World, Writing, Wealth discussion

28 views
World & Current Events > 49 States?

Comments Showing 1-28 of 28 (28 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Graeme (last edited Jan 28, 2017 12:11PM) (new)

Graeme Rodaughan REF: LA Times: "Supporters of a plan for California to secede from the union took their first formal step Monday morning, submitting a proposed ballot measure to the state attorney general’s office in the hopes of a statewide vote as soon as 2018."

Will California secede?

Will the Federal US Government allow it. They went to war in 1860 to keep the Union together?

What happens to the Democratic party in the rest of the US if Californian votes are no longer available?

If California seceded, will it be successful as an independent country?

Will other states follow?


message 2: by Dave (new)

Dave Edlund (dedlund) | 13 comments Question #1; No. Remaining questions irrelevant.


message 3: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13757 comments Seceding is unlikely, but in anything - I guess never say never. A lot will depend on how things evolve in a couple of years.
I think so far Trump shows he's all biz. The consequences and whether people like what and how the things are done, may enhance or undermine the movement.
Brex was also unlikely ...


Tara Woods Turner | 2063 comments California doesn't even have its own water supply.


message 5: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Tara Woods Turner wrote: "California doesn't even have its own water supply."

It can get it from us (here in BC). And if Oregon and Washington are game, they can become the 11th to 13th provinces! Heck, BC could amalgamate with these states and form the Republic of Cascadia!


message 6: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan Dave's certain. :-).


Tara Woods Turner | 2063 comments Matthew wrote: "Tara Woods Turner wrote: "California doesn't even have its own water supply."

It can get it from us (here in BC). And if Oregon and Washington are game, they can become the 11th to 13th provinces!..."


No Alaska? Think of the fresh salmon!


message 8: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan Tara Woods Turner wrote: "California doesn't even have its own water supply."

Is there anything stopping them from importing water?


message 9: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13757 comments Desalination in California's case should solve the problem


message 10: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan Desal is currently very energy intensive.


message 11: by Alex (new)

Alex (asato) Graeme Rodaughan wrote: "Dave's certain. :-)."

agreed.

but let's say 100 or 200 years from now and let's say that a bridge was built across the Bering Straits and a lot of asians came over to north america.


message 12: by Dave (new)

Dave Edlund (dedlund) | 13 comments Tara Woods Turner wrote: "California doesn't even have its own water supply."

Please explain? Or do you mean not sufficient water supply?


message 13: by Dave (new)

Dave Edlund (dedlund) | 13 comments Matthew wrote: "Tara Woods Turner wrote: "California doesn't even have its own water supply."

It can get it from us (here in BC). And if Oregon and Washington are game, they can become the 11th to 13th provinces!..."


Sounds like a fair proposal to me :-)
(I live in Oregon, fled California decades ago).


message 14: by Michael (new)

Michael Fattorosi | 477 comments Those that live in California are not ready to die to secede.

Texas I think they would have. But if Californians try to secede and the US military is sent in to quell such a revolt, I really dont see my former neighbors from Los Angeles picking up weapons and fighting.

Further, the entire Central Valley is mostly Republican. Its only SF, LA and SD that want to secede.


message 15: by Roughseasinthemed (last edited Jan 29, 2017 03:31AM) (new)

Roughseasinthemed | 129 comments We used to have rainwater catchment but now have desalination. If the will is there, water supply is no issue.


message 16: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13757 comments California alone is the 6-th biggest economy in the world from what I hear. Don't think they'd have unsolvable supply problems of anything.

Can a state legally secede from the US? Ottawa hasn't sent tanks to Montreal, nor London to Edinburgh on similar issues, but would the situ with Washington and San Francisco be different?


Roughseasinthemed | 129 comments Nik wrote: "California alone is the 6-th biggest economy in the world from what I hear. Don't think they'd have unsolvable supply problems of anything.

Can a state legally secede from the US? Ottawa hasn't se..."


Don't know about the US but in Spain Catalunya is well keen on independence, closely followed by Pais Vasco. Madrid doesn't want to lose the two industrial communidads though.


message 18: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2151 comments Nik wrote: "California alone is the 6-th biggest economy in the world from what I hear. Don't think they'd have unsolvable supply problems of anything.

Can a state legally secede from the US? Ottawa hasn't se..."


Our Civil War established that the answer is no.

That said, I would have to wonder if the Republicans currently controlling Washington would take the attitude of "don't let the door hit you on the way out." From there point of view, it means two less (potentially liberal) Senators in the Senate, and 53 Representatives that get redistributed to the other states. The way the population has been shifting, those seats could go to red and purple states giving the Republicans a bit of a lift in their already dominant House.

On the other hand, the issue of water has already been brought up, but what hasn't been discussed is the amount of produce California ships out to the rest of the country. If we retaliate and impose some sort of embargo, then we will lose those imports and have to seek it elsewhere.

Another outcome is the breakup of the state like we saw with Virginia/West Virginia when the South decided to leave. Despite California's massive liberal population, that population is highly concentrated. The vast farming regions of the north and the more moderate eastern portion of the state could choose to form their own state and remain in the Union, leaving this new "country" as nothing more than the LA area and the San Francisco/Silicon Valley region.

All of this is purely speculative and it is kind of fun to consider the options, another being that Congress could allow the process to go forward up to the point where the state breaks itself up. Then one way or another the rebellious part of the state backs down, but they've already lost those Representatives. Like the Republicans with Texas, the liberals enjoy a massive block of guaranteed votes in the Electoral College every four years thanks to California, but if the conservative parts of the state form their own state, the Democrats will end up losing a chunk of those guaranteed votes to the Republicans. If you think the disparity between the popular vote and the Electoral College vote is strange now, just think how much greater it will be if those votes are cleaved from liberal California.

In the end any attempt to secede will only hurt the Democrats, and right now they don't need another hit to the party.


message 19: by M.L. (last edited Jan 29, 2017 10:46AM) (new)

M.L. No, no, no. (It's won't happen anyway) Stay and fight. Filibuster Trump's Supreme Court Nominations --- all the way to 2018. Take back control. Get rid of he-who-should-not-be-named. The ACLU won a legal battle last night, trump's ban has been stayed by a Federal Judge. Give it time, Nixon resigned - impeached, party bailed - they had to.


message 20: by Mike (new)

Mike | 181 comments J.J. wrote: "Nik wrote: "From there point of view, it means two less (potentially liberal) Senators in the Senate, and 53 Representatives that get redistributed to the other states. The way the population has been shifting, those seats could go to red and purple states giving the Republicans a bit of a lift in their already dominant House.."

That's a good, rational point. On the other hand, Trump is not a rational actor- I could see him ordering the national guard or military in just so he wouldn't look weak. We all remember what he said about Tiananmen Square, don't we? "The Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they showed strength. That shows you the power of strength."


message 21: by Dave (new)

Dave Edlund (dedlund) | 13 comments M.L. Roberts wrote: "No, no, no. (It's won't happen anyway) Stay and fight. Filibuster Trump's Supreme Court Nominations --- all the way to 2018. Take back control. Get rid of he-who-should-not-be-named. The ACLU won a..."

"Take back control." ?? You overlook that there are at least two sides to US politics. For anyone to think their opinion is the only valid and right one is a foolish proposition.
Like Trump or hate him--doesn't change the fact that he was elected President because a lot of people voted him.


message 22: by Mike (new)

Mike | 181 comments "taking back control" pretty clearly indicates that there is more than one side- hard to "take back control" from yourself. she is speaking from the perspective of a democrat.


message 23: by Dave (new)

Dave Edlund (dedlund) | 13 comments Mike wrote: ""taking back control" pretty clearly indicates that there is more than one side- hard to "take back control" from yourself. she is speaking from the perspective of a democrat."

We, the People, should control our government. I do object to the notion that one party or the other thinks it is the party (Dem or Republican) with whom control is vested. That is false thinking.


message 24: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2151 comments M.L. Roberts wrote: "Nixon resigned - impeached..."

Nixon was not impeached only two Presidents in our history were impeached and Nixon was not one of them...the whole point of his resignation was to avoid impeachment. The purpose of impeachment is to remove a President from office, therefore it becomes irrelevant when the President is no longer in office.


message 25: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2151 comments Mike wrote: "J.J. wrote: "Nik wrote: "From there point of view, it means two less (potentially liberal) Senators in the Senate, and 53 Representatives that get redistributed to the other states. The way the pop..."
And that probably is the more likely choice, but it is important to point out that Lincoln set the standard for such a situation. Before the Civil War there was a little uncertainty as to whether or not our Union allowed for states to leave. The North's victory in the Civil War set it firmly into stone that the Union is "permanent." The thing about Lincoln though was that he sent in the military, but had them hold fire until the Confederacy fired the first shot so as to set them up as the aggressor in the dispute. The way things are today, there's no way of telling who would take the first shot if Trump did send in the military.

On the other hand, you have to ask yourself what kind of a military California could raise to defend an attempt at sovereignty. I'm not questioning Californians' commitment to service, and they could always institute a draft to force service if they don't have that many volunteers. It's that with our Civil War, both sides had a somewhat equal number of service-minded individuals. If California has roughly a tenth of the overall population of this country, could they field and develop their own military given the technology already available to the US?


message 26: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2151 comments On a similar, but opposite note, there's an increased push for Puerto Rican statehood.

http://thehill.com/latino/313150-puer...

Given their population would put them about in the middle of the list of states they would receive enough representatives in Congress (and hence the Electoral votes) to become moderately significant.


message 27: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Dave wrote: "M.L. Roberts wrote: "No, no, no. (It's won't happen anyway) Stay and fight. Filibuster Trump's Supreme Court Nominations --- all the way to 2018. Take back control. Get rid of he-who-should-not-be-..."

Whether or not he was elected does not mean he cannot be impeached for violating the constitution, not the least of which is the emoluments clause, or the fact that collusion with a foreign government to affect a US election or policy is treason.


message 28: by Dave (new)

Dave Edlund (dedlund) | 13 comments Matthew wrote: "Dave wrote: "M.L. Roberts wrote: "No, no, no. (It's won't happen anyway) Stay and fight. Filibuster Trump's Supreme Court Nominations --- all the way to 2018. Take back control. Get rid of he-who-s..."

Surely you'd agree that opinion and allegation are insufficient to remove President from office--or, at least I hope you agree. Let the charges be heard and the facts determined. We have a pretty good legal system, and the courts are not shy when it comes to clipping the wings of the Executive branch. And Congress can initiate impeachment hearings--they certainly wasted time on lesser issues (such as illegal use of drugs in professional baseball).


back to top