Sure, if we gloss over the fact that I’ve shown how California has been a net “taker” state (as opposed to “donor” state) for several cited years.
Was that in response to my post?
Sure, but other than Texas I can’t think of a particularly Conservative Area which could plausibly be self-sufficient. The plains states are all landlocked, the Deep South is poor and relies more heavily on federal largesse than any other part of the country, etc.
Yes.
An independent CA would be financially strong enough to build and maintain dams. I don’t see the problem.
But there’s two versions of this assertion:
-
California is getting screwed by the Federal government, and if California just became independent, there would be a windfall of funds that currently go to other states that could be used for many other things. Think of this as, “If I sent my kid to the orphanage, I would be able to buy a new BMW with all the money I saved!”
-
California is a wealthy state and within its available resources it can prioritize spending to take care of new problems while cutting back on other things. Think of this as, “If I move to a smaller house I can buy a new BMW with all the money I saved!”
I think you’re arguing #2, which is reasonable. But the OP contends that Californians would get a free lunch under scenario #1, which I do not think is a fact.
I think a CA secession is incredibly unlikely to happen, but if liberal Californians were to do something like this, then they would be at least partially responsible for a lot of bad things that would subsequently be more likely happen to various minority groups in the rest of the country, IMO. I hope they would consider all the harm to gay, Hispanic, Muslim, black, trans, and other Americans that would be more likely to occur in an America without California before they were to go forward with such a move.
Yes, I was arguing #2 because I interpreted the poster I was responding to as saying that CA could not afford to build and/or repair dams on its own as an independent country.
I don’t think said conservative areas would “secede” outright, they’d more likely move to remain in the US.
Both KQEDand Rachel Maddow report today that the leader of Yes California lives in Russia and that Yes California has support from the Russian government via a disinformation campaign. Marinelli says that Yes California is not receiving direct support from the Kremlin.
Can California survive without federal aid?
The great state is at risk at collapsing under its own weight.
You’re right, it will never happen. No way the USA would let a state succeed, let alone its largest.
How quickly you give up on America.
Sounds like Morgenstern might get some help from the EU Commission boss Jean-Claude Juncker: European Union - EU boss threatens to break up US in retaliation for Trump Brexit support | Politics | News | Express.co.uk
The Mormon corridor, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, and Wyoming should do ok.
It’s funny how the EU bosses always try to act like The EU is equivalent to the US. I know that was the idea but it never really panned out for them.
(post shortened)
Let’s put the question to a national popular vote and find out for sure.
I had no idea Alaska was thinking of leaving the country.
How is this thread still a thing?
You might add Nevada to the list, at least outside of Las Vegas. This survey is a bit dated now, but at the time Nevada had about double the % of Mormons that Arizona did:
Wikipedia has NV and AZ at Mormon-parity, using a different methodology (and more current numbers).
I propose a trade: the Mormon theocracy of Deseret will give Las Vegas to California, but keep the rest of Nevada and take Montana. Colorado can decide if they’d like to join or not. We promise you better upward mobility than California, and all the guns you’ll ever want, but can’t guarantee you’ll get to keep your marijuana.
This thread has been epic. I don’t want it to die, even though I hope California’s independence fantasies do.