you haven’t “debunked” anything. you just say “I already responded to that” and expect people to go back how many pages and re-read your unsupported assertions.
That quotation - there is obviously a difference between a quote and a cite BTW - isn’t actually about donor state status. Donor isn’t the same as dependence, as I explained 8 posts ago.
Serious question: are you aware that each time I’ve raised the donor state issue in the last couple days, you have responded with comments that aren’t actually on the same topic? For example, Federal dependency, the multiplier effect, and so on, are separate issues than your assertions that California would have an annually recurring $16 billion windfall if independent. The data totally debunk that propaganda, and you don’t seem to be offering any defense of it, since your responses are about unrelated fiscal issues.
Votes for Clinton outnumbered votes for Trump by almost 2-to-1 in California. That’s pretty impressive, in such a diverse state. Hillary even won Orange County by a 6-to-5 margin! :eek: (That’s the first time since the 1936 landslide that this notoriously right-wing country voted the Democrat for President.)
Clinton beat Trump 9-to-1 in Manhattan and the Bronx, and by well over 4-to-1 in the five boroughs taken together. I really think the CalExiters should be reaching out to their allies in the Northeast.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Using your implied calculus, every state except Alaska is a net donor state. Do you understand that? I’ll guess California is indeed a “net donor” when sensibly defined (though would still like to see the details), but you’re not doing your side any favors with your novel approach to arithmetic.
You missed the point, but I’m not surprised. The point is that CA is already taking steps to divorcee itself from the quagmire of the Federal swamp. CA will ge the first state to give the feds the finger, and others will be right behind. Trust me, other sanctuary cities are already watching and responding in much the same way.
Did you not notice the part about the red states being more federal dependent than the blue states? Isn’t that ironic, morons preaching about smaller government being among the largest recipients of government assistance.
Sanctuary status for example.
*California Senate Leader Kevin de Leon: “These are spiteful and mean-spirited directives that will only instill fear in the hearts of millions of people who pay taxes, contribute to our economy and our way of life. We will have no part in their implementation.”
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray: “This city will not be bullied by this administration. We believe we have the rule of law and the courts on our side.”
Detroit City Council member Raquel Castañeda Lopez: “We do not stand down to our commitment to being a sanctuary city. We don’t stand down to our commitment to being a welcoming city. We do not stand down to our commitment to welcoming refugees.”
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio: “We are going to fight this, and cities and states around the country are going to fight this.”
“The minute any specific action to withhold funding were to occur, that’s when Zach Carter is in court the next hour,” de Blasio said, referring to the city’s corporation counsel.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel: “I want to be clear. We’re gonna stay a sanctuary city.”
*
This is how change comes about. Either the system changes, or we change it at the ballot box. It’s happening. It’s now. It’s clear. CA can afford to lead this because, like it or not, CA is a donor state.
Which I have debunked.
Wow. Now you actually believe the Calexit folks are in charge.
Several times. 
I’m hopelessly still following this thread. Am I mistaken? Would there still be a CalExist if Hillary was inaugurated? Is this solely due to Trump winning? If so, it makes us look like wimps. We don’t wanna help impeach, vote against in senate, house, etc. Sign petitions, have more marches… We’ll just leave the union, avoid income tax and keep all the other rights, thank you.
Can’t help thinking how much of a Trump-like plan this is. (I really think he’ll resign, and soon. Probem solved.)
Nope. South Carolina beat you to that “honor” by more than 150 years.
The state of California lacks the ability or the legal right to seize federal property so why would the federal government concede to pay rent for military bases? How would they intercept federal taxes from being paid? If they were to do either of those things the federal government would be justified in seizing the state house and arresting anyone who is participating in the rebellion. Also you surely don’t believe that the California national guard is going to support you in your rebellion do you? It’s made up of USA loving patriots who are not going to roll over because a bunch of whining liberals don’t like the outcome of an election.
They like to claim to be nonviolent, but all of them advocate using force against US citizens to force them to comply with Calexitfornia’s laws, and often envision violence against the US government. (If you’re talking about charging the US government to access US government property in CA, either you’re just going to write a bill and hope they pay, or you’re going to interfere with US government employees accessing said property).
We’re talking about the state that hosts the LAPD. Pretending that California embraces some new age non-violent law enforcement methodology is insane. California routinely and regularly uses violence to enforce it’s laws, Calexitfornia would do the same. Calexitfornia would be using such violence on American citizens who didn’t agree to Calexit.
Exactly why wouldn’t Calexit’s secession justification apply to Orange County as well as it does to the whole of California? Note that the Confederacy did believe this ‘slippery slope argument,’ and made a point of forbidding secession in their consitution.
So let’s assume all you said is correct. The take away is since CA is rich and powerful it calls the shots? Well, ok, then.
So exactly what will this ‘non-violent’ movement do if US citizens in its territory don’t recognize its authority and stop following it’s laws? It’s great to put peace and love messages out, but you haven’t actually explained how Calexitforina will practice non-violence, and when called on it have actually sneered at the idea that they would.
Non-violent is not the California government, which routinely uses violence to enforce its laws.
The fact that people voted against Trump doesn’t mean they wish to end the United States, or worse to radically change the electoral map so that they are in a United States that loses all of California’s support for Democrats. Do you really think you’re going to get a lot of support for giving Trump supporters a greater majority in the US from areas that don’t like Trump in the first place?
Who are “they?” Is there a website somewhere where they are saying this? If the movement turns into another gun militia sovereign citizen thing then don’t worry. Californians won’t go for it. In this thread, it’s been the anti-secessionists drooling over the thought of some good old fashioned slaughter. The US spends billions on its overseas bases around the world, quite happily. No bloodshed required. The US pays for its toys and troops, CA kicks in various services and cheap rent, no big deal.
It could, but doesn’t have to. Various parts of California have tried in the past, and failed. It’s never turned into anything the LAPD thugs had to suppress. And we know, those guys are assholes. We all know that. I’ve had cop friends from lots of different departments around the state and they’ll tell you “yeah, LAPD is a bunch of yahoos.”
Remind us again who, specifically, in this thread is “drooling over the thought of some good old fashioned slaughter”?
John Mace over here {raises hand} yeah, I’m a violent conservative right wing gun nut whack job who fantasizes about gettin me some cali-scalps or notches on the handle of my gun:rolleyes: (not really)
In all honesty I did post this way the hell back on page 10.
I still sort of thought that maybe Morgenstern was just really super dedicated to a huge whoosh. Guess I was wrong about that though
You must find it a little tiring that despite the seccession plan being: referendum, legislation, get 3/4 of the states to agree, we still have people saying “no, we will crush you”.
People are saying they support the use of force to enforce existing law. That is not fairly characterized as “drooling over the thought of some good old fashioned slaughter”. Of course so much of what is being posted in this thread is fantasy and jokes, I guess there might be some people talking about crushing their enemies and raping their women. You might take that seriously. I don’t.
Well, they did have Schwarzenegger as governor. Perhaps they’ve decided the best way to secede is to crush their enemies, see the enemies driven before them, and to hear the lamentations of the women.
You certainly take some things seriously.