New "Calexit" bid for California secession approved for signature gathering in effort to put measure on ballot
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-secede-2028-ballot-measure-allowed-to-get-signatures/Open linkView original on lemmy.world668
Comments229
Can we coordinate with Oregon and Washington to join Canada?
That aside, California leads the US in many ways, but we have a tendency to go too far and do really dumb things. We're pretty good at self congratulations even when other states stare, slack-jawed at our blunders. It's nice to have perspective.
CASCADIA NOW!!!
i freaking love the idea of Cascadia becoming autonomous and independent. I'd love it if New England did that too.
It's an interesting idea, but it can't possibly happen. The federal government has too much military infrastructure in different parts of the US, especially nuclear material. They'd never let anyone secede with it.
ha, if cascadia and new england both seceeded simultaneously.
LOOK. LOOK AT US. WE ARE THE NUCLEAR POWERS NOW.
[Crimson 1] has entered the chat
We also have the top two ports in the US. And if we took the PNW with us nearly all trade from Asia would pass through this theoretical new country before reaching the US.
Edit; also there’s a lot of division between the urban and rural areas of all west coast states. It’s fun to think about, but I don’t see it happening without a major conflict
And we would have border taxes in those goods.
AND A WALL!!!
That's an argument for leaving PNW behind. Cannon fodder so they let us go peacefully with access to the coast and manifest destiny preserved
The US can manifist my ass. If CA leaves the PNW sure as shit is leaving too. We're far more liberal than CA.
Can't hear you over the sound of me cutting the rope below me mwahahaha
well, there is a grassroots movement I've seen in seattle to get all nuclear armaments out of the area, so I feel if cascadia existed as an independent country there'd be at least a little bit of support to return any armaments back to the us.
Fuck that, I'm not getting Ukraine'd.
Starter military for the new country
So did the Brits. Ghandi still got independence
I'm pretty sure there were no nuclear weapons in India before their independence.
Can we leave out the non coastal Jeffersonians?
Can we get hawaii too for our corrupt politician's vacation homes
Alaska can come too
Fuckin kangaroos
West Coat Re-Union
please call it the "New California Republic"
As long as it doesn't end up like Shady Sands.
I would prefer using an indigenous name for the region. But since california had so many tribes, perhaps that is impossible.
So many tribes in the New California Republic!
Makes sense considering every day we get closer to nuclear warfare (and Trump plans on invading Canada)
We honestly never really finished the last one. Reconstruction got the rug pulled out from underneath it.
We have a history of being soft on treason
In part because we only exist due to treason.
At least the American revolution wasn’t about keeping slavery
No, but the second was, and at this rate the third one probably will be.
I fear that is going to need settled more finally at some point. That tumor continues to fester.
No could about it. It absolutely would.
It's not come to anything. They tried this a few years ago and it failed. "approved for signature gathering" doesn't mean shit
just like that one movie, what's it called
Dude, Where's My Car?
Not sure if a joke, but Civil War?
Honestly at this point I feel the US would do great by splitting and becoming a confederation (think EU styles autonomy).
I think the differences are just too big to have a functioning state.
I also understand that the push towards these movements is often done by Russian propaganda, who want to do anything to split up the US and NATO.
I live in the EU, there are some good things but also ineffeciencies living in a confederation style government. To be fair, while consumer and labour protection in the EU has been amazing, we have to admit that there is almost no innovation in R&D going on in Europe as a whole compared to the US. Aside from strict regulations, this is because there is no single rule on how to promote R&D. Each countries have their own rules and promotions. Some states are innovators like Germany, or has no R&D at all like Ireland.
Another weakness that the EU has is on production and defense. As you rightly pointed out, Russia wants the West to fragment, and Russia wants the EU to remain chaotic when it comes to military production and have a disunited, if not an incoherent, European army. But external influence is not even the main issue, the main issue is that many EU countries are neutral like Ireland and Austria, who are not part of NATO. I don't know about Austria but it's very unpopular here in Ireland to join any military alliance and there is a negative image of NATO after the Iraq War. Finland and Sweden used to be anti-NATO until the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And with the legacy of the horrors of the Second World War, military production in Europe has been weak. Even though the EU has outstripped the US in terms of giving aid to Ukraine, much of these are non-military because European arms industries are struggling to produce. The US is still the primary military donor of Ukraine.
With different competing values and priorities, it's challenging for the EU to remain confederate. A lot of people advocate for the EU to federalise for this reason.
Nothing is perfect. I mean I’ve spent most my life living in the EU too. I just think it would work better than the current US system. But that’s my personal opinion.
Not unless you're dealing with external threats and unreliable ally. Macron is right about having strategic autonomy and an EU army, as much as it pains me to say it because I dislike another heavily militarised Europe.
As an American, I'm growing more and more scared of my country, so from that perspective I'm all for a more militarized Europe to keep the US in check if only for the next decade or two.
Your point on R&D, while true, doesn't consider the cost of the US R&D success. I'm not talking about money. I'm talking about it creating the oligarchs we have now. I'm talking about how all that investment doesn't go toward healthcare or generally improving the lives of the people. Personally, I think it is a bad trade.
Oh yeah, of course. That's why I mentioned consumer and labour protection versus R&D. I understand if companies that make essential goods and services like pharma or vehicles might complain of regulations stifling innovations, but social media companies like Facebook or Twitter don't provide anything essential to our daily lives and thus they don't really require anymore innovation. Sure they provide communications, but there are many other social media and communications services out there who do not sell private data.
I'm austrian, we literally can't join any military organisation, because our constitution says so, also it's very unpopular, the party that won the last election (FPÖ) is even against being in the eu, but most austrians like the eu, they don't wanna join nato tho
EDIT: also the somewhat libertarian party (NEOS) got over 10% of the votes if I remember correctly, so please don't take this country serios
If political ideologies were geography bound that would make great sense. Break it up, let the pieces govern themselves. But the problem is not everyone living in a red state is a Republican or maga fetishist and not everyone living in a blue state is a democrat or liberal.
Cities are usually liberal, rural is usually conservative. I'd personally advocate for an expanded, air tight bill of rights with a federal government capable and willing to enforce it and all remaining decisions and rules be set by the local community, either city or county. Abolish state governments and reform them into regional managers that upkeep shared resources like roads, but with no legislative power.
That's what the Articles of Confederation were, and they were a disaster that only managed to keep the union alive for 8 years because people could hold their nose until the Constitution was ratified.
... odd choice for a term ... Nobody in the EU would define themselves by it ...
Well, trying to use terms to justify the US confederacy post-Civil War aside, it would actually be better for a lot of states. The rest of the world can no longer trust and increasingly bipolar schizophrenic US, whereas that's not the case for a certain number of states. You can't overcome the deeply flawed and corrupt two party federal system, and it's rapidly becoming even worse. If you can't fix the problems from within, you will only be able to fix them from outside.
But… it is a confederation. Is it not? Why wouldn’t they? Even Wikipedia mentions confederation in the first paragraph of the EU entry:
I know they're not in the EU, but that's exactly what the Helvetic Confederation (Switzerland) do.
For all of the reasons given, secession from the United States is a bad idea. But I'm going to keep banging this drum: The metropolises need to secede from their states, while staying part of the United States. Heck, Los Angeles County alone has more people than 40 of the states. It's about time that they got fair representation.
Article IV Section 3 of the US constitution
If a state agrees, a new state can be formed in its territory, effectively splitting it.
And there is the rub. Conservative legislators won’t allow it in most states, because it would mean more Dems in congress.
Same in California for much the same reason. There has long been a Republican proposal to split it into 5 states so there are more Republican senators.
We could follow an approach like in the slavery days. Balance each new slave state with a free state.
NY is a very blue state on the strength of NYC. But I grew up upstate, and there were just so many differences. ITs not just that it was a conservative rural area, but it was hard to find anything in common with the city and it always felt like the city dominated and we were afterthoughts. There was definite resentment and I’m sure it hasn’t helped as upstate economies and population dwindle while NYC strengthens. At the time you could split the population pretty evenly between conservative upstate and liberal city: there’d be a new red state to balance the new blue state of Los Angeles, and everyone could more closely elect their preferences
For the record, we in NYC have unique needs that are sometimes time sensitive, see funding for tunnel doors after Sandy as an example. There was no intention to override or co-opt funds meant for people outside the metro area, we all live the beauty of the Hudson valley and so forth.
That need for expedience generates ill will nonetheless, I forgot how many politicos from the state area would purposely slow down city requests or legislation unless a deal was attached.
I’m a huge fan of high speed rail and always hoped that could bring us together.
The "forgetting the money" is one of the parts we city people grumble quite a bit about amongst ourselves whenever the upstate politicos play games with our funding needs.
Look, the goal of govt is supposed to be benefit as many as possible, though for some that seems to also mean ignore the few, which I strongly disagree with.
If we build an HSR system within the city e.g. by replacing metro-north tracks, city people immediately benefit.. but then the system can expand from there out to Schenectady, Albany buffalo etc. There's no reason we can't build your idea in a sensible, phased manner. We could go backwards too, start in buffalo and build south since the metro-north system is already fully functional.
I no longer live in NYC, but the years working for the MTA showed me a lot of the difficult, non-engineering problems to balance. Maybe there are ways to avoid the human problems associated with any large engineering project, but I don't yet know if any such shortcuts exist or ever existed.
Texas could split in five smaller states iirc.
I think it's probably neither allowed nor disallowed in state constitutions, but I'm just a dilettante constitutional scholar. Whether it's allowed or not under the current system, that system is broken and can't be fixed within the limitations of the system, and it needs a disruption. Disruptions tend to be unpleasant, so this is the least-disruptive disruption that I've come up with. There's even historical precedent for it, in the form of the free imperial cities of the Holy Roman Empire.
Lots of peoole didn't read the article
Balkanization is beginning
Well it's a start I guess.
Yeah, I can't think of a reason anyone would vote no on this. I'm excited to read their report.
It would be cool if they actually called themselves the NCR
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter...
Why would we though? There has and would be no break betwesn the original Bear Flag Revolt and the modern California Republic. We could definitely create CR Rangers tbough.
NUSA
There is only one state. There's no Union lol
Its NSA
Y'know, as unrealistic as this (probably? I'm not really sure of anything, anymore) is, seeing this pop up in my scrolling gave me a bit of relief. I've been so terrified and angry and anxious and unsure of the (immediate) future that it's practically paralyzed me. Knowing that this pipedream is there helped me breathe for a moment. I'll take what relief I can get right now.
Brexit didn't involve escaping a fascist dictatorship. In fact, the idea was come up with by fascists.
Welcome to the UK and congrats on already understanding more about the political landscape here than half of the voting population.
Ha! Thanks!
Oh, I agree, but I'll still take whatever anxiety relief I can get right now.
The question is, at what point is continued membership in the US a bigger problem than splitting from it would be?
California is large enough and prosperous enough that they could definitely make it as an independent nation, but the transition would be extremely difficult.
Okay, but then California becomes a smaller country bordering a much larger fascist neighbor with the largest military in the world.
In what world is that a good outcome?
They’d become a pretty large country with one of the world’s largest economies holding major port access to their neighbor. A few allies and things aren’t quite so clear cut. Not to mention they’d potentially have significant military resources.
That economy is tightly integrated with the rest of the country.
In a secession, those ties would be severed, likely tanking the economy of both California and the US.
That’s definitely possible. I’m not saying it would be a good thing. The only thing I feel confident about is that we do not know. A lot isn’t as it once seemed right now. Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!
If you think the US military wouldn't immediately remove all assets from California you'd be sorely mistaken. There is no way that the fed would allow assets like that to be given away to a successionist movement. Even if they didn't, California doesn't have the logistic ability to maintain those assets for more than id say 3 months.
If you think you know exactly how all installations, including National Guard Installations, would operate in a situation of this magnitude, I envy your blind certitude.
If they do start to secede or actually secede than it just becomes an expensive and complicated mess that doesn't help anyone. Because even if they are forced back then the larger federation has to work ten times harder to keep them in place and cooperative and in the end becomes a net negative where they have to decide if it's cheaper to let go or keep paying to stay together.
Ask a Canadian what it means because we've had that discussion many times with Quebec and less often with other regions. It's far cheaper for everyone to be cooperative and mutually benefiting one another on good terms than to threaten anyone into a corner ..... and even when things are working, it's still not easy.
Oregon and Washington would probably do the same if California seceded. (Which it won't). If BC Canada left, Cascadia would be a thing that is large and prosperous enough to stand on it's own. That or the three states just join Canada.
In what world did refusing to vote democrat in the last election result in a good outcome?
Sorry California, you will have to negotiate with Colorado and Arizona for your water. So basically you have to take us with you.
If they just kick out the alfalfa farmers and the almond farms, they don't need water imports.
They got desalination plants.
They cost $1m/min to run
$1,000 to $3,000 per acre-foot of water produced, which can translate to about $2,000 to $3,500 per acre-foot for smaller-scale projects .
1 acre-foot of water = 325,851 gallons
At $2,000 per acre-foot, the cost per gallon is about $0.0061 per gallon. Its really a range between $0.005 to $0.01 per gallon.
Of course you can just move to a state that has water. Everyone knows you can just drink river water and lake water without any treatment at all. Plus the convenience of living near a swamp, river, lake or flood plane is superb. Otherwise you would need to carry the water somewhere else than where it is. But sure, you're right, we shouldn't desalinate water. That's crazy!
Acre-foot? Fuck me that is a cursed unit. Americans really will use anything other than the metric system
https://youtube.com/shorts/Iu-H5QkBk-Y
Its done like that by the water authorities so that nobody knows what the ever living fuck they're talking about. So I agree with you on this.
Oooh oooh, now do one for the AI GPU farms. Now, a lot of people would argue these are not a comparable use of vital resources, what with water being critical for the survival of all life, and AI the current billionaire snake oil.
But I mean, what's really more important than generating capital to grow the net worth of a few people by a few percents so that we can input text to generate pictures of a sick-ass panther or stories that lose the plot less than three sentences in?
A single ChatGPT query requires 500ml of water, or let's say one water bottle. Meanwhile, a single cheeseburger requires 700 gallons of water or 5299 bottles.
The whole "AI is wasting all the water" argument is not as significant as it seems when you compare it to literally anything else we as humans do.
Electricity consumption, on the other hand...
Sorry, I thought we were talking about the amount of power desalination uses. Didn't even know AI consumes water.
edit: wait a minute--why the fuck does AI consume water???
Second edit: sorry, I got caught up in the original comment talking about the cost per minute for desalination, and immediately went to assuming they were talking about energy costs.
Ah, my bad, lol. Im dumb. I was stuck on water consumption ig. I shouldnt wake up and Lemmy...
River water and lake water are potable with minimal input, whereas desalination is prohibitively expensive. Unless there's a free energy source somehow, we're better off drinking river water or small beer as our ancestors did.
Did you look at the numbers I researched for you? Those numbers give you water ready to drink. Once the water gets the salt removed, you can drink it. The desalination is basically cleaning the water. If you got a water filter at home, get some pH measuring test strips and measure the pH of the water from your tap and from the filter. You'll find that there is a significant differences. It could be like two pH levels difference, and I think each level is one order of magnitude larger than the previous. So 100 times cleaner. Plus they get salt, which is a valuable byproduct.
FYI the pH of water is not a measurement of cleanliness, it is a measurement of the acidity-alkalinity. I am not sure if you were meaning that but it seems implied by your comment.
No, dude, I mean pH. The carbon in your filter will definitely alter the pH. PH is changed molecularly, so a filter for that must be chemical, electrical or both. Activated carbon is both. Plus all the gunk already trapped in it does like to react with the opposite charge.
This is fairly complicated stuff, its better to just give it a try.
Free energy?
Are you seriously wondering if California gets enough sunlight?
The negotiating:
If you don't give us water we wont send you the good you need to live
You'll die well before us in that waiting game, baby
Aren't a lot of crops grown in Mexico and imported through the Arizona channels? Because produce is way cheaper in Arizona than California.
🐻New California Republic🐻
And a fascist militia like Caesars legion willing to fuck around!
And the Dead Kennedys can write the anthem
It's nice to think about taking your ball and going home. However, if we denigrate Texas everytime they threaten to secede we really shouldn't be giving California a pass.
Edit- fix fat finger spelling
God dammit I find this so fucking hilarious. Every time a Republican wins you'll inevitably see an article talking about California is to leave. And on the flip side every time we get a Democrat in office fuckin Texas starts bitching and tryna leave.
I'm not going to say it'll never happen, but I would be willing to bet all the 7 dollars I have to my name that it's not gonna happen.
Well in fairness, the pendulum keeps swinging farther with each new administration. So the split is never going to happen until it does. No way to know if this is the time or not. But unless something happens to break the cycle of more and more extremism, their will be a serious attempt at a split eventually. Weather it results in some kind of civil war where one side forces the other to stay, or a split actually happens is also unknowable.
Wow, this comment section is wild.
Soooo many removed comments!
To anyone who saw them: without quitting them directly, what were their general sentiments?
Thanks for clarifying.
No you shut up jerk ass dorkbuttface
Ok, now I'm curious though. Are they all adjectives before "cloud" thus describing it? OR is a "fart cloud" per se? A cloud of fart, described by the preceding adjectives?
Atomized eau de fart
Idk what happened here, but this article was posted in other communities and that eran_morad person was leaving antagonistic comments
Yes, please. As a Californian who is already looking to move abroad, it would be a dream come true for my state to do it for me.
It will be the death of many reasonable people in red states though.
My heart goes out to the rational minority in the red states. My advice to them is to leave while they can, however they can. This very well could be a matter of life and death.
Easier said then done. I cannot afford that.
Your heart goes out to us, how sweet, I'll think of your heart when me and my friends who cannot leave are rounded up and sent to camps.
"Cannot leave?" My brother in Christ. If I honestly thought that my life was genuinely in danger of a violent end, should I remain where I am, I'd leave without hesitation. It costs nothing to get in your car and drive until you are across state lines RIGHT NOW, this very instant. I wouldn't worry about selling my house, closing escrow (or trying to communicate or formalize anything with a landlord, were I renting), "getting my affairs in order", or whatever else. I would first load up my car and then GTFO right goddamn NOW while I still draw breath. Yes, it'd be a hassle having to deal with those loose ends later, but my first priority would be my own self-preservation.
No, I think I'll stay and try to protect whoever I can. I'll probably get killed, I've more or less made peace with that.
That's at least a stance I can admire. Keep yourself and your loved ones safe. And if it comes to it, you show those fascists what hell looks like when it wears the skin of a gentle human.
Except, you know, the cost of the car and the gas and the food and shelter when you do get across state lines. All famously very cheap and affordable things.
Are you really waiting to be spoon fed? I never said everything would be gravy. I said if I was honestly certain I was going to die by staying in my state, I'd fucking leave NOW without waiting for jack shit. Everyone is going to have their own support and ways of surviving, and that's something to think about only AFTER I'm in a safe location. This is still going to be difficult, and you'll still have to actually think for yourself. But at least you won't be actively hunted anymore.
Spoon-fed? What? States are HUGE. If you don't ALREADY have a car you own, you gotta have fare for a bus or a train. If you don't? You have to walk, and that's not a realistic option for most people, particularly those who live in conservative areas spanning multiple states. God forbid you live in southern Texas. Cars are expensive, and fare for transportation out of state is also pretty damn expensive, especially since these dangerous areas tend to neglect their affordable public transport options. It's great that YOU have the money upfront to even start getting out. Not everyone has the privilege.
To be clear, I'm not arguing against getting out. I'm taking umbridge with your statement that "It costs nothing to get in your car..." etc. GETTING a car is a cost.
Look, I've got no dog in this fight, but in my opinion, something you need to make peace with is that the people in blue states have to watch out for themselves too, before the rot spreads too far and they find the modern day Gestapo on their own streets, killing their own people.
And if/when they do split, try to understand them, and blame the fascists, not those trying to escape from fascism.
Either way, if your life is threatened by fascists, I hope you'll survive and make it out. If you don't, I hope you'll put up a good fight, but that's up to you to decide, not me. I wish the best to all of you and hope that here in Europe we won't decide to follow through on the whole right-wing swing of the pendulum.
Something that might work out better and would be a lot easier to do (thought still not very easy), would be to split into 3 (or 4?) states.
California has almost 12% of the US population concentrated in that one state! By far most of the states contain about 2% or less of the US population each.
By splitting, the population would be better represented in the Senate with 6 senators between them instead of only 2, and there might be a net gain in some other benefits that are given on the state level.
edit: I see that someone had already brought this idea up, but IMO it's a good idea that they should seriously consider!
The right wing has wanted this for years because California is very conservative outside of its cities. Splitting the state up would guarantee a Republican Senate.
Depends on what you do with the cities. The Central Valley doesn't want to be its own state.
Careful. Texas has some long forgotten provision where they could easily do the same thing, into 5 states. and they'd all be red.
If they split California into 3, the northern state might be red (or swing) but the other two would definitely be blue because of SR and LA. Look at a map of election results by county.
With Texas, at least a couple of them would have to be blue because some would contain the blue urban areas. Same with FL, at least one new state would be blue. if CA, TX, and FL all did it. If they divided into 5 states it might even out. Of course there would have to be negotiations to get enough people and the parties to agree to the boundaries, which should prevent too much of an advantage to one side or the other, especially if people don't want their cities be split between two states.
But regardless of the results for the Senate, the point is that the people in most populous states of this country are not getting their fair representation in our federal government and that needs to change.
Then of course as long as we're altering our makeup of states, we have to give the citizens DC representation and make that a state. And Puerto Rico should be able to decide if it wants to become a state as well.
German here, so excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't it be easier to change the voting system to one that counts each vote as equal on a state level and get rid of the voting people stuff? Last time I checked you're no longer riding horses to Washington...
Country wide that requires a constitutional amendment, which requires 2/3 of all states to agree. It's been tried, the cuckservatives rage and bitch like the children they are because it would mean they'd never win again, so it never goes through
There's an effort to make it so that individual states will ignore the EC called NAPOVOINTERCO that would basically force the US to use a popular vote system, but it's not got enough individual states signed on yet to activate itself
When it comes to the US, this is a simple rule to follow: federal change is nearly impossible because of the babies in the GOP, while states are easier but can change a whole lot less overall
The State of Jefferson would have started this process, but WWII got in the way. Except that was all predicated on being super racist.
I think if you get a legit Cal3 proposal, you might end up with a Cal4 where they pull from the six-state version where "Silicon Valley" is its own state shows up so that there can be some technopolis with custom laws and insane cost of living. Essentially, turning SFO into another Manhattan.
I would never move back to CA as it is, but if there was a breakup, I might actually go for it.
The racists all wanted to leave the US because it wasn't racist enough. However now the racists are in power and they don't want to leave anymore.
Brexit was clever wordplay, every proposal since hasn't been. Fuckin "Calexit", do better.
Yeah, you don't get to just leave a country. Believe it or not, there was actually at least one war about that!
Fuck CBS for their cancer ass website.
Caleaveornia
Exit = vacate... Vacation...
Californication?
Caliagainstya
Dream of it lol
Californiout
Californexit
Adding -exit every time a region leaves some kind of alliance is going to be like adding -gate to every American political scandal
You mean like watergategate? https://youtu.be/vB9JgxhXW5w
And Brexit as wordplay was just a rehash of the prior Grexit moment Greece had...
Same for Make Britain Great Again
Good ol mibga
I know Cali won't HAVE to, but can they join Canada?
I know that a Canadian lawmaker offered to take Washington, Oregon and California as new provinces in response to Trump: https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/canadian-lawmaker-offers-take-washington-oregon-california-new-provinces/LPFT7I4AYBGCLHBKVOB2TIFQOQ/
Other than the "state of Jefferson" I think all three states would be interested
So is this one backed by Russia as well?
Likely.
Russia's goal isn't to support Republicans.
Russia's goal is to support anything and everything that splits the USA and NATO apart.
Itd never happen but secessions not an unpopular opinion whenever it's mentioned here, only republicans that have repeatedly said they want to leave and move out hate the idea for some reason
Do NOT fall for this shit, they’ve tried it before. This makes america an easy red majority and that’s the entire point of it. We’re in this together and not going anywhere
Fuck their red majority. Then those other states can secede too. Why should we continue to suffer for them?
Even in red states, liberal cities are getting fucked over by the electoral college. Hi from Utah lmao
There’s so much that needs fixing. I hate that it’s the fucking conservatives doing it. Fuck.
Lets suffer forever for ppl who hate us yay
“Guys, we can’t leave this facist dictatorship, because it’ll be even more facist without us.”
Promise for communism then
Think they'll accept refugees from other states of they go? I'm not exactly the most fit, but I'd join their military or fight their fires if it gets me some actual freedom.
Good for them
Shit my CA driver's license expired. Does that mean I'll need to apply for citizenship or will old residents be good?
Fight for better more fair representation, secession solves nothing.
They could join Denmark
You wanna do it Cali, do it before the iron curtain comes falling down. Shit or get off the pot, ya'll might not get another chance.
CA better get their hands on some ICBMs. Keep one pointed at DC, and another pointed at Mar-a-Lago. It's pretty much the only way a state can keep its sovereignty.
It's a moot point anyway, though, because the ruling post-Civil war (Texas v. White, specifically) determined that unilateral secession was not allowed. In order for California to leave they would either have to come to an agreement with the Federal government to do so (or a majority of all other state legislatures, or something... there's no precedent) or fight a war against the rest of the union and win, forcing capitulation and a concession.
Both possibilities seem extremely remote.
This is only posturing, and even if it passes it is not designed to result in California actually leaving the union.
I wish they could knock on my door, but the building is secured from visitors. I'll sign if I see someone posted at a table on the sidewalk. I'm done with this shit country.
If this movement has any ground game, they may send a volunteer to your home at a time of your choosing to collect your signatures. Let’s say you had a small gathering of like minded friends? They would be there before the Domino’s guy.
Serious petition movements have a volunteer system set up where they mobilize passionate people with flexible schedules (i.e. usually adorable old ladies or the funemployed). They have to have a website with contact info.
I think it would be a very interesting national debate if this got traction, perhaps even a productive one.
That's an interesting idea. I'll pay attention if this gains traction and keep this in mind. Thanks!
Remember how the federal government treated the south when they tried to secede. And people still celebrate it, not without good reason. But they didn't just go to war to stop it, they burned the south to the ground.
Well, there are two big differences.
The ethical one, the South wanted to secede to keep their slaves, and to clarify because the term slavery has been run ragged by propaganda, they wanted to keep their forced labour/death camps where they could kill, maim, rape, buy and sell people, also children, and have them do backbreaking, crippling work to enrich themselves.
On the other hand, California is contemplating this because the South, after losing their war, did a 200 year psyop to get a rapist and a bona-fide sieg heiling Nazi in power to force California to drop initiatives that would keep the Earth inhabitable and let their citizens live in peace.
The pragmatic one is that while the South was what it was, California is still an economic powerhouse accounting for 20% of the US economy. If they would secede, and bring a few like-minded states with them, it's not the least bit implausible that the South would be doing the burning again.
All that said, the Russians and the Chinese are salivating at this idea I'm sure.
Do that to CA and you're shooting yourself in the foot as the US
Destroying your most important ports and where more than 50% of your agriculture nationwide comes from is not a good idea
Absolutely nobody can accuse the right of being smart
Which is exactly why they would burn it to the ground. The federal government would never let California, let alone any state, secede peacfully. They can't risk losing those resources and would destroy them before allowing them to be competition.
Was it really? I was under the impression that they mostly were agricultural, while the north had all the light and heavy industries... (sorry, I'm not american)
You are correct. It heavily contributed to their loss. Without international support, or the industries to leverage that support they were isolated, poor and out of manpower.
If Union leadership was better in the beginning we would have seen them rolled much faster.
A huge reason the south lost was because they were NOT an economic powerhouse...
Much like today.
CA is already burning due to mismanagement. So....
TIL wind=mismanagement
Climate change = mismanagement on the part of pretty much the whole world. So technically correct.
Question: what things were done in the 80's to prep for wildfires? Do they do any of those things today?
So you don't actually know what you're talking about and yet you commented anyway?
I was alive in the 80s, I definitely know what I'm talking about. If you can't answer the question though, then you obviously do not.
Fuck off you empty headed dumb fucking sea lion sack of shit.
No.
And they were right to. Sherman and John Brown are national heros and we could use them again.
Terrible idea not only for Californians but also the rest of America. Yes California produces a lot and has a huge economy but succeeding would remove almost any big tech headquarters immediately. Silicon valley would be dead. No company is going to willingly pay export fees for every single product they make. They will all move their headquarters somewhere they can freely sell to the other 49 states and force the export fees on California
The additional import/export taxes on top of all the retalitory tariffs that would be placed on the citizens would be crazy.
Everything you just said sounds fantastic
A bunch of them have already been moving to Texas.
Not to mention that it would be utterly non-functional for all states which share water from the Colorado River to not be part of the same organizational unit. Any smaller secession than that would lead to instant water wars.
https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/watershed-map-north-america
This is a watershed map of North America that expresses your point visually. Every colored area is drained by a different major river system. The Central Valley and urban centers of socal draw heavily from the Colorado watershed which would otherwise drain naturally into the sea of cortez in Baja Mexico.
It’s a sticky wicket once you think these things through.
And I have! It will result in snapping the USA nearly in half.
The article basically says they will form a committee to investigate how to mitigate this type of problem.
Even if it's a terrible idea economically (which it probably is), it may still have support from an ideological perspective, and that depends just how messed up federal politics becomes in the next 3 years.
Brexit was really only purportedly economically motivated - it was really an ideological idea.
Join the EU and NATO, let's see how it plays out!
gsybdkzbayvfisg yes!! balkanize hahahahahah this would be hilarious please
Putin wins
Do they join Mexico?
The remaining Blue States should do the same. Common sense should prevail and it would allow the MAGAts to create their racist neo-Nazi White Christian slave run utopia dictatorship without resistance from those who support the US Constitution.
This is stupid and a pointless gesture. Do something more productive with your time.
Seems like a good idea but it's not like we can pull out without some kind of fight.
Please don't leave California. If you do a lot more states will follow and all the vulnerable minorities that were trapped in red states will be trapped in fascist countries.
Plus, you know Trump will invade y'all right? All that US military stuff lying around doesn't suddenly become property of the state. Half the Navy trains in San Diego, you think those bootlickers aren't going to blockade your ports and cut your imports off entirely?
If anything maybe break up into smaller states?
I hate violence, but at this point, I see no other option. Civil war is not unthinkable and some assholes want to force it upon us.
That may be, but no sense helping them do it.
They really don't give a shit. So much for Solidarity, fucking liberal bastards.
quest for panama i̴͍͌̈͠n̴̪̻̆͌ţ̸̲͔̐ȩ̸́̈́̅̕ṋ̸͖͇̀̂s̷͍̿͗̇̉i̸̠̤̝̜͛́f̶̨͍͓̠̓́ì̶̧͖̟͊e̸̫͎̦͐́̔͠ș̷͕̓̀̍̈́
Haha. Yeah that’s gonna be fun to watch.
Yeah you are, go back to your red state and fight your own fight. Leave the solid blue strip out of it.
California? You mean the state owned by the tech oligarchy that is (according to you) the current ruling class of the entire country?
🤣 You people crave an enemy so much, you can't keep your stories straight!
HQ wise: Musk exited to Texas.
Oracle is in Texas.
Microsoft is in Washington.
Amazon is in Washington.
Google, FB and Nvidia are in CA.
The tech bros don't want to hire people in CA because salaries are too high. They do because that's where a lot of coding talent is, but they also tend to have offices all over the world and produce as much work as possible offshore where labor costs are minimized. It's why basically nothing is manufactured in CA, let alone the US. When things are manufactured here it's almost always in places that use the $7.25 federal minimum wage, not states with a $16.50 minimum wage or where transportation costs are prohibitively expensive compared to local labor.
You understand that things change over time, right? Silicone Valley tech giants like Facebook had an extremely cozy relationship with Obama, and they've been heavily involved with Democratic politics for years.
Now they're pivoting right; Zuckerberg didn't donate to Harris this year, even though he'd donated $400 million to Democrats the previous election cycle, and he's now adopting Trump's, "anti-woke," bullshit. Musk, who made a killing on Obama's electric vehicle subsidies, is now doing Nazi salutes at Trump's inauguration.
A lot of this has to do with how social media algorithms are driving people down right-wing conspiracy rabbit holes. Democrats blame a lot of their losses since 2016 on, "fake news," and online misinformation, and have begun demanding small amounts of accountability from tech giants. In response, the tech industry has been slowly moving rightward over the last eight years, and now seem to fully embrace Trump.
So, yes, California is basically owned by tech oligarchs, and it is also mostly run by Democrats. Until very recently, those two groups weren't at odds, and now that they are, we are just beginning to see what that conflict will mean for California and the rest of the country.