…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. So the US would have to consent to NATO action in a US-CA fight. Good luck on THAT happening.
*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.”…*
Seems he just flipped off Trump. Makes me kind of proud. He’ll make a much better president.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You’re so far off base here a response is not warranted.
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.
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.
