Jump to content

How "New California" Voted Recently


Ryusei the Morning Star

Recommended Posts

Apparently it's splitting the state in two. It's not at all like Calexit, and closer to the "Three Californias" initiative that Tim Draper is currently trying to get on the ballot.

 

I also noticed that the more "high-end" parts of California would be cut off from the rest, and I think its stupid to cut yourself off from the massive amount of revenue that goes into those parts of the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh sh!t, I just thought, if California does this then that means the new law they passed that legalized weed for recreational use officially becomes null and void and would have to passed again twice over in both of those "new" states. Why are they so dumb to completely eradicate a monumental achievement like that? I don't for the life of me understand this rationale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that Democrats want control of the senate and will resort to something like this to get it.

 

edit: IDK

Based on what Winter was saying in his status update about this, I'd sooner expect this to be a play by Republicans trying to reclaim control over this territory. However, I'm not quite sure if I want to blame any party for this. While partition is separate from secession, this does remind me of the California National Party, which explicitly seeks to be separate from Democrats and Republicans, and scorn both parties.

 

If California wants to funk themselves, by all means.  I don't live there.  I'm sure it will affect me in the long run, but I'm already dead inside so que sera sera.

 

As someone who does live in California, all these prospects are genuinely terrifying to me. Whether it's secession or partitioning, these options just make me feel uncomfortable, and look like nothing more than retaliation from people who are completely selfish, and put themselves above everyone else, the rest of California or even the entire United States be damned.

 

I also noticed that the more "high-end" parts of California would be cut off from the rest, and I think its stupid to cut yourself off from the massive amount of revenue that goes into those parts of the state.

From what I've seen, the motives are either being jealous that they don't get any revenue to begin with, or they want to keep it all to themselves.

 

It's important to note that the people who want "New California" have only declared their intent to secede, and have not actually done much to ensure this dependence beyond declaring their intent. I've never heard about this until just now, though it's hard to keep track of the various failing initiatives desperately trying to either cut up or cut off America.

 

I've seen comparisons to West Virginia - which the intended residents of "New California" are also marking - but I'm citing Tim Draper because that's the more relevant and recent example, and he is citing the same article as well. So it seems like this comes down to Tim Draper vs. New California, as those are two initiatives that are in direct competition of one another.

 

Oh sh!t, I just thought, if California does this then that means the new law they passed that legalized weed for recreational use officially becomes null and void and would have to passed again twice over in both of those "new" states. Why are they so dumb to completely eradicate a monumental achievement like that? I don't for the life of me understand this rationale.

I doubt we'll be doing this. You have Yes California (Although their sycophancy towards Russia is suspect), the California Freedom Coalition, the California National Party, and Tim Draper. These are various people, organizations, and aspiring parties, none of which have gained significant traction over here.

 

They've also said that it will be about 10 to 18 months before they can work with the state legislature on this. And this does require an actual vote. Don't jump the gun on this and act like it's a done deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also noticed that the more "high-end" parts of California would be cut off from the rest, and I think its stupid to cut yourself off from the massive amount of revenue that goes into those parts of the state.

LA county costs the state so much & San Fan/Sac are apart of that too.

 

They want to be run differently. 

Based on what Winter was saying in his status update about this, I'd sooner expect this to be a play by Republicans trying to reclaim control over this territory. However, I'm not quite sure if I want to blame any party for this. While partition is separate from secession, this does remind me of the California National Party, which explicitly seeks to be separate from Democrats and Republicans, and scorn both parties.

 

 

As someone who does live in California, all these prospects are genuinely terrifying to me. Whether it's secession or partitioning, these options just make me feel uncomfortable, and look like nothing more than retaliation from people who are completely selfish, and put themselves above everyone else, the rest of California or even the entire United States be damned.

 

From what I've seen, the motives are either being jealous that they don't get any revenue to begin with, or they want to keep it all to themselves.

 

It's important to note that the people who want "New California" have only declared their intent to secede, and have not actually done much to ensure this dependence beyond declaring their intent. I've never heard about this until just now, though it's hard to keep track of the various failing initiatives desperately trying to either cut up or cut off America.

 

I've seen comparisons to West Virginia - which the intended residents of "New California" are also marking - but I'm citing Tim Draper because that's the more relevant and recent example, and he is citing the same article as well. So it seems like this comes down to Tim Draper vs. New California, as those are two initiatives that are in direct competition of one another.

 

I doubt we'll be doing this. You have Yes California (Although their sycophancy towards Russia is suspect), the California Freedom Coalition, the California National Party, and Tim Draper. These are various people, organizations, and aspiring parties, none of which have gained significant traction over here.

 

They've also said that it will be about 10 to 18 months before they can work with the state legislature on this. And this does require an actual vote. Don't jump the gun on this and act like it's a done deal.

It'd keep or increase democrat power. NCa is a blue leaning swing state. Dems have won it 2/4 times with romney barely edging Obama

 

CA would keep it's two dem senators, and NCa would likely have atleast 1 dem senator 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like some kinda advance form of gerrymandering from an outsider perspective but I also image that the rural folk are a bit tired of the entire state being dragged along by such a small part of it. I've driven the length of the state several times and talked to enough people there to know how real the divide is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'd keep or increase democrat power. NCa is a blue leaning swing state. Dems have won it 2/4 times with romney barely edging Obama

 

CA would keep it's two dem senators, and NCa would likely have atleast 1 dem senator 

 

Looks more like it's directing power away from the blue parts of the state and concentrating on boosting red state. Snatch Steal's comment was backwards, because it's actually the Republicans who are trying to take power.

 

Seems like some kinda advance form of gerrymandering from an outsider perspective but I also image that the rural folk are a bit tired of the entire state being dragged along by such a small part of it. I've driven the length of the state several times and talked to enough people there to know how real the divide is.

 

Thank you. Yes, it's very much gerrymandering. The goal of this isn't necessarily to create another swing state. It's retaliating against a swing state that swung blue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks more like it's directing power away from the blue parts of the state and concentrating on boosting red state. Snatch Steal's comment was backwards, because it's actually the Republicans who are trying to take power.

 

 

Thank you. Yes, it's very much gerrymandering. The goal of this isn't necessarily to create another swing state. It's retaliating against a swing state that swung blue.

It's not cause the democrats literally cannot lose power over this particular split

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this was actual secession, then I'd be raging like a mofo because of how cowardly I think that is. If their just splitting the state up into more than 1 but staying in the union, good for them we've done that before in our history (North and South Dakota). Btw, its gonna be a b***h for them to figure out taxes, the electoral college, not to mention the nightmare of figuring out new area codes and how to set-up and distribute electric, gas, and water for the residents. I hope they have fun with this.


It's a baby dragon looking back at his mom

 

and then the mom abandoned the poor baby dragon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this was actual secession, then I'd be raging like a mofo because of how cowardly I think that is. If their just splitting the state up into more than 1 but staying in the union, good for them we've done that before in our history (North and South Dakota). Btw, its gonna be a b***h for them to figure out taxes, the electoral college, not to mention the nightmare of figuring out new area codes and how to set-up and distribute electric, gas, and water for the residents. I hope they have fun with this.

 

and then the mom abandoned the poor baby dragon

The baby dragon was the manifestation of everything wrong with the world 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question, when moving something to debates/general do you remove the misc posts or do those sometimes get reported?

 

From what I've seen, Dad usually lets the misc posts stay up, since it wouldn't make sense to remove them retroactively. It's more just that future posts are to keep more towards the primary topic. So, old posts can stay, just be more careful in the future.

 

Cause San Fran and LA warp the state in ways that are unfair to those who don't wanna live like them?

Alright, I'm curious. Could you please elaborate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question, when moving something to debates/general do you remove the misc posts or do those sometimes get reported?

 

I typically don't remove the misc posts unless someone really feels bothered by them.  If the thread started in misc but was moved to general and no posts after I've moved it are "misc-like" or spam, then they're fine.  If the posts are made after I move the thread and they are "misc-like" or spam, then I'll act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...