# I joined, and pledged support to Yes California today. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 11, 2016, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467 "2016-11-11T04:44:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 44
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/861 "2017-01-24T20:23:47Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > There will never be an invasion. …and yet the NATO piece started because you claimed protection from the possibility of US invasion. Why bring up something that you don’t want to protect you? Incidentally that’s a pretty bad interpretation of how NATO works even if CA joins. There’s some precedent for NATO members being close to war - Greece and Turkey. It didn’t really work like you think it would. Most importantly the decision making body that would have to act to a request by CA for Article 5 invocation, the North American Council requires [unanimous consent](http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49763.htm). So the US would have to consent to NATO action in a US-CA fight. Good luck on THAT happening. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/862 "2017-01-24T21:23:05Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > …and yet the NATO piece started because you claimed protection from the possibility of US invasion. Why bring up something that you don’t want to protect you? From a US invasion. Many here say the US will invade us, beat us, put us in chains and waterboard us. Or something close to that. > [@DinoR](#): > > Incidentally that’s a pretty bad interpretation of how NATO works even if CA joins. There’s some precedent for NATO members being close to war - Greece and Turkey. It didn’t really work like you think it would. Most importantly the decision making body that would have to act to a request by CA for Article 5 invocation, the North American Council requires [unanimous consent](http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49763.htm). So the US would have to consent to NATO action in a US-CA fight. Good luck on THAT happening. 😉 But by joining NATO, CA would adopt NATO enemies. By staying out of such agreement is a better idea. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/863 "2017-01-24T21:24:23Z")
> [@August\_West](#): > > Imagine, for a moment, that you are somehow successful. > > How long before Northern California would decide to split from Southern California? Just make that part of the package. CA is too big to govern effectively as it stands. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/864 "2017-01-24T21:25:19Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I just said I’m done with the discussion. Just mocking you now. Also, you did say lawyers: That’s just part of what you said when you flounced. Read it again. Let me help you with the other part. Read the two words, are they the same? Is one not quite different than the other? So you’re saying you really didn’t flounce-quit? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/865 "2017-01-24T21:30:10Z")
Arr - Say it Jerry… \*SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Gov. Jerry Brown delivered an aggressive defense on Tuesday of California’s liberal policies on immigration, health care and climate change during his State of the State address, vowing to fight the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress if they threaten to roll back state policies. “California is not turning back. Not now, not ever,” Brown said … “While no one knows what the new leaders will actually do, there are signs that are disturbing. We have seen the bold assertion of ‘alternative facts.’ We have heard the blatant attacks on science,” Brown told a joint session of the Legislature. “Familiar signposts of our democracy — truth, civility, working together — have been obscured or swept aside.”…\* > **[Gov. Brown defiant in face of Trump agenda](https://www.10news.com/news/politics/gov-jerry-brown-to-deliver-state-of-the-state-speech-comes-amid-shifting-politics)** > > "California is not turning back. Not now, not ever." Seems he just flipped off Trump. Makes me kind of proud. He’ll make a much better president. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/866 "2017-01-24T21:34:11Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > That’s just part of what you said when you flounced. Read it again. > > Let me help you with the other part. Read the two words, are they the same? Is one not quite different than the other? WTF? You want me to re-read my own post? Or something else? Which two words are you talking about? You are seriously incoherent. When I “flounced” I was just saying there seems no point bringing facts, rational arguments and cites to you. You either don’t read them or don’t comprehend them. Your responses don’t address what you’re responding to. It’s a clusterfuck. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/867 "2017-01-24T21:35:14Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > See, this is where you go off the track again. I never said I wanted to be a member of NATO, I said CA would be when it spawned. At least, until we declined membership. You listed the alleged NATO membership as a positive for Calexit, and stated that NATO membership would be a barrier for any US use of force against California. Now you’re saying that Calexitifornia won’t actually join NATO, so NATO would not complicate any US action against Calexitfornia. It’s interesting how much the story of Calexit and it’s alleged benefits and protections changes from post to post. > [@CarnalK](#): > > I just said I’m done with the discussion. Just mocking you now. Also, you did say lawyers: Look carefully CarnalK - he said ‘lawyer’, not the plural form, so he’s technically correct that he didn’t say ‘lawyers’. The fact that an organization that is supposedly going to start an entire new country that will immediately have major clashes with the US only has a single lawyer involved says quite a lot though. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/868 "2017-01-24T21:54:49Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > You listed the alleged NATO membership as a positive for Calexit, and stated that NATO membership would be a barrier for any US use of force against California. Now you’re saying that Calexitifornia won’t actually join NATO, so NATO would not complicate any US action against Calexitfornia. It’s interesting how much the story of Calexit and it’s alleged benefits and protections changes from post to post. > > Look carefully CarnalK - he said ‘lawyer’, not the plural form, so he’s technically correct that he didn’t say ‘lawyers’. The fact that an organization that is supposedly going to start an entire new country that will immediately have major clashes with the US only has a single lawyer involved says quite a lot though. you realize that if the initiative passes, and Californian’s declare themselves independent, the full legal resources of California will become proponents of the new law. More than enough I suspect. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/869 "2017-01-24T22:06:44Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > 'The fact that an organization that is supposedly going to start an entire new country that will immediately have major clashes with the US only has a single lawyer involved says quite a lot though. I know what you’re saying. Impressive. If I hypothetically need my unlicensed exotic animal trafficking charges dropped, I think I know which lawyer I’m calling. I’d be back on the street by lunch. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/870 "2017-01-24T22:23:52Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > You listed the alleged NATO membership as a positive for Calexit, and stated that NATO membership would be a barrier for any US use of force against California. Now you’re saying that Calexitifornia won’t actually join NATO, so NATO would not complicate any US action against Calexitfornia. It’s interesting how much the story of Calexit and it’s alleged benefits and protections changes from post to post. That’s sort of a wildass guess on your part. You have no idea what will happen when we proceed. There’s no violence involved. It was done with the vote and the support of enough people believing there’s a better way to live. We’re not enemies seeking to destroy anything. We just want to open the door and quietly leave. Force won’t happen. Not a chance. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/871 "2017-01-24T22:24:59Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > From a US invasion. Many here say the US will invade us, beat us, put us in chains and waterboard us. Or something close to that. Exactly. You brought up NATO somehow providing protection from the US using force to prevent secession. Aside from the interesting legal argument for automatic inclusion and your missing the way the NAC makes decisions, there’s an issue. Your preferred option is giving up the very protection you claim as soon as possible. You can’t leave NATO and claim it is still going to provide protection. Nice try though. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/872 "2017-01-24T22:37:01Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > Exactly. You brought up NATO somehow providing protection from the US using force to prevent secession. Aside from the interesting legal argument for automatic inclusion and your missing the way the NAC makes decisions, there’s an issue. Your preferred option is giving up the very protection you claim as soon as possible. > > You can’t leave NATO and claim it is still going to provide protection. Nice try though. 😉 Protection - It was a joke directed at the first half of this thread who insisted the us would bomb our ports and cities. You forget the US Navy will still lease bases from us, or figure out how to transport their ships back and forth to Arizona. We won’t need protection, thank you. Megyn Kelly found dead? Is this true, can’t verify. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/873 "2017-01-24T22:44:11Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > That’s sort of a wildass guess on your part. You have no idea what will happen when we proceed. There’s no violence involved. It was done with the vote and the support of enough people believing there’s a better way to live. We’re not enemies seeking to destroy anything. We just want to open the door and quietly leave. > > Force won’t happen. Not a chance. See, you’re doing it here again. What Pantastic was talking about was how you’re trying to have it both ways on NATO. i.e. “Since we’ll be automatically in NATO they can’t attack us. Also, I hope we’re not in NATO”. However, your response to him is as if he talked about the possibility of use of force. I say this honestly, I think you have a bit of a train of thought problem. You slip sideways in conversation and that’s probably reason for half of this 12 page argument. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/874 "2017-01-24T22:52:52Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Those same people said Trump would never get elected too. > > in other news, signature collection has begun. We have 6 months to collect all the necessary signatures. That should be enough time for Trump to partially destroy the American dream. 110,000 + people have signed supporting the movement so far. 13,000 have agreed to work for it, collecting signatures, etc. > > Cascadia Independence has pledged support. That would be most of the entire west coast joining in. > > Interesting, RoCA will be born a member of NATO, that is, if the Orange baboon hasn’t destroyed NATO on his quest of destroying America. Yes, child nations of NATO members are automatically members. I suppose this would make the invasion and war between the US and RoCA some imagine less likely. > > Given 3 years are projected to meet this goal, and three years from now Trump will have totally screwed over the American people by then, things look quite doable. Especially with Cascadia thinking about joining in. > > And, _According to international precedents, when a nation splits both successor nations inherit the parent nation’s treaties and agreements unless and until one of the successor nations opts out. That would mean California already be a member of NAFTA, the WTO, and other free-trade treaties. That means no significant barriers to trade with the remaining United States would be enacted and trade would be largely unaffected._ Trade will go on, if old hamster fists hasn’t totally screwed that over too. > One of the questions asked of the organization was…Can California return to the US if it secedes? The answer was “Does Canada want to be part of the US, or any other country for that matter? Why would California?” > > It’s moving forward. Signature collection, on forms already being distributed. Moving on to a better future. Trump will do more for this movement than Clinton could ever have. And when the Army shows up to arrest the leaders of this rebellion who on the Left Coast is going to fight? Reconstruction version 2.0 will be interesting. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/875 "2017-01-25T00:06:55Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Protection - It was a joke directed at the first half of this thread who insisted the us would bomb our ports and cities. > You forget the US Navy will still lease bases from us, or figure out how to transport their ships back and forth to Arizona. > We won’t need protection, thank you. It’s a safe bet that if the US Navy decides to bomb your ports and cities, they have decided that they won’t be paying California to lease bases or transport their ships to Arizona, they’ll be keeping the bases they have right there in the 31st state in the Union. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/876 "2017-01-25T06:15:17Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Protection - It was a joke directed at the first half of this thread who insisted the us would bomb our ports and cities. > You forget the US Navy will still lease bases from us, or figure out how to transport their ships back and forth to Arizona. We looked into this earlier, the Federal government owns all of the US bases in CA. It actually owns just under half of the land in the state. So there’s no leasing involved, if CA wants to try to block the US from their property or seize US property, that’s an act of war if the US treats it as an independent country (fat chance), or an act of open rebellion which justifies sending in the army to suppress it if it doesn’t. It’s funny how you keep switching between being completely peaceful on one hand, then threatening to block access to US-owned land in on the other. I don’t know why you think the US military intervention would be as dumb as bombing ports and cities, they’d simply send in Federal Marshals to arrest the leaders of the rebellion, escorted by the army if CA tried armed resistance. The idea that the US would try bombing ports and cities is yours. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > That’s sort of a wildass guess on your part. You have no idea what will happen when we proceed. There’s no violence involved. It was done with the vote and the support of enough people believing there’s a better way to live. We’re not enemies seeking to destroy anything. We just want to open the door and quietly leave. In your hypothetical, you’re enemies seeking to destroy the United States as a functional country, and planning to take land rightfully part of the United States and occupied by US citizens. You don’t want to open the door, you want to close off the living room and declare it your own house. That very much makes you a destructive enemy. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/877 "2017-01-25T06:18:28Z")
Twenty years ago, maybe. But without Patrick Swayze to lead the rebellion, I’m not seeing how CA is going to defeat the Feds. RIP, Patrick! ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/878 "2017-01-25T07:00:42Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > From a US invasion. Many here say the US will invade us, beat us, put us in chains and waterboard us. Or something close to that. With this president, those certainly seem like responses to rebellion that are within the realm of possibility. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/879 "2017-01-25T07:02:13Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > We just want to open the door and quietly leave. Leaving typically involves getting up off your ass and moving to a new location. It doesn’t sound at all like that’s what you want to do. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/880 "2017-01-25T15:44:16Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > We looked into this earlier, the Federal government owns all of the US bases in CA. It actually owns just under half of the land in the state. So there’s no leasing involved, if CA wants to try to block the US from their property or seize US property, that’s an act of war if the US treats it as an independent country (fat chance), or an act of open rebellion which justifies sending in the army to suppress it if it doesn’t. It’s funny how you keep switching between being completely peaceful on one hand, then threatening to block access to US-owned land in on the other. You’re so far off base here a response is not warranted. > [@Pantastic](#): > > I don’t know why you think the US military intervention would be as dumb as bombing ports and cities, they’d simply send in Federal Marshals to arrest the leaders of the rebellion, escorted by the army if CA tried armed resistance. The idea that the US would try bombing ports and cities is yours. Military intervention. Against a peaceful people for putting the CA flag on top of the other one. How American. No wonder China already offered to arm the Hawaiians in their effort. (rejected) Here’s another point. The American people don’t want our troops invading other countries, countries who have waged war against us, but you’re sure they will want to invade and kill Californian’s? I think that’s a pretty dumb thought. > [@Pantastic](#): > > In your hypothetical, you’re enemies seeking to destroy the United States as a functional country, and planning to take land rightfully part of the United States and occupied by US citizens. You don’t want to open the door, you want to close off the living room and declare it your own house. That very much makes you a destructive enemy. Here’s a clue. If the US requires CA to be a functional country, then perhaps the US should apply for membership in the RoCA. We’ll vote on letting you in, one at a time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=43) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=45)