California doesn’t use violence to enforce laws. That’s not even close to fact. CA allows violence under a limited set of circumstances, typically involving the protection of the public or an individual.
Now you’re trying to peddle a bullshit arguments about what California might do in an imaginary situation in support your belief that violence and bloodshed are an acceptable way to quell a non-violent voter movement. I think you have the US mixed up with NK.
What I am saying is:
I’d like to see the actual data with a clear explanation of what is counted and what isn’t.
Apologies if this has already been lined to in the htread.
I’ve never seen a detailed breakdown of the accounting. All I’ve found are lists showing what was paid, and what was returned in the form of benefits, etc.
I do know that Sen Boxer talked about a 1.78 return to CA for every dollar spent a few years ago. She predicted the state would get about $1.45 back for every $1 spent during that fiscal year. This was due to a $787 billion federal stimulus bill. What she ignored was that the stimulus bill was borrowed money, money CA’s taxpayer would have to repay.
Gov. S (2010) stated the state received back 78 cents for every dollar spent, and that the State was paying for federal programs within CA. (immigration and imprisonment of illegal aliens being some of the reasons).
But no, I can’t find a detailed breakdown.
When did this change? Last I checked, if you commit a felony in California, California police will arrest you and will use violence if you resist, and sometimes if you don’t resist (especially the LAPD). I would have expected a state making such a drastic change in law enforcement to make the news, but I can’t seem to recall it happening.
Well, if your movement is really nonviolent, then there won’t be any need for the military, as US Marshals can just round them all up and arrest them all with no trouble. But do you have an explanation for how the Calexit government will maintain basic order without any use of violence against the 31% of their population that voted for Trump, plus whatever others don’t favor Calexit? Are you really saying that if that 31% of the population says ‘Nope, we don’t believe in Calexit, so we’re just going to ignore any laws we don’t like now’, Calexitfornia won’t use any violence against them?
Your posts get more and more divorced from reality as time goes on.
Are you sure about this? What’s your cite?
ETA: the reverse of this certainly isn’t true: if you’re a NV resident, with a NV-legal firearm and concealed-carry permit, if you drive to California and get pulled over, you and your Nevada-legal firearm are definitely NOT going to be free to leave.
Key word, drive. There’s an example of reciprocity. Your CA license is good in NV, and NV is likewise good in CA.
Same apparently with the State ID card (medical marijuana card)
Here’s a list of the states who allow reciprocity and the restrictions, if any.
Taking away California, Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million, according to the LA Times. :o
I doubt a CCP permit would be reciprocally honored if you walk into California. 
You still don’t get it do you? Reread your second sentence. Pay attention to the word “resist.” You have no right to resist. You know what else, if you pull a gun and point it at a cop in these parts, you’re likely to get shot by that cop. That seems pretty reasonable to me, unfortunate but reasonable. Anyway, I’ve wasted enough time with your violence crap.
We’ll use atomic bombs and supersonic rockets and missiles that burst in the air, giving proof through the night that CalExit was still here. O say shit, we’ll move the border south to Panama and let them deal with it. O’er the land of the truly free and the home of the non-violent. :rolleyes:
Thank you. Your reality is something I wish to avoid.
Isn’t that screwed up? It wouldn’t. But it won’t matter in January when Prop 64 activates.
Morgenstern, would you be satisfied with a 50%+1 vote on secession? Is that enough to move forward?
I’m sure California is a net donor state. But some of those “donations” take a form that benefits California. (Paying SocSec to Californians who retire out of state may be one example.)
Ignoring borrowing, the U.S. Government spends just as much as it receives; every dollar would have to be counted if you want the donor/donee numbers to make sense, i.e. to average to zero. Therefore, I assume military spending must be allocated by state. I suppose soldiers’ salaries are assigned to the state where based?
NATO countries are expected to spend 2% of GDP on military, so I guess Morgenstern’s No-need-for-military California doesn’t plan to join that organization.
I just find the whole “plan” (or lack thereof) far-fetched. Given the immediate disruptions it would certainly not be a financial benefit in the near term.
As others point out, the rural areas of the state are Trumpist majority (just as the cities of Texas have Democrat-voting majorities). Plans for a physical split of the U.S. on political lines remind one of the calls for a physical split of Iraq between Shia and Sunni. Massive migrations and purges have occurred to increase the “desired segregation” in Iraq, and war still rages.
Military benefits all states, not merely the state where the base is located. The personnel in that base add to the economy no doubt.
IMHO, CA has no need for NATO. CA’s military would, assuming I had a say, be limited to a Coast Guard like service and an expanded state police force. We wouldn’t need a military that did nothing but practiced for war. I could give a crap whether CA sails half way around the world to rattle its saber or files billion dollar jets at the Paris air show. This is, of course, my opinion.
The near term is not why this is proposed. It’s all about a better life in the long run.
Votes are counted and the side with the most votes wins. That’s the way democracy works. Except for POTUS elections, then it’s the side that redistricted the best that wins. CA is stuck with a the Orange groper yet CA was one of the few states smart enough to vote, overwhelmingly, against the prick.
I’d be much happier if it were a 60 or 70% vote.
So if the proposition just barely passes, would you feel uncomfortable pursuing it any further?
(Btw, redistricting doesn’t really affect the election for POTUS outside of maybe Maine and Nebraska)
Redistricting doesn’t…outside of maybe… Okay.
If you’re saying that the state voted for secession and won by one more vote than was required to win?
Democracy worked, on to the next step.
Districts only matter in Maine and Nebraska because they appoint electors by district. the rest of the states (CA included) are winner-take-all.
You’re forgetting all those presidential elections that depended how Maine and Nebraska set their voting districts!
So you don’t really understand how the presidential election works? Maybe lecturing septimus about how democracy works wasn’t appropriate then.
Well, the 49.9% that want to stay in America may have something to say about that.
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!