As a resident I'd vote for Calexit. The state will lose federal funding and in turn, CA might claim the military bases and ports as their own.

CA needs the money those bases and ports put into the economy and it cannot survive without federal money so the choices are rather starkk for the legislators. Remember, they aren't really pushing for this as the anti-Trump loons but they'll have to figure out how to make it work.

New taxes and fees will be considered, funding cut (maybe Jerry's choo-choo?) to pay for essential services to new sanctuary state inhabitants. Costs and incurred debts will spike and all in all, it will be worth watching.

CA is in the shitter anyway and Calexit will only speed up the demise. Hell, yeah! I'll vote for this.

quote:

Originally posted by tanksoldier:

quote:

If they want the US Army to occupy Sacramento and all other major cities in that creepy place,

Were I Trump I'd let them go. Withdraw all military and other federal personnel from CA, suspend all federal payments into the state and them sink.

California is a failed state. The only difference between them and Somalia is that they are attached at the hip to the US. Cut them free and see what happens.

Not including the taxes paid in by active military and their dependents, CA gives more to the federal goobermint (in the form of taxes) than it receives in goobermint funds. Remove the military and all bets are off.

However, requiring CA residents to have a passport prior to entering AZ, NV, or OR, that would be fun to watch. Imposing tariffs on imports from CA or letting the market decide how much AZ can charge for energy (oil and electricity).

quote:

CA is in the shitter anyway and Calexit will only speed up the demise. Hell, yeah! I'll vote for this.

If it comes to a vote it'll be an interesting coalition of conservatives and "progressives" who vote for it:

quote:

There are two kinds of people who support the Calexit movement:
1. People living in California who think that their state would be far better off without being hitched to the rest of the union,
2. and people living in every other state who can’t wait to get rid of California.

So you are a 3rd category:
3. People living in California who think that their state is a failed State and needs to be pushed to the brink and forced to change.

Is there an official proposal for the Calexit anywhere? I am curious where they plan to get water, how they propose to manage their new national defense, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
Is there an official proposal for the Calexit anywhere? I am curious where they plan to get water, how they propose to manage their new national defense, etc.

They no detailed plans for you to look at. The only thing they have is that that we're the #7 economy in the world. But that assumes they have continued federal dollars.

Look, this whole idea is entertaining but in the end, Congress won't go along with it so enjoy the show while it lasts. It'll give a glimpse of the dolts who either run or want to run this state.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

quote:

Originally posted by tanksoldier:

quote:

If they want the US Army to occupy Sacramento and all other major cities in that creepy place,

Were I Trump I'd let them go. Withdraw all military and other federal personnel from CA, suspend all federal payments into the state and them sink.

California is a failed state. The only difference between them and Somalia is that they are attached at the hip to the US. Cut them free and see what happens.

Not including the taxes paid in by active military and their dependents, CA gives more to the federal goobermint (in the form of taxes) than it receives in goobermint funds. Remove the military and all bets are off.

However, requiring CA residents to have a passport prior to entering AZ, NV, or OR, that would be fun to watch. Imposing tariffs on imports from CA or letting the market decide how much AZ can charge for energy (oil and electricity).

...not to mention WATER.

Y'all need to do what NC & SC did and split. Yinz Californians are too big and too different of a state to stay together for the children. Break up already!

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
Y'all need to do what NC & SC did and split.

...in 2009, then GOP assemblyman Bill Maze proposed creating two states: a Coastal California state and an Inland California state. The big population centers of San Francisco and Los Angeles would be in the first, but the inland state would include some large coastal counties such as Orange (home of Disneyland) and San Diego.



The new states would be far more in sync on policy. The coastal state would emphasize environmental values, the “next big thing” economy of Silicon Valley, and the multicultural diversity of L.A. The inland state would have vast water resources, abundant agricultural lands, and its own cutting-edge facilities in sectors ranging from aerospace to data processing. The two states would provide an escape from the current political conformity of California, which is dominated by public-sector unions and progressive activists.

Politically, the two states would provide an escape from the current political conformity of California, which is dominated by public-sector unions and progressive activists. Take the last governor’s race in 2014. Democrat Jerry Brown won reelection over Republican Neel Kashkari by 60 percent to 40 percent statewide. But in Inland California, they were separated by just a few thousand votes. The two Californias would include a progressive stronghold able to experiment (even more than the state already does) with new “small is beautiful” ideas; next to it would be a politically competitive state with many constituencies that would favor pro-growth policies. Tensions and gridlock under a two-state model would probably be reduced.

Of course, it’s unlikely that California will ever be divided. It’s even more unlikely that it would cut its ties to the rest of the nation and become a separate country. But the debate on both ideas is healthy. To what extent should we let arbitrary political boundaries established many decades ago curb our imagination and prevent us from creative solutions to our problems?

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/...o-states-better-idea

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
OMG
I just saw Tucker Carlson interview the guy pushing Calexit. Tucker pointed out that the middle class is leaving California, turning CA into a 3rd world country, rich and poor. He was glad the middle class is leaving California because they are infiltrating other states with California values.

My first thought was, "The stupid is strong in this one. Incredibly strong."

My second thought is stick a fork in California, it is done.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
However, requiring CA residents to have a passport prior to entering AZ, NV, or OR, that would be fun to watch. Imposing tariffs on imports from CA or letting the market decide how much AZ can charge for energy (oil and electricity).

Charge for water from Oregon and Arizona, too. And require passports to travel to any other state (by air, rail, or road).

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

There have been many proposals to divide CA over the years. Most plans state their reason for change being the State is too large to effectively manage the needs of the many, the Citizen's political views being too disparate to build conscious and negotiate to a compromised "common ground", etc...

The plan that non-CA Citizens should keep an eye on is the one favored by the CA Democratic Party. In this plan, CA becomes 4 States carved up to ensure majority of the Democratic Party and resulting in an increase of the number of US Senators from 2 members to 8 members.

Can you imagine having 8 CA Senators with the viewpoint of Barbara Boxer, Kamala Harris, and Dianne Feinstein???

.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
Is there an official proposal for the Calexit anywhere? I am curious where they plan to get water, how they propose to manage their new national defense, etc.

It's very simple. The federal government will provide all that. Yea. It doesn't make any sense, but we're talking about California.

My impression is CALEXIT expects their tax money would stay in the state, contracts/agreements for water and power would continue. In short California exits but wants the rest of the nation to keep the entitlements coming.

quote:

The plan that non-CA Citizens should keep an eye on is the one favored by the CA Democratic Party. In this plan, CA becomes 4 States carved up to ensure majority of the Democratic Party and resulting in an increase of the number of US Senators from 2 members to 8 members.

Can you imagine having 8 CA Senators with the viewpoint of Barbara Boxer, Kamala Harris, and Dianne Feinstein???

That's what we have to avoid, certainly.
But the above map kind of makes sense. Two states. One completely "progressive"; the other fairly conservative.

quote:

In short California exits but wants the rest of the nation to keep the entitlements coming.

Yeah, which is what we couldn't let happen.

Withdraw everything and let them rot.

You know me. I've long argued for the idea of letting them secede and then immediately invading.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
You know me. I've long argued for the idea of letting them secede and then immediately invading.

ya, if we could use some of those bombs that just reduce the population but leave the infrastructure in place...

In the early days of state definition, it was postulated that California would be allowed to divide into 2 states in the future, and that Texas would be able to divide into as many as 5. I'm sure this was based on the very large areas bounded by those states and the probability that their populations would eventually grow large enough to justify it. It is not unheard of that new states be formed from old ones--all of the east coast states originally included territory most of the way to the Mississippi and they were carved up, and West Virginia was created from a chunk of Virginia. However, the process is not an easy one. The residents of all affected regions have to approve the idea, the state legislatures also have to do so, and then the US Congress must agree to it. A Republican-led Congress would certainly reject a proposal to create 4 Democrat-led states out of California, but it might approve splitting it into 2 parts, one Progressive and one Conservative.

Splitting Texas would be a similar situation: most likely would be attempting to contain one of the major cities in each piece, and that would be a disaster, Senate-wise. We'd end up with more Progressives than Conservatives, I think, because those red counties would be overcome by the big cities.

Bad as the situation is right now, I think maybe we're better off than we would be by allowing the big states to divide.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
You know me. I've long argued for the idea of letting them secede and then immediately invading.

ya, if we could use some of those bombs that just reduce the population but leave the infrastructure in place...

You've gotta give them at least one shot at returning to civilization. Or moving to another country, as the case may be.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
You know me. I've long argued for the idea of letting them secede and then immediately invading.

They'd likely be allies with Mexico. You want to risk pissing off Mexico?

BTW - does Mexico have nukes?

quote:

Originally posted by pbslinger:
They'd likely be allies with Mexico. You want to risk pissing off Mexico?

BTW - does Mexico have nukes?

That's why I said "immediately".

To tell you the truth, I really wouldn't care under those circumstances.

Not as far as anyone knows.
http://www.opanal.org/wp-conte...reaty_Tlatelolco.pdf