I’m pretty sure your definitions of credentials consist entirely of, “folks who tell me what I want to hear.”
My credentials aside, I’ve provided you the facts about how Chapter 11 refers to colonies, not separatist regions. Bringing my credentials - which are actually very strong in this particular field – into the question is simply a weak attempt at an ad homiem when I’m providing the facts.
What are the credentials of the person telling you this Chapter 11 thing is a viable gambit?
I can give you one concrete example of someone from CA who doesn’t want to secede. That’s me.
Your ability to deny that the civil war happened and that the Confederate states voted to leave as part of that is pretty impressive. But no, I’m not guessing about the Confederate legislatures passing declarations of secession, that’s a well-documented phenomenon.
The American public imho has no stomach for a ‘Civil War’. If California (or any other state, for that matter) wants to leave…and, by that, I mean that an overwhelming majority of the people of that state have voted to leave…I think that serious discussions would have to be conducted about how to preserve the Union. Perhaps a constitutional convention that reduces the small state advantage in Senators and Electors could convince Californians that their issues, the reasons they want to leave, are being addressed.
Californians have many reasons to be alienated from Red State America. California is probably the leading state, at the head of the listing, of states that send more money to Washington than they get back. The political alienation and tension between liberal Californians and illiberal, wannabe theocratic Red States grows sharper every day. If the California exit people can focus those points, and many others, properly, they can get the overwhelming majority they need to be able to come to the negotiating table with a full mandate. Then, so long as ‘negotiations’ are going on, no one will put military force on the table.
The Red State problem will actually boil down to recognizing that their emphasis on ‘state’s rights’ will be in opposition to their possible desire to keep California, and then other states, from leaving. In this era, physical contiguity is not needed to create an alliance, even a nation.
In other words, if California really wants to go, if they threaten to suspend tax dollars to Washington, I just don’t believe that most Americans will support military action to take over the California government, when actual, decent and reasonable alternatives are obvious.
Two hundred and thirty years ago, banding together was essential for some degree of safety in a dangerous world dominated by wars between England, France and Spain. Great concessions were made to rural states in order to get ratification of the Articles and the Constitution. Today, perhaps, some concessions need to be made to the more urban states and more successful states economically in order to preserve the Union again.
here’s the electoral map for California in 2016. You think that’s going to hold together if California secedes? you’re conveniently forgetting that all of that food you love to remind us is produced by California comes from rural areas, and rural counties tend to vote Republican. it’s naive to assume they’ll be happy to come along with you.
Again, because this fact was mentioned several pages ago, the reason California is a so-called donor state is overwhelmingly attributable to two factors:
First, California has a higher proportion of high income earners, meaning they pay more in income taxes.
Second, California has a lower proportion of retirees, meaning there is less money coming back in the form of Social Security and Medicare.
If California truly wanted to address that inequity, Californians would advocate Bush-style tax cuts that shift the burden of taxes away from high income earners and onto the middle class. Or, do something about retirees that leave the state, which in this case would probably stop if California became independent, since the U.S. probably wouldn’t be keen on offering immigrant visas to retirees who don’t contribute that much to the economy. That would mean more retirees would stay in California, which probably isn’t what Californians actually care about at all.
So say this another way, the perception that California is getting screwed on transportation, defense, VA, or similar Federal spending is factually not the case. Plus, there’s no rational reason to believe that increasing spending in California on transportation, defense, VA , or other similar programs would make a dent in the so-called donor state status. This question is overwhelmingly about the progressive income tax system and the large amounts we spend on Social Security and Medicare.
Your continued efforts to relate peaceful secession to what happens 150 years ago shows you clearly have misunderstood everything said in this thread. Shit just isn’t done with violence today, any more than blood letting and leaches are part of modern medicine. Yep, in that sense, we’ve evolved from what America was 150 years ago, most of us have anyway.
But, you may not be totally out of luck. Your desire to see another Civil war may well be satisfied by your great Orange leader and his band of merry billionaires. A war not with California, but with some previously peaceful ally or two. When the Great leader is as useless as the Pope’s balls, anything can happen.
California is not a so called donor state. California is a donor state. It’s a donor state because, in a very real sense, California contributes 13% of the money the US needs to operate. By California, of course, Californian’s.
How you can guess that Federal spending is not the case is beyond any rational reason. To CA, it’s like poring our money into a boat. A boat that’s sinking and needs to be sold, or given away, or simply left at some recycling center.
One problem with the current movement, crucible, is I don’t see them seeking an “overwhelming majority” vote. It looks like they’ll move forward with 50%+1. If that happens an awful lot of people would want the Fed’s to step in somehow.
Here’s a funny story about how California is dealing with some of the ridiculous federal legislation.
Get on a plane anywhere in CA headed to a CA destination. Carry an ounce of marijuana with you. Go through TSA screening and declare it. Promptly get detained and handed over to local law enforcement for this crime. Local law enforcement takes you to a back room, checks to see if you have documentation allowing possession. Assuming you do, it’s checked with either your county or a central verification agency and thereafter, you’re immediately released with your ounce given back to you, and reportedly, a warning to not let the TSA see your stash.
This is an example of CA law enforcement follows CA law, not Federal law. Drive to Arizona or Nevada with that same ounce. If stopped by the cops, produce your California identification, as well as your medical card, and you and your ounce are free to leave. Is the beginning of States disregarding federal legislation they find inconvenient and archaic. Is this a crack in the federal rock? CA isn’t alone, Arizona, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, & Rhode Island all are “rebelling” in this sense. A lot of people voted affirmatively in those states to get those laws. There’s no point in discussing marijuana because that’s not the issue. The issue is people are standing up to the feds and they did it by voting. Voting is more powerful than the military in that sense.
Sign up today. Free the bear from the evil circus in the east.
You claimed that no one had tried to secede by voting before, I pointed out that your claim is untrue. Changing your claim (like you keep doing) doesn’t change the fact that you’re wrong.
You need to tell your own state government that, then, because they routinely use violence to enforce policy. When the LAPD and other police organizations in CA swear off the use of violence, then I’ll believe that the state has ‘evolved’ into your nonviolent fantasy.
Trump got 31% of the popular vote in CA, what number are you calling an ‘overwhelming majority’ here? If it’s a 2/3 vote, for example, then it’s only 3% away from being blocked purely by Trump supporters. Numbers aren’t really looking good there.
I believe the vast majority of Americans would support military action to take over the California government if it decides to take blatantly illegal action and participate in a large tax evasion conspiracy.
I think you are wrong. The US pays how much money on defense? In what world does a nation that spends as much as the US does on defense allow itself a mortal wound it could prevent?
Psst. Turning a blind eye to an ounce of pot is not the same as tolerating secession.
Your “First” is an argument in favor of California secession, indeed a main point. Why should California prosperity be spent in Alabama? Especially since the cost-of-living is higher in California, but this higher cost is not reflected in income tax rates.
As for “Second”, or the whole “donor state” issue in general, are there charts showing detailed breakdowns of these estimations? I suppose much federal spending takes the form of military bases and military contractors who, wherever located, are acting for the entire country.
This is hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. Boots on the ground or air strikes, conventional or nuclear? Relatives fighting relatives? Sons and daughters being bombed by their parents? You just can’t seem to divorce yourself from working violence into this.
Again, your assumption is hilarious.
the donor state concept relates to the how much a state donates vs how much that state receives in federal assistance and benefits. Military bases are not included as they aren’t for the benefit of the state, but for the benefit of the nation. But I think you were saying the same thing. Not sure.
Again, the State of California endorses using violence to enforce laws. All of your cries about how bad I am for ‘working violence into this’ for wanting the US to use force against a tax evasion conspiracy are hypocritical when Calexitfornia would not hesitate to use force if Orange County decided that it wasn’t going to pay Taxes to the state government. You like to posture that California has ‘evolved’ past violence, but it’s just empty posturing.