First - Please do not use “retard” as a slur in this fashion.
Second - Please try to avoid making arguments personal in this way. I do not interpret this as an insult, though I do think it’s unnecessarily inflammatory.
[/moderating]
You don’t pay attention to reality. The US uses violence and bullets every day to settle differences. Drones and stealth bombers as well.
Well, the US also DOESN’T use violence to settle differences, too. However unlikely, if California got support from the required number of states, there would be no violence, however much some of you seem excited by the notion. California would do it legally, so all these fantasies of a nice good old fashioned bloody and violent civil war are, just fantasies.
You seem to imagine California declaring a war, which has never been part of the plan.
U misread what Octopus was responding to. Morgenstern seems to believe that Cali separatists can seize US military bases and there won’t be any repercussions.
IIRC, the Sodomite Suppression Act had all the signatures they needed to get on the ballot. It was only when it came time to print it into the election pamphlets that it was reviewed.
Think about it. A proposition to make it legal for any random citizen to kill a person, with no due process, because they’re gay was allowed to collect signatures. That’s how much it’s not the AG’s job to “review” propositions.
Octopus quoted what he responded to and I don’t see anything about seizing bases. He was talking about peaceful secession vs the civil war. Where did he talk about seizing bases?
**Morgenstern **says peaceful secession, and **Octopus **says “nope. Bullets, violence, drones and stealth bombers.”
I don’t see the US resorting to war if the secession was legal. That would be a minority of states going against the will of a majority of states. Now, if a minority of states declares war against the majority of states, that would be an interesting war.
It was on the last page, post #895 and #896. I was asking Morgenstern what would become of Camp Pendleton, and the rest of the 45% of California that is owned by the federal government. He said “we’re free to do with it as we choose”, which Octopus, and me, and probably others, interpreted to mean that they’d kick the Marines out of Camp Pendleton. Good fucking luck with that.
I’ll say this for you, Morgenstern: you’ve finally united the left and the right.
I see. I read the last page before posting to make sure I wasn’t missing something. If California seceded, federal lands would revert to California and technically, Marines would be trespassing except in reality there would be agreements made before California took control. Nothing was said about kicking anyone out. If both parties think certain bases are important, California could just charge $0 for rent or something.
No need for stealth bombing.
You just have to use the same “logic” that the Parti Quebecois used when they wanted to split from Canada;
They could leave the country with a 50% +1 vote because Canada is just a bunch of parts, but the borders of Quebec are sacred and inviolable.
Sure it makes no sense, but what the hey.
So your view is that USA gets no compensation for the 45% of California that it owns? Not a very compelling reason for the rest of us to grant California their independence …
Not to mention the fact that many actual Californians will take up arms to stop it from happening. I would gladly grant a few separatists the privilege of dying for their artificial country.
That point was conceded more than a dozen pages ago by everyone, because it’s true but worthless. The trick is that for secession to be legal, you need to get 3/4 of the other states to agree to it, and Calexit supporters have not explained how that is supposed to happen. There are multiple strong arguments for not allowing it, and even the arguments put forth by Calexiters say that it’s in the best interest of ALL of the other states to keep CA in the union. The theme in this thread is that you just need to get 51% of Californians to vote on a referendum and then the process for Calexitfornia begins, but you actually need much, much more support than that (even in CA) for a variety of reasons. Absent a constitutional amendment (or consitutional convention), there is NO legal path for secession. And it’s going to be hard to get that amendment to pass…
if the deal forces the US government to give up the 45% of the land in the state of CA that it owns, including several expensive military bases containing valuable and classified military equipment. Though I’m not aware of any secession agreements where one government just outright loses all of their owned property during the split, do you have any examples?
I was curious, and I wanted to look up how much the land would be worth, if, for example the Feds wanted to sell it to California. This MSN news report (by a “senior economist at the Federal Housing Finance Agency and previously at the Bureau of Economic Analysi”) had some interesting numbers:
The 52% and 99.9 million acres are a bit off from what I’ve seen elsewhere, but taking their numbers, it would cost California roughly $2 trillion to buy the federally-owned land within their borders.
That’s about the price of a 3BR 2BA home in the SF Bay Area these days. But it will have double paned windows and granite countertops in the kitchen!
That’s assuming that the land is worth the same throughout the state. The reason the federal government owns much of the land is that it wasn’t valuable enough for anyone else to buy it even at dirt cheap or even free (with homesteading) prices. Even today it is not as valuable because no one lives there.
I doubt that if the federal government were to sell off its lands in California outside of a Calexit that it would get anywhere near 2 trillion, and that’s even assuming doing it piecemeal so as to not flood the market and no insider sweet deals. In reality it would be even lower than that: I’d take a rough guess that the US couldn’t get more than very roughly 200 billion or so for all its California land.
On the other hand, all the land that the government doesn’t own in California, I can see being worth $2 trillion or more even without the buildings on it, because it is in better locations.
While that’s a fair observation generally, I tried to point out that I was just using the study’s numbers for “average price per acre”. Certainly some of the crappy BLM land won’t hit that average, while the prime vistas in Yosemite and the beach-front property in San Diego that is Naval Base Coronado will probably well-exceed it.
It should also require a super majority of California voters to choose independence. 50% +1 makes mo sense. Also, the possibility of an intra California Civil War is all to real. From the North/South split to a strong Mexican presence to the liberal west vs conservative east…there would be trouble brewing in an independent California.
How about questions? I’ve been trying to get your answer to a pretty simple wuestion and you’re flat ignoring me, or have no answer.
Nah. Have you been misled to think that I actually care about this guy or his campaign?