win.

But why would Middle America do that, when it's so much easier to just win elections the normal way? By this, of course, I mean Democratic political incompetence and unpopularity with white working class voters who used to vote for them, along with Republican gerrymandering, targeted vote suppression, good propaganda, and more electorally efficient distribution of voters. Dissolution of the Union, however nonviolently, really sucks compared with just winning elections by means fair and foul.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But why would Middle America do that, when it's so much easier to just win elections the normal way? By this, of course, I mean Democratic political incompetence and unpopularity with white working class voters who used to vote for them, along with Republican gerrymandering, targeted vote suppression, good propaganda, and more electorally efficient distribution of voters. Dissolution of the Union, however nonviolently, really sucks compared with just winning elections by means fair and foul.

They lost to Obama. They tell themselves constantly that their country is "lost" and needs to be taken back. Reality is a non issue with them.

 

[Bootstoots]

See, the crucial thing is that Obama did okay in Middle America, well enough to win all of the Midwestern battleground states. He did this mostly by increasing minority turnout and by not losing the non-college-educated white vote by anything like the margin Clinton did: Romney won these voters by a margin of 26 points in 2012 compared to Trump's 39 in 2016. Most of the eastern half of Iowa and the western half of Wisconsin went Democrat, despite being mostly rural and almost entirely white. That rural white blue patch disappeared entirely in 2016, and both of those states went red. Then there were a bunch of small cities throughout Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania where Obama won by double-digit margins, but Clinton either lost or just barely won.

The Dems don't have to actually win non-college-educated white voters, but they do have to hold the margin to no worse than the low 30s while inspiring minority and young voters to turn out. Openly treating them as obsolete, surplus humans is a good way for the Dems to beat the changing demographics and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for the foreseeable future.

Or, alternatively, you could randomly select 10% of all Californians and make them move to their choice of Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. A very limited number could also move to New Hampshire or northern Maine, to secure those EVs. Then you wouldn't have to worry about this sort of thing ever again.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

See, the crucial thing is that Obama did okay in Middle America, well enough to win all of the Midwestern battleground states. He did this mostly by increasing minority turnout and by not losing the non-college-educated white vote by anything like the margin Clinton did: Romney won these voters by a margin of 26 points in 2012 compared to Trump's 39 in 2016. Most of the eastern half of Iowa and the western half of Wisconsin went Democrat, despite being mostly rural and almost entirely white. That rural white blue patch disappeared entirely in 2016, and both of those states went red. Then there were a bunch of small cities throughout Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania where Obama won by double-digit margins, but Clinton either lost or just barely won.

The Dems don't have to actually win non-college-educated white voters, but they do have to hold the margin to no worse than the low 30s while inspiring minority and young voters to turn out. Openly treating them as obsolete, surplus humans is a good way for the Dems to beat the changing demographics and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for the foreseeable future.

Or, alternatively, you could randomly select 10% of all Californians and make them move to their choice of Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. A very limited number could also move to New Hampshire or northern Maine, to secure those EVs. Then you wouldn't have to worry about this sort of thing ever again.

Problem is that the people who aren't obsolete surplus humans are all moving the other way.

 

[Kyriakos]

You do realise that water runs down hill.

Trickle-down water

 

[onejayhawk]

Trickle-down water

Trickle down doesn't work. Ask any Democrat.

J

 

[Bootstoots]

So, if California is so advanced, why does it take them forever to count mail-in and provisional ballots compared to other states (e.g. Oregon and Colorado) that vote mostly or entirely by mail? I understand if ballots postmarked on Election Day might take a few days to get to the polling station, but its vote counting has lagged way behind other places that have elections by mail.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Since our votes are valued the least we have less inclination to hurry with counting them.

 

[tetley]

Michigan is finding significant discrepancies in the voting between counties which use electronic voting vs. those which didn't.

 

[Arwon]

So, if California is so advanced, why does it take them forever to count mail-in and provisional ballots compared to other states (e.g. Oregon and Colorado) that vote mostly or entirely by mail? I understand if ballots postmarked on Election Day might take a few days to get to the polling station, but its vote counting has lagged way behind other places that have elections by mail.

They put a lot more effort into provisional ballots than most other states and there seems to be fairly rigorous quality checks on the ballots themselves

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So, if California is so advanced, why does it take them forever to count mail-in and provisional ballots compared to other states (e.g. Oregon and Colorado) that vote mostly or entirely by mail? I understand if ballots postmarked on Election Day might take a few days to get to the polling station, but its vote counting has lagged way behind other places that have elections by mail.

Because there are way more of us than in all the other states that have mail-in ballots? Not to mention that the ballots are still counted so long as they are post-marked by the election. Also, the state is freaking huge and it takes time to get in all the ballots.