# 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:** 63
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1241 "2017-02-10T18:39:21Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I’d be much happier if it were a 60 or 70% vote. The state didn’t even manage a 70% vote against Trump. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1242 "2017-02-10T18:58:05Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > So you don’t really understand how the presidential election works? Maybe lecturing septimus about how democracy works wasn’t appropriate then. Actually, my comment was directed at the stupidity of the “outside of maybe” contradiction in that sentence. > [@CarnalK](#): > > Well, the 49.9% that want to stay in America may have something to say about that. So you’re against democracy because there’s ALWAYS a losing side? Cool. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1243 "2017-02-10T19:01:29Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > So you’re against democracy because there’s ALWAYS a losing side? > Cool. Wait, doesn’t the referendum have some type of minimum participation requirement for it to be binding? Seems like your side has already ceded ground on whether a referendum should pass if there’s questions about whether the votes are actually representative of the will of the whole state. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1244 "2017-02-10T19:02:34Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > The state didn’t even manage a 70% vote against Trump. But we scored well into the blue on that national IQ test last November. One of the highest showings by any state, thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1245 "2017-02-10T19:06:44Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > So what you’re saying is that it is not just close to fact, but is fact that California uses violence to enforce laws. And that rather than being something that only a regime like NK would do, it’s a position you explicitly endorse. After all, you have the same right to resist arrest under a California law that you disagree with as Calexit does to resist arrest under a US law that they disagree with. > > Aside from the irony of you complaining about someone else discussing an imaginary situation in a thread you started about an imaginary situation, it’s not just my belief, but your belief. You clearly stated above that you think it’s reasonable to use violence on someone who doesn’t comply with the law, so you have no room to condemn me for wanting to do the same thing if Calexit supporters stop obeying US laws and refuse to go along with being arrested and imprisoned. > > It is pretty telling that you won’t answer any questions about how Calexit would deal with the massive number of people in the state that would be opposed to Calexit. Sounds like the non-violence thing suddenly goes out the window if they decide not to pay taxes or otherwise ignore laws! As I said. Any post from you mentioning violence in respect to this, will be given all the attention it deserves. Next year. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1246 "2017-02-10T19:10:37Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Wait, doesn’t the referendum have some type of minimum participation requirement for it to be binding? Seems like your side has already ceded ground on whether a referendum should pass if there’s questions about whether the votes are actually representative of the will of the whole state. It does have a minimum participation requirement. That was only mentioned in this thread 2 times, I guessed you missed it as well as the reason for it. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1247 "2017-02-10T19:12:22Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > It does have a minimum participation requirement. That was only mentioned in this thread 2 times, I guessed you missed it as well as the reason for it. Well, I guess you showed me! You’ve totally exposed my lack of interest in sorting through 25 pages of nonsense to confirm something that I apparently remember quite adequately. ---
**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:** [February 10, 2017, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1248 "2017-02-10T19:20:45Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Actually, my comment was directed at the stupidity of the “outside of maybe” contradiction in that sentence. Uhh, what was stupid about it? You clearly thought gerrymandering had some significant effect on the presidential election but it doesn’t. > [@](#): > > So you’re against democracy because there’s ALWAYS a losing side? > Cool. There’s this thing called “tyranny of the majority” and there are rules in place to stop it. That’s what will happen here in the unlikely event your proposal to strip Californians of their American status gets through. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1249 "2017-02-10T19:34:35Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > … > > There’s this thing called “tyranny of the majority” and there are rules in place to stop it. That’s what will happen here in the unlikely event your proposal to strip Californians of their American status gets through. Whoa. Again, you’re confused. No one is stripping anyone of anything. You will still have your US citizenship unless you choose to renounce it. But if you do choose to renounce your US citizenship, beware, you’ll be placed on [the list](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/09/2017-02699/quarterly-publication-of-individuals-who-have-chosen-to-expatriate-as-required-by-section-6039g). That’s a quarterly list. Kind of long isn’t it. ---
**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:** [February 10, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1250 "2017-02-10T19:43:48Z")
You thought gerrymandering had a significant effect on presidential elections. Did you you get that idea from the esteemed lawyer(s) at Yes California? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1251 "2017-02-10T19:55:53Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > You thought gerrymandering had a significant effect on presidential elections. Did you you get that idea from the esteemed lawyer(s) at Yes California? No, from places like this. > **[The great Southern gerrymander continues in 2016 | Facing South](https://www.facingsouth.org/2016/11/great-southern-gerrymander-continues-2016)** > > Because of district lines drawn by Republicans, Democrats continue to be underrepresented in relation to their votes in Southern states' congressional delegations. There are others cites but I think if you’re really interested, you’ll find them. ---
**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:** [February 10, 2017, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1252 "2017-02-10T20:01:36Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > No, from places like this. > [The great Southern gerrymander continues in 2016 | Facing South](https://www.facingsouth.org/2016/11/great-southern-gerrymander-continues-2016) > There are others cites but I think if you’re really interested, you’ll find them. Sweet lord. That has nothing to do with the presidential election. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1253 "2017-02-10T20:06:16Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Sweet lord. That has nothing to do with the presidential election. Oh, you’re saying different districts vote for the HR, Senate and POTUS? That must be as confusing as Chinese algebra for those trying to keep it straight. :rolleyes: ---
**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:** [February 10, 2017, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1254 "2017-02-10T20:17:14Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Oh, you’re saying different districts vote for the HR, Senate and POTUS? That must be as confusing as Chinese algebra for those trying to keep it straight. :rolleyes: You know, when clearly having no clue what they’re talking about most people strike a less condescending tone. Redistricting can have an effect on the election of Congressmen but in all Senate and in all but Nebraska and Maine’s presidential elections, the vote is state wide without regard to districts. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1255 "2017-02-10T23:38:56Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Whoa. Again, you’re confused. No one is stripping anyone of anything. You will still have your US citizenship unless you choose to renounce it. You cannot guarantee this. If in the unlikely event the USG chose to entertain the secession of California, this would surely be a topic of negotiation. It doesn’t take a genius to predict that the going-in position of the US would be that Californians would not get to keep US citizenship and the related benefits, as there is no conceivable reason why the US would want to allow Californians to have their cake and eat it too. Same for Social Security: if Californians decide they no longer wish to participate in the system by paying into it, then they should no longer participate in the system by drawing out of it. You will, I’m sure, throw a fit that these are just my opinions. I’ll merely comment that you are making guarantees of these benefits (citizenship, US entitlement spending, etc) without any actual basis for why the US would literally give its store away to a group of people who no longer want anything to do with the US except when it benefits themselves. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2017, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1256 "2017-02-11T00:13:50Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > But we scored well into the blue on that national IQ test last November. One of the highest showings by any state, thank you. This comment adds nothing of value to the conversation. Why do you keep repeating it? It undermines your argument about this not being in response to Trump’s victory. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2017, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1257 "2017-02-11T01:37:02Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > As I said. Any post from you mentioning violence in respect to this, will be given all the attention it deserves. Next year. Right, California and Calexitfornia both approve of using violence to enforce laws against people in their jurisdiction, but for some reason you think it’s wrong for the US to do so, and act like I’m some kind of awful primitive for supporting the US in treating Calexitfornians engaging in tax evasion or other crimes exactly the way California or Calexitfornia would treat people engaging in tax evasion against them. Not really a very coherent position, but consistency seems to be a problem for Calexit. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2017, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1258 "2017-02-11T01:43:06Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Whoa. Again, you’re confused. No one is stripping anyone of anything. You will still have your US citizenship unless you choose to renounce it. As we’ve pointed out before, the money coming from California into the US in the ‘donor state’ calculation is primarily income tax. And if you are a US citizen, you owe US income tax even if you live in another country. So the whole idea of California leaving in order to stop being taken advantage of as a donor state but keeping US citizenship is incoherent, like a lot of Calexit. And that’s presuming that the US would agree to letting Calexitfornia keep US citizenship in a peaceful secession, when there would be a strong incentive to bundle a ‘you’re not citizens anymore’ provision into the constitutional amendment removing Calexitfornia from the US. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2017, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1259 "2017-02-11T01:54:12Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > As we’ve pointed out before, the money coming from California into the US in the ‘donor state’ calculation is primarily income tax. And if you are a US citizen, you owe US income tax even if you live in another country. Nitpick: minus 85K or so which you can ignore for some reason or another (i forget the tax code law). Which may or may not make your post better or worse. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2017, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467/1260 "2017-02-11T03:16:43Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > Right, California and Calexitfornia both approve of using violence to enforce laws against people in their jurisdiction, but for some reason you think it’s wrong for the US to do so, and act like I’m some kind of awful primitive for supporting the US in treating Calexitfornians engaging in tax evasion or other crimes exactly the way California or Calexitfornia would treat people engaging in tax evasion against them. Not really a very coherent position, but consistency seems to be a problem for Calexit. You just really want violence and there is no answer for you that doesn’t say “violence!” You want it, you support it. You really, really, really want it. It’s your “gotcha” and you’ll never let go. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=62) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-joined-and-pledged-support-to-yes-california-today/771467.md?page=64)