Pros and Cons to California seceding from the USA?

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Also, without federal money it would go bankrupt. It spends more than it produces.

It is a drain on the rest of the country.

If they leave: Their taxes would go sky high, employment would too to match, then the working population would bail, then the crime waves destroy whats left.

It is time to deal with California though. With this too....enough is enough.

This is some spit in your face and dangerous BS.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Then people of like minds will die. That simple.

About them being fine.....you forget everything federal money pays for. Just in law enforcement, they would be robbed and raped to death by the native criminal culture only large swaths of money keep at bay by employing a small army of LEOS.

M13, bloods, crypts.....the rest of the world thanks California for that....

Try footing that bill and covering things like public health.

a reply to: Teikiatsu
Oh wow! That's so cool. Seems that every thing now a days is Something-gate or install your favorite word or country or state-brexit.

Its a sign of the end days, when human beings as a collective are not capable of using but two meme per every 4 capital years. You know every scandal does not have to be a gate, even Nixon could come up with something better by now, and he wold only have to pay 200 writers each 4000$ over a period of 2 years and one day they would come up with a more wittier and catchy phrase, then this meaningless dramatic over-dramatization.

How about this, how about we call it. Calibation, you know cali for obvious reason and bation because well the obvious circle jerking. It would keep things fresh at least. So its californias time to calibate is it? Well its free to do so.


Happens every 4 years when somebody did not get somebody who they thought was different in office. Last 4 years what was it? Texas and Obama. Before that Oregon and Bush, and you know what? Cant even remember or keep track. But you know pretty much all the things that any state wants is already within there bounds to have and get, with or without being in a union. In fact it may all just be lines in the sand, not even that, nothing as concrete as sand, more like lines on a piece of paper.

The reason why they don't is there all just to lazy to actually put any effort into it. And so every day few years the whole red vs blue thing, like it mattered.

If there so but hurt that Hilary lost the presidential election, well I am quite sure they can invite her to be there governor, now that the governator is not around anymore I am sure she will have a change in the popular vote at least. See how great that goes for them, after all if she would have brought this country to the promised land surely she could bring California to that same promise land, would be much easier as well, as it would not be on a wider scale.

If no man or woman can succeed on such a smaller scale, then how in the hell can they hope to succeed on any larger scale, much less on a world wide scale? The answer is its not going to happen. Well believe it or not, that just means that things are as good as it gets. Possibly even as its going to get.

And as for the rest of the states and this whole trump fever. Well in 4 years or less we will see were it all headed and went. I wonder which state would want to succeed from the union after his presidential run is over? And round and round we go...Again.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Texas V White has got to be the most scary ruling in the history of the USA. What basically occured is that the idea of a indisolvable and perpetual union was created out of thin air by 5 SCOTUS Justices, even though nothing in the Constitution or any writings of the Founders said anything of the sort. It was a 5-3 decision. The 5 in favor? All appointed by King Lincoln, including a former member of his cabinet. It was the true definition of a Kangaroo Court.

But it is the Law of the Land Now . The Union Must Survive .

Its a simple supreme court ruling and it gets rendered null and void. they have overturned their own decisions before. All we have to do is argue it was unlawfully passed by a stacked supre court who were lincoln lackeys.

a reply to: tadaman

The delusions you people have of California really show you need to get out of Breibartland and maybe out somewhere.

California receives far less of it's income from the feds than any other states. In fact, it is far from dependent on federal aid. That's a red-state problem. They fact that California has been able to flip the finger to the feds in the past despite threats from the feds to cut off funding just shows that California could in fact, survive and thrive,

Many of the problems that plague California are due to it having to support dual systems, the federal one and the state one. California has a pretty heavily developed infrastructure of it's own, practically it's own country. So it is supporting two countries, something that is going to strain and break any back. Paying for all these WELFARE QUEEN RED STATES is expensive. I mean when you are supporting that many PARASITIC RED STATES it's gonna break you.

This is one of many reasons California stands to gain much more than lose by secession. And with the rest of the west following, it becomes much more feasible.

In regards to the gang and crime problems in some California cities. Now there's a problem that would likely become a hell of a lot more manageable without the DEA and the CIA in state pushing drugs and crack epidemics while funding and arming the very cartels behind the gangs. Probably be a lot easier to fight without the feds and their BS.

Regardless, this will be more an issue in the next few decades. Unless the federal government is completely ape-#, it's likely secession will become more a reality in about 15-20 years. That's plenty of to weaning itself from any federal money it uses.

I hope California does it though, and sets the example for the rest of us.

a reply to: yuppa


Yes , it could be Overturned , but it would Never get the Support to do so . Secession from the Union is Never going to Happen .

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I used to live in California. It is a disgusting hell hole. I would not shed a single tear if it broke off and sank into the ocean. I hate the people, the politics, the industry, and just about everything else California has to "offer." California is the epitome of everything horrible in this world.

I exclude Northern California in this rant.

originally posted by: Winstonian
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I used to live in California. It is a disgusting hell hole. I would not shed a single tear if it broke off and sank into the ocean. I hate the people, the politics, the industry, and just about everything else California has to "offer." California is the epitome of everything horrible in this world.

I exclude Northern California in this rant.

Where, why, and how long matters.

Every state has its hell hole.

Yeah part of Ca was nice.Get away from the large cities and you will find more normal people.And most of the craziest are from other states and countries.Liked the northern area around Sacramento way better than the LA area for sure,and the Sierras were beautifull

a reply to: tadaman

Eh, Texas made this same kind of rumbling after Obama was re-elected. I think that Texas was a bit better position to stand on its own though. It's a little more fiscally solvent.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

You do realize that the balance of military bases and federal lands are in red states, right? That's where a lot of the expenditure goes to.

Then you have to consider that cost of living overall is much less in a red state than it is in a blue state meaning a person's share of the tax base proportionally is going to be less.

For example, my husband would need at least a $30,000/year raise over what he makes now just for us to break even to our current standard of living if we were to move to California. That would mean that at Federal tax time, he would be paying more in Federal taxes if we were in California because his gross income would be more even though we wouldn't be living any better than we are here in good ol' much maligned red state USA.

originally posted by: ridgerunner
Yeah part of Ca was nice.Get away from the large cities and you will find more normal people.

What is "normal" people?

The average Californian understands personal space and accepting people as they are.

For me that's one of the most important things about CA.

You don't have to "fit in", inturn you let everyone else have their own space.

Asking someone what church they go to would be considered rude.

a reply to: Annee

Shows how much you don't know about the rest of the country.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Annee

Shows how much you don't know about the rest of the country.

Which rest of the country?

The red states?

Are they the "normal" people states?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Annee

Shows how much you don't know about the rest of the country.

Here's a map of states with and without employment protection for LGBT.

It's pretty clear which states are not accepting of all people. I don't need to visit them.

a reply to: Annee

Narrow minded.

Funny how both my husband and I work with several gay people and no one worries that they will be fired for having "teh gays" despite the lack of those protections you mention.

Also, no one randomly asks you what church you go to. I've only been asked that question once in my life by anyone other than people who are very close to me, and it was in an application to get my child into school.

a reply to: Annee

Well why do states need to enact "new laws" when lgbt is
discrimination covered by title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act and already incorporated by the EEOC?



mg

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Annee

Narrow minded.

Funny how both my husband and I work with several gay people and no one worries that they will be fired for having "teh gays" despite the lack of those protections you mention.

Also, no one randomly asks you what church you go to. I've only been asked that question once in my life by anyone other than people who are very close to me, and it was in an application to get my child into school.

You haven't said what state you live in.

And I did not specify which areas ask you what church you go to, but some definitely do.

Of course there are individuals who accept all people, but we're talking states. The map doesn't lie.

originally posted by: missed_gear
a reply to: Annee

Well why do states need to enact "new laws" when lgbt is discrimination covered by title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and already incorporated by the EEOC?

mg

Because it doesn't.

You can deny employment to LGBT because they are LGBT.

You can't deny employment because of religion, race, gender, disability.

(State, not Federal employee)

originally posted by: ketsuko

Funny how both my husband and I work with several gay people and no one worries that they will be fired for having "teh gays" despite the lack of those protections you mention.

Have you ever point blank asked them?

Anyway, I'm not trying to turn this into an LGBT issue.

It's just that it makes it clear that inclusion and acceptance of all people is important to some states and not others.