It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So California wants to Secede from the Union

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Of course, there would be ripple effects on both sides, but none of them would be positive. The only "benefit" either side (both) would have would be increased self-determination of social values.




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
if they leave their dream of being a sovereign country won`t last for long before they are attacked and taken over by a much larger country,and that`s why the idea of seceding is silly and childish.
The day before California is officially no longer part of the U.S. there will be war ships and landing craft from a dozen countries anchored off the California coast just waiting for 12:01 A.M. so they can attack and take over California.
mexico will have their entire military camped at the Mexico/California border waiting to invade.

edit on 29-1-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-1-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-1-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Just to play devil's advocate here, but what they would do is buy water.

Like, you know, they do now. After all, every time you go watch a movie you finance these people.

Not like they don't have money.

~shrug~



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
This whole Calexit thing reminds me of that movie where California succeeded... What was it called again.... Oh yeah.. Escape from LA.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   
As a California resident, I feel this is a horrible idea. Loss of federal funding, loss of access to water, loss of access to all sorts of legal protections in all likelihood... California is a large economy, yes, but not one that can sustain itself alone without throwing a lot of people under the bus. (I'd be one of those people, too.)

Besides... we're not supposed to leave the country when we disagree with what's happening. We're supposed to peacefully and persistently exercise our constitutional rights to make the country we're in better... or at least better from our point of view. Seceding is retreat and abandonment of the country we're supposed to love and be a part of, imho.

This "us and them" mentality must end. We are one country, with a huge diversity of opinion. There are a lot more than two sides. (Such as, in my case, an extremely liberal individual who still thinks Democrat policy was responsible in large part for the economic pain of many in the country, as well as the growth of corporate influence over our congress - on both sides of the isle - and who rejects any and all restrictions on the second amendment.)


Peace.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
If California secedes, Mexico will take it over. The cartels are all the army they will need and a critical mass of the populace is already Mexican in their hearts.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Good. Let red states pay for their own disaster relief for once.
edit on 29-1-2017 by Floydshayvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I think this is a great idea.

Can we send you Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond to help advise?

a reply to: EvillerBob



That was Scotland's big mistake with the Referendum. If they had asked England to vote as well (which is only fair, seeing as both parties need agree to a union) then Scotland would have received an overwhelming vote to make like a tree and get out of there.


First of all; are you inferring that it would have been a good thing for the Scots to vote for independence from the UK?
If so on what makes you think this?

Secondly; wouldn't you have let the people of Northern Ireland and Wales vote too as they are also parts of the UK?

Lastly; you also seem to think that the English people would have voted to discontinue the Union?
Why do you think that?

My personal experience, limited as it is being an Englishman who travels quite a bit throughout the whole of the UK, is that nothing could be further from the truth.

As for Calexit - people have the Right to Self-Determination.....I'd like to see a referendum occur at least.
However, recent experiences have taught me that such things are very bitter and vitriolic and stir up strong emotions.

Didn't you guys fight a Civil War over something similar?
Lessons from the past and all that?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   
This'd guarantee that Republicans would never lose a Presidential election ever again.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: dogstar23


Yes it will be a ripple effect, I remember when California used to be a prosperous State with economic grow, the Federal government depended on California for loans.

But then it got taken away by political groups that had divided the state, the northern part is still prosperous, the southern part is where most of the economic grow had been halted, most of the federal funds goes to them for the impoverished areas, but those areas are concentrations of illegal immigrants.

Statistically the economic growth of the north part of the state makes the rest of the state even.

And California still offers much to the rest of the nation.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   
As a red County Californian, we would fight back. The left can't take our country from us. Can you imagine that lawsuit.

So only blue counties could leave. Hope they don't miss hiking, camping, and skiing in Tahoe and much of Northern California.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: bluesjr

The problems is that political groups pandering to certain minorities has taken over the sate.

I lived in California for 3 years when my husband was stating in 29 palms, it is a beautiful state, if you don't get caught in certain dark areas in the south.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: GreyScale

It's not quite that easy. You see, CA doesn't actually "buy" water now. They might make Californians think this, but it's not really accurate. What they do is they lobby for it.

I've actually been waiting for someone to touch on some of these laws, and a couple folks (including yourself) have come close, but none have come out and said it.

There's an old saying which goes..."Water's for drinkin'? No, Whiskey is for drinkin', and water is for fightin'"

Water is one of the most complex litigation environments in the legal world. It is also one of the most difficult legal practices (and very lucrative as well). Way back, many moons ago, a series of laws were passed in the US which collectively created a system known as "First in time; first in right". It is this concept which gets California its water. However, it has to be constantly 'negotiated' (i.e. litigated in the courts). It's a little known fact about water.

Basically, the concept is, water consumers at the lowest point of a watershed have the rights to the water (generally because they were there first...at least in concept). There are exceptions to these rules, but CA can clearly lay claim to being at the lowest point of the Rocky Mountain watershed, and they were definitely there first (no real debate there). However, when the talk of seceding from the Union comes up it effectively invalidates these laws because CA would no longer be a part of the Union who formed these laws.

Now you all may have been thinking I was off on some red-herring about water and CA, but it really is a show-stopper when it comes to the notion of seceding from the Union. And further, I can absolutely assure you it would be one of the very first subjects to come up should this initiative ever actually make it before the voters of CA and the Union. The subject would probably be buried by all sorts of other political howling (at least at first), but in the end the issue of water would wind up being one of the single largest issues in the final decision.

Anyone who thinks CA, particularly southern CA, can survive with the water they have in the Sierras is sorely mistaken. Bottom line, CA would dry up and blow away without water from the mighty Colorado river. And believe me, there's a whole lot of people who would just LOVE to get their hands on that precious water!! NV and AZ are chief among these. When CA secedes from the Union, they no longer have any water rights to water which originates outside the boundaries of their newly created country.

So now what do you think?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn

a reply to: EvillerBob



That was Scotland's big mistake with the Referendum. If they had asked England to vote as well (which is only fair, seeing as both parties need agree to a union) then Scotland would have received an overwhelming vote to make like a tree and get out of there.


First of all; are you inferring that it would have been a good thing for the Scots to vote for independence from the UK?
If so on what makes you think this?

Secondly; wouldn't you have let the people of Northern Ireland and Wales vote too as they are also parts of the UK?

Lastly; you also seem to think that the English people would have voted to discontinue the Union?
Why do you think that?

My personal experience, limited as it is being an Englishman who travels quite a bit throughout the whole of the UK, is that nothing could be further from the truth.

As for Calexit - people have the Right to Self-Determination.....I'd like to see a referendum occur at least.
However, recent experiences have taught me that such things are very bitter and vitriolic and stir up strong emotions.

Didn't you guys fight a Civil War over something similar?
Lessons from the past and all that?



I think it would have been a terrible thing for Scotland to have gained its independence. However, if that was to be their goal regardless of the repercussions, then it was a mistake on their part not to also insist that England also have a referendum on whether THEY are also willing to continue with the Union. It's like a wife assuming that only she has the right to file for divorce. It's a typically self-centred Scottish attitude and it irks me somewhat.

Following on from this, Northern Ireland and Wales are not joined by the same mechanism. This specifically relates to the Act of Union between the Kingdoms of England and Scotland. NI and Wales are just the kids - they don't have a say in whether or not Daddy (England) is divorcing the Wicked Stepmother (Scotland).

I say that a significant part of England would vote for the Scots to sod off because the English are bloody-minded and stubborn when it comes to such things. If Scotland wants to throw a tantrum, let them throw it and suffer the consequences. I take on board your point that your experience is limited, but I think you do yourself a disservice. You have probably met 10s, possibly even high 20s, of English people in your travels, your knowledge is doubtless broader than you might think. Have a little more confidence in your opinion, old bean.

The last Civil War "my people" fought was between 1642 - 1651. The end result of "winning" was several years of abject misery and failure before we went crawling back to the monarchy and begged them to come back. I think this "lesson from the past" fits beautifully with my reasons for supporting Californian Secession.

Actually, I think that all states should have the right to secede; it was and should always have been a voluntary association of independent states, coming together to provide a united front on certain areas of common interest such as defence and a body of arbitration for inter-state disputes, while remaining independent in all other matters. Much as the Europe Experiment first sold itself, before that all went tits up and the Germans turned it into their Fourth Reich.




edit on Ev34SundaySundayAmerica/ChicagoSun, 29 Jan 2017 15:34:19 -06009402017b by EvillerBob because: Skipped a Reich, oops



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Where do you think you're going to get your WATER from, you lawless socialist zealots??????????

I make a point to stop and pee on the California side of the continental divide whenever I'm up there.
Every drop counts right?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The only bad part about it would be the wall would have to be much longer and therefore much more expensive.

I suppose we could stipulate that they can secede as long as they first pay for a wall to be built on their border.

Because we know California will eventually just become an extension of Mexico.

I am totally for it, just to watch them rot as California deteriorates into a third world nation. It would be very satisfying. The California liberals would be begging for us to let them into our country......so they could screw the rest of the country up state by state.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I was born in northern California, for the record. Have family there, have land there. So I've an interest in the conversation.

The people I know there would gladly just become part of Nevada... they hate HATE SoCal.

However, I had always thought that southern California purchased water, from AZ and NV.

Thank you for pointing out that it is FAR more complicated....


As long as at least 7,500,000 acre feet (9.3 km3) of water is available from the Colorado River, California is allocated 4,400,000 acre·ft (5.4 km3); Nevada, 300,000 acre·ft (0.37 km3); and Arizona, the remainder. If more water is available, California is entitled to 50% of the water from the Colorado River, Arizona to 46%, and Nevada to 4%. If less water is available, the Secretary of the Interior must allocate the water according to various formulas (which were the subjects of the court cases) to ensure that each state receives a specified amount, with California receiving an absolute fixed maximum of 4,400,000 acre feet (5.4 km3) per year (376 U.S. 342).[1] Some of the adjustments involved rights of the U.S. Government with respect to supplying water to Indian tribes pursuant to Executive Orders signed by the President of the United States as far back as 1907.


I am woefully ignorant on the topic and will spend some time reading about it. S&F for bring this to my attention.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

My mistake, I mistook you for an American, my most sincere apology.

I wasn't doing myself a 'disservice', it was a stereotypical example of English understatement.

Yes, many English would have voted for some sort of separation of England and Scotland, probably more due to a sense of betrayal than anything else, but not the majority.

Sturgeon has done her best to drive a wedge between the English and Scottish people.
Fortunately most Scots are far too wise for her dreams of self-aggrandisement, recent opinion polls suggest only 27% of Scots are interested in another referendum - that doesn't include the 750,000 or so Scots who live in England.

Perhaps we should leave our discussion about our Union for a more appropriate time and place and let our colonial cousins continue - I'd hate to derail such an amusing and enlightening thread.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: GreyScale

Thank you for taking the time to understand the water issues...even if superficially (maybe).

Thank you also for illustrating my point.

And finally, thank you for being a well reasoned person and resident of CA.

CA is not the enemy despite what some may thing, only southern CA. These are the ones who claim title to everything...and they're WRONG, and they will LOSE! This is just one example.

Game, Set and Match!




edit on 1/29/2017 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
There's been several threads on this topic, and as I have pointed out -- the creator of this movement nearly renounced his US citizenship for a Russian one.

The "Calexit" movement has even been in talks with the Russian government.

So, if you want even MORE Russian in your life, support this. Russia supports this...just like they support Trump. It all fits into their destabilization strategy for the United States.


edit on 29-1-2017 by Kettu because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join