Jump to content

Three California Initiative Makes November Ballot


Nathanael D. Striker

Recommended Posts

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-split-three-states-20180612-story.html

 

For those unaware of what this entails, it would attempt to invoke Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution so that California could be split into three states of roughly equal population. Yes, this is from the same guy who tried doing six Californias.

 

Honestly, I'll be paying closer attention to this now that it has made the ballot, especially due to the political ramifications of its passage. Anyway, discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit surprised this made it, though I've been dreading this lately. I'm a bit dubious of the chances of this passing, mostly because it's blatantly an attempt to try and create more red districts. It's effectively gerrymandering, so I don't see a blue state like California supporting this.

This actually isn't true, all three districts voted for Hillary & Obama

 

It would turn 2 Blue Senators into atleast 4, likely 6

 

It's honestly better for you 

DfjJ5VLWkAEtjAr.jpg

 

DfjJ6lKWAAAB9Ec.jpg

 

DfjJ7bbX0AU6l85.jpg

 

 

DfjJ8YLX4AA6hJl.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while it's not surprising to hear california really doesn't get along with california, how far this goes will be determined solely by who can be bothered to vote on it.

 

as for gerrymandering, it's not quite the same. there's been a lot of news over the past ew years about how a lot of californians aren't happy with the laws passed by the state recently, and this may well be an effort to break off from that yoke as cleanly as possible. it might shake up the ballots a bit, but gerrymandering (at least purely for more red/blue voters), from what i've seen and heard from california, isn't the motive behind it. it seems to be more about avoiding the laws that have been passed in california as of late, that none but a small majority of people (those people "coincidentally" being in the most blue section of winter's above map) supported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while it's not surprising to hear california really doesn't get along with california, how far this goes will be determined solely by who can be bothered to vote on it.

 

as for gerrymandering, it's not quite the same. there's been a lot of news over the past ew years about how a lot of californians aren't happy with the laws passed by the state recently, and this may well be an effort to break off from that yoke as cleanly as possible. it might shake up the ballots a bit, but gerrymandering (at least purely for more red/blue voters), from what i've seen and heard from california, isn't the motive behind it. it seems to be more about avoiding the laws that have been passed in california as of late, that none but a small majority of people (those people "coincidentally" being in the most blue section of winter's above map) supported.

 

Between this and Paul Preston's "New California", both of these initiatives are being pushed by conservatives. They bemoan a supposed "mono-party" system, and referring to "a lot of Californians" is a non-specific group that by no means elaborates on why those residents would be unhappy with the laws, and by extension, why that would motivate them to break off from the rest of the state.

 

I describe it as gerrymandering because, given how the Republicans who have filed these petitions dislike the Democratic majority, this seems like an attempt to gain more seats. Splitting the state in three would not mean they escape those laws, because while one of the proposed states is called "California", it does not mean that the hypothetical Northern California and Southern California will suddenly be freed from those laws, and that they only affect 

 

Here is the initiative measure's full text. https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/17-0018%20(Three%20Californias)_1.pdf

 

Within it you will not see what you claim to be any claim to avoid the laws. While Tim Draper does not also define his intentions as gerrymander, I frankly don't believe he would, though he does say the following:

 

 

As a consequence of these and other socio-economic factors, political representation of California's diverse population and economies has rendered the state nearly ungovernable. Additionally, vast parts of California are poorly served by a representative government dominated by a large number of elected representatives from a small part of our state, both geographically and economically.

 

Taking his word at face value, his main concern seems to be addressing a perceived lack of proper political representation. In other words, it's not about the laws in and of themselves, but about the lawmakers. While the proposed states lean Democrat, they're more likely to become swing states, or at least make the states slightly less "safe" for Democrat seats. It's a highly risky gamble that could backfire horribly on Tim Draper, but it effectively gives Republicans more opportunities to take seats in California.

 

Going with your point about that that small majority of people "coincidentally" being the most blue section, that's exactly why I'm saying this is gerrymandering. It has the smallest population of the three, but the largest gap between R and D voters. It's portioning the Democratic state into the smallest region. Even if it's not that much smaller than the other two, it's still a rather suspect choice. It's also contained with the region of California that Paul Preston wants to portion off while claiming that the rest is "New California".

 

"Gerrymandering" may not be the proper word that exactly describes it. But it certainly looks like that's what Draper is trying to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

californians wanting to split apart is not anything new at least, i've been hearing about it since late 2016, but there's quite a few reasons californians would want to break apart, for one, the majority of the people in charge there are democrats, and the ability to actually gain seats as a republican is next to null due to the population difference between the conservative countryside, and the liberal cities. it's been an issue that republican californians have had for a while, but was considered tolerable because they at least were passing laws that were within the spirit of the constitution, and were arguably with the public's best interests in mind. that is no longer the case.

 

 

among the more recent laws to be passed in california, we have two or three that relate to either heavy restrictions on the 2nd amendment, or even stricter regulations on ammo capacity, not doing the gun argument here, i'll make a thread if you want, but needless to say, conservatives, and even a few liberals, are against both of those laws. then we have the law regulating cow flatulence (pretty sure it's been struck down since, but i haven't actually heard anything) this, of course, upsetting the countryside farmers who happen to already have enough trouble raising cows (would you like to remain in a state that's regulating the amount of farts your cows can make?). and next up we've got barring law enforcement from working with border patrol, which as you might have guessed, is another extremely unpalatable law for anybody on the right, or anybody who doesn't like illegal immigration. speaking of which, california is incredibly lax on illegal immigration, something that i'm sure many liberals agree with, but simply does not sit well with most, if anybody, on the conservative side. then there's the continuous push towards socialism, which has done pretty much nothing for the country, and is doing even less for the people. on top of that, you have the fact that it's legal to knowingly pass on STI's, with no consequence whatsover, to people who might not even be able to find out properly whether they have them or not, because the laws of said state just so happen to be helping block the expansion of the valuable practitioner role, which plays yet another part in the steady decline of california's health and economy. i can keep going on that train of thought, but it's late and i'm tired.

 

call it whatever you like, but when the state's going broke at an astounding speed, illegal immigrants are, many times, draining the free resources of the state without putting anything back by way of either taxes, or in many cases work, the drug problem runs rampant due to unchecked borders, which remain unchecked because controlling immigration into the state is being hindered by the democrtats in power, the and the amount of hindering laws and binding restrictions grows by the year, and a complete overhaul of the rulers in said state would be neccecary to reverse the current path (not to mention the continuing divide between blue and red ideologies within that very state), would you not argue that a clean break is the best option? just about everything that blue california does, is reprehensible from a red standpoint, and vice-versa. breaking it off mitigates conflict, and holding it to a vote, gives everybody a fair say in it (not voting is in and of itself admission that you are fine with whatever outcome occurs imo). that's all i have to say on it for now though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny thing is, at least in the places I've been around the state (which mostly fall into "California" and "Southern California"), most people I've talked to think that this is a terrible, pointless bill.

 

I'll be perfectly honest, though: Even though I think it's stupid, and most of the people I've talked to think it's stupid . . . there's no telling if it'll go through or not. One of the commercials advocating the split is trying to say that there isn't enough money being distributed to schools, but that isn't a problem of just whoever's in office- a lot of local officials just think they can pocket the cash that's supposed to go to the school system, which leads to nonsense like my local school district going through four different primary administrators during my childhood, and my having to attend every one of those protests. The money going to schools from the state government has increased, even in the more rundown urban districts, but the actual amounts reaching the schools are decreasing due to sheer greed among the people distributing said cash. The split won't do anything to fix that, and will only create more expensive bureaucracy that will take more money away from things like the emergency services we just reappropriated money towards.

 

I'm not going to say that people will be smart enough to vote against something that won't accomplish anything positive- I've been disappointed by human stupidity enough times- but I hope that this gets shot down fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sane republican would vote for this bill. Maybe. JUST MAYBE. If they gave Fresno to Norcal, then SOCAL would be a Red state, but even then you're making 4 new Dem senators and maybe 2 new GOP ones


 
Between this and Paul Preston's "New California", both of these initiatives are being pushed by conservatives. They bemoan a supposed "mono-party" system, and referring to "a lot of Californians" is a non-specific group that by no means elaborates on why those residents would be unhappy with the laws, and by extension, why that would motivate them to break off from the rest of the state.
 
I describe it as gerrymandering because, given how the Republicans who have filed these petitions dislike the Democratic majority, this seems like an attempt to gain more seats. Splitting the state in three would not mean they escape those laws, because while one of the proposed states is called "California", it does not mean that the hypothetical Northern California and Southern California will suddenly be freed from those laws, and that they only affect 
 
Here is the initiative measure's full text. https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/17-0018%20(Three%20Californias)_1.pdf
 
Within it you will not see what you claim to be any claim to avoid the laws. While Tim Draper does not also define his intentions as gerrymander, I frankly don't believe he would, though he does say the following:

 

 

 

Taking his word at face value, his main concern seems to be addressing a perceived lack of proper political representation. In other words, it's not about the laws in and of themselves, but about the lawmakers. While the proposed states lean Democrat, they're more likely to become swing states, or at least make the states slightly less "safe" for Democrat seats. It's a highly risky gamble that could backfire horribly on Tim Draper, but it effectively gives Republicans more opportunities to take seats in California.

 

Going with your point about that that small majority of people "coincidentally" being the most blue section, that's exactly why I'm saying this is gerrymandering. It has the smallest population of the three, but the largest gap between R and D voters. It's portioning the Democratic state into the smallest region. Even if it's not that much smaller than the other two, it's still a rather suspect choice. It's also contained with the region of California that Paul Preston wants to portion off while claiming that the rest is "New California".

 

"Gerrymandering" may not be the proper word that exactly describes it. But it certainly looks like that's what Draper is trying to do.

Roxas are you funking blind. You're creating 2 states that are over D+20

 

You know what else is D+20? Nothing. Vermont the most liberal state in the nation is only D+15

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index

 

Your inability to do basic math is stunning. But please don't let me stop you from a self-own


Swings states like Virginia (the most blue swing state) is D+0.5 the most Conservative ones are like R+3

 

Socal would only be a swing state if you count Oregon as a swing state too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roxas are you funking blind. 

 

Your inability to do basic math is stunning. But please don't let me stop you from a self-own

 

This is why you get warned so much.  You have no self-control.  It's like monitoring an actual toddler.  Literally, none of this was necessary.  I don't understand how you get punished so much, jabroni about it, and then turn right back around and do the same thing.  I don't understand it at all. 

 

You could've left all of this out and still made a great point.  But once again, you've proven you can't control yourself.  It's astounding how many times we have to go through this.  And now, once more, I'm going to have to take the discussion up about how to deal with Winter in a situation that could've been avoided if he had any sense of managing his own conduct.

 

No, it's not ban worthy.  But holy sheet it's really funking stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why you get warned so much. You have no self-control. It's like monitoring an actual toddler. Literally, none of this was necessary. I don't understand how you get punished so much, jabroni about it, and then turn right back around and do the same thing. I don't understand it at all.

 

You could've left all of this out and still made a great point. But once again, you've proven you can't control yourself. It's astounding how many times we have to go through this. And now, once more, I'm going to have to take the discussion up about how to deal with Winter in a situation that could've been avoided if he had any sense of managing his own conduct.

 

No, it's not ban worthy. But holy sheet it's really funking stupid.

He literally made the same stupid comment about it creating multiple red states. I cited stats to the contrary. He Ignores and repeates false talking points

 

There are only three options, he is being intellectually dishonest, he can't see the post, or he's too dumb to interpret the post.

 

Maybe the reason this sub has just died recently with people like brightflame and halu vanishing altogether is due to you guys tripping over each other to SJW this place up. If Roxas or anyone can't understand a D+20 state isn't a swing state then it's their problem

 

This is like a kid saying 1+1=3, you correct them, and they start saying 1+1 =3 again

 

"Discuss" it all you want. The matter is already settled becuase the mod team loves to side with the thinskinned side, especially when I'm the defendent.

 

Like remeber that time when I get warned for calling Enguin a Nazi but it's all fine for you to gloat about punching Nazis and for half this forum to call me a Nazi. I jabroni you guys pull double and triple standards out of your funking asses to pander to the feels

 

Do w/e you guys want, an impressive effort has already been done to just eradicate this section's activity. If Roxas wants to vote agaisnt a prop that would net 2-4 New Democrat senators it's on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He literally made the same stupid comment about it creating multiple red states. I cited stats to the contrary. He Ignores and repeates false talking points

 

There are only three options, he is being intellectually dishonest, he can't see the post, or he's too dumb to interpret the post.

 

Maybe the reason this sub has just died recently with people like brightflame and halu vanishing altogether is due to you guys tripping over each other to SJW this place up. If Roxas or anyone can't understand a D+20 state isn't a swing state then it's their problem

 

This is like a kid saying 1+1=3, you correct them, and they start saying 1+1 =3 again

 

"Discuss" it all you want. The matter is already settled becuase the mod team loves to side with the thinskinned side, especially when I'm the defendent.

 

Like remeber that time when I get warned for calling Enguin a Nazi but it's all fine for you to gloat about punching Nazis and for half this forum to call me a Nazi. I jabroni you guys pull double and triple standards out of your funking asses to pander to the feels

 

Do w/e you guys want, an impressive effort has already been done to just eradicate this sections activity

 

The fact that you couldn't explain any of that without the littlest bit of restraint or that you somehow think this type of reinforcement is most effective on children is part of the problem.  You can't admit fault, you whine when you get in trouble, and then you turn into a victim.

 

This is your own fault.  I'm always defending you.  And frankly, I'm tired of it.  Thin skin, no skin, tough skinned, I don't care.  It's as simple as don't do it.  And if you can't not do it (i.e., follow the rules), then you'll be punished.  I don't care how SJW it is.  I don't care if the section dies because of it.  You're not special.  You, and everyone else who is guilty of this will be punished accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose you think the proper course of action is to just keep citing my post over and over

 

Ofc it's my fault. Roxas was being boneheaded willfully or not. Also calling someone blind for literally not reading a post is barely ad hom if that's what I'm guilty of

 

You've warned me like once in the last month under the typical kangaroo court secret modforum jury. I used to get warned daily back in Night's day. So it's not like things haven't changed

 

Stopping with blind was restraint. You guys do have double standards and nebulous rules designed to create crimes for your desired punishment. That's doesn't make me any more of a victim than anyone else who gets on the wrong side of that. I stand by my post. And intentionally wrote it.

 

Like Holy sheet

 

You're acting like I called his mother a whore and asked for him to be shot. I literally just sarcastically asked if he was blind since he blatantly ignored a post in response to his false assertions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose you think the proper course of action is to just keep citing my post over and over

 

Ofc it's my fault. Roxas was being boneheaded willfully or not. Also calling someone blind for literally not reading a post is barely ad hom if that's what I'm guilty of

 

You've warned me like once in the last month under the typical kangaroo court secret modforum jury. I used to get warned daily back in Night's day. So it's not like things haven't changed

 

Stopping with blind was restraint. You guys do have double standards and nebulous rules designed to create crimes for your desired punishment. That's doesn't make me any more of a victim than anyone else who gets on the wrong side of that. I stand by my post. And intentionally wrote it.

 

Like Holy sheet

 

You're acting like I called his mother a whore and asked for him to be shot. I literally just sarcastically asked if he was blind since he blatantly ignored a post in response to his false assertions

 

You really don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway

 

This proposal creates 2 new Vermont level liberal states and something in range of New Mexico

 

SoCal has historically been close and maybe 2016 was an aberation, but as demographics shift as the GOP gains low education folks and bleeds rich whites it's gonna get bluer.

 

The proposed map is a godsend for Dems and I can't believe they're being dumb enough to try to sink it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

californians wanting to split apart is not anything new at least, i've been hearing about it since late 2016, but there's quite a few reasons californians would want to break apart, for one, the majority of the people in charge there are democrats, and the ability to actually gain seats as a republican is next to null due to the population difference between the conservative countryside, and the liberal cities. it's been an issue that republican californians have had for a while, but was considered tolerable because they at least were passing laws that were within the spirit of the constitution, and were arguably with the public's best interests in mind. that is no longer the case.

 

 

among the more recent laws to be passed in california, we have two or three that relate to either heavy restrictions on the 2nd amendment, or even stricter regulations on ammo capacity, not doing the gun argument here, i'll make a thread if you want, but needless to say, conservatives, and even a few liberals, are against both of those laws. then we have the law regulating cow flatulence (pretty sure it's been struck down since, but i haven't actually heard anything) this, of course, upsetting the countryside farmers who happen to already have enough trouble raising cows (would you like to remain in a state that's regulating the amount of farts your cows can make?). and next up we've got barring law enforcement from working with border patrol, which as you might have guessed, is another extremely unpalatable law for anybody on the right, or anybody who doesn't like illegal immigration. speaking of which, california is incredibly lax on illegal immigration, something that i'm sure many liberals agree with, but simply does not sit well with most, if anybody, on the conservative side. then there's the continuous push towards socialism, which has done pretty much nothing for the country, and is doing even less for the people. on top of that, you have the fact that it's legal to knowingly pass on STI's, with no consequence whatsover, to people who might not even be able to find out properly whether they have them or not, because the laws of said state just so happen to be helping block the expansion of the valuable practitioner role, which plays yet another part in the steady decline of california's health and economy. i can keep going on that train of thought, but it's late and i'm tired.

 

call it whatever you like, but when the state's going broke at an astounding speed, illegal immigrants are, many times, draining the free resources of the state without putting anything back by way of either taxes, or in many cases work, the drug problem runs rampant due to unchecked borders, which remain unchecked because controlling immigration into the state is being hindered by the democrtats in power, the and the amount of hindering laws and binding restrictions grows by the year, and a complete overhaul of the rulers in said state would be neccecary to reverse the current path (not to mention the continuing divide between blue and red ideologies within that very state), would you not argue that a clean break is the best option? just about everything that blue california does, is reprehensible from a red standpoint, and vice-versa. breaking it off mitigates conflict, and holding it to a vote, gives everybody a fair say in it (not voting is in and of itself admission that you are fine with whatever outcome occurs imo). that's all i have to say on it for now though.

 

If you've been hearing about it since late 2016, might I ask which plans you were referring to? As Striker noted, Tim Draper had previously tried to split up California into six states, so while Californians wanting to split up is indeed nothing new (Draper makes the point), more often than not these plans fail. People want a State of Jefferson, and it still hasn't happened yet. I agree that California Republicans would want to break apart because of that Democrat majority; that was the entire point of my previous posts, and it's why I believe they want this; they think it will give them a greater chance at gaining seats.

 

Most of these laws you're citing seem to specifically be angering Republicans/conservatives, which are a minority in this state, so it's hard to believe that it's only a "small majority" supporting laws when it's a minority that's frustrated with gun laws being restricted (Which we actually need, since the common evidence in response to mass shootings suggests that countries with stricter gun laws have significantly fewer mass shootings than we do), and "illegal immigrants" only ever seems to Mexicans, so the racial bias is blatantly apparent that I find it hard to sympathize with the conservatives who would be upset about it. Again, we as a state wanted this; while it may not sit well with conservatives, plenty of people who resent our leniency towards immigration and offering sanctuary states already do not live here to begin with, so they have no real say in whether or not the state should be split.

 

Has California actually been pushing towards socialism? As far as I can tell, that's only ever been a third party interpretation, usually describing "policies in California that I personally don't like" as socialism, and is reducing the ideology to a buzzword that means nothing over than to attach a negative connotation to make California sound more evil than it actually is. Not to mention that quite frankly, the majority of these complaints all stem back to Jerry Brown, whose term is finally coming to end this year anyway, yet he's treated as if he'll somehow still be around for years to come, to the point that Yes California has been trying to designate him as their president. I don't see much merit in basing your entire strategy rejecting one person when the passage of time is more likely to oust him. I know that you and I have talked about STI's before, so I'm not going to repeat that.

 

California has a budget surplus, so your claim that the state is going broke is categorically false, as is your claim that immigrants don't put anything back, as evidenced by them collectively paying $1.53B. So I will argue against a clean break, because if your reasoning for breaking up California is based on completely false claims, then you are offering no persuasive reason to divide the state. Forgive me if I'm not going to sympathize with whatever red California finds reprehensible, and this is not an issue about mitigating conflict, especially when they lack a perspective worth compromising with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the reason this sub has just died recently with people like brightflame and halu vanishing altogether is due to you guys tripping over each other to SJW this place up. If Roxas or anyone can't understand a D+20 state isn't a swing state then it's their problem

 

I know how quick you are to place blame on single ideologies you hate, just like most people here, but the problem is far more multifaceted than you seem to believe. YCM is just straight up not conductive towards discussion anymore, and the fault lies with a lot of people, one of which being yourself. Debates is dead because a lot of people have come to realize that there's no such thing as debating on here; just sheet-flinging from behind the bannner of whatever ideology the person in question assumes as a crutch to (poorly) mask their own lack of a coherent personal philosophy, political or otherwise. The only people who really engage anymore are those who revel in this kind of discourse, such as you, VCR, and (less as of late, mind, in the sense that he doesn't bother as much) Roxas. It's no wonder that the mod team has no idea how to handle it when it's been shown time and time again that these kinds of conversations are the only ones that last for any amount of time beyond a few posts.

 

They're trying to enforce order in an environment where nobody desires any. It makes perfect sense that they'd go after the people who don't even fake civility and tact, as boring and "PC" as it might seem at times to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know how quick you are to place blame on single ideologies you hate, just like most people here, but the problem is far more multifaceted than you seem to believe. YCM is just straight up not conductive towards discussion anymore, and the fault lies with a lot of people, one of which being yourself. Debates is dead because a lot of people have come to realize that there's no such thing as debating on here; just sheet-flinging from behind the bannner of whatever ideology the person in question assumes as a crutch to (poorly) mask their own lack of a coherent personal philosophy, political or otherwise. The only people who really engage anymore are those who revel in this kind of discourse, such as you, VCR, and (less as of late, mind, in the sense that he doesn't bother as much) Roxas. It's no wonder that the mod team has no idea how to handle it when it's been shown time and time again that these kinds of conversations are the only ones that last for any amount of time beyond a few posts.

 

They're trying to enforce order in an environment where nobody desires any. It makes perfect sense that they'd go after the people who don't even fake civility and tact, as boring and "PC" as it might seem at times to do so.

True, there's not much to debate when someone insists that a creating 2 D+20 states would be helping the GOP. That's a lost cause.

 

Brightflame pretty clearly spelled out why he doesn't want to come back.

 

Barty - 04/04/2018
And no, I won't come back to YCM.
I don't want to spend my time just going 'i have no idea. But niether do you, so please stop being a dick about it'
 
Barty-02/28/2018 I think most causes of 'social justice' people fight for are funking moronics, the people fighting for them in general seem to just be trying to strip rights from other people
 
And we actually see there here. The SJW types sic the mods on everyone they find problems with
 
You can try to gaslight all you want, but the problem really isn't me or VCR. Hell as much as I hate VCR's views and his passive aggressive retorts, he doesn't become a little jabroni when put in an ideological corner. 
 
The mods just go the extra mile to keep these people all cuddled up. The best example is how Dad lost his sheet when I called Enguin a nazi for supporting child infanticide, but neither I nor any mod really cares when Roxas or any one of his leftie clones call me a Nazi.
 
I was quite civil in my first post, he ignored it, so you don't have a point there either. There are double standards around here, and the only way debates will work is if it's done the way crab used to do it. Mods butt the funk out of here. But there are too many fragile souls that need protecting for that glorious form of debates to return
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

True, there's not much to debate when someone insists that a creating 2 D+20 states would be helping the GOP. That's a lost cause.

 

Brightflame pretty clearly spelled out why he doesn't want to come back.

 

Barty - 04/04/2018
And no, I won't come back to YCM.
I don't want to spend my time just going 'i have no idea. But niether do you, so please stop being a dick about it'
 
Barty-02/28/2018 I think most causes of 'social justice' people fight for are funking moronics, the people fighting for them in general seem to just be trying to strip rights from other people
 
And we actually see there here. The SJW types sic the mods on everyone they find problems with
 
You can try to gaslight all you want, but the problem really isn't me or VCR. Hell as much as I hate VCR's views and his passive aggressive retorts, he doesn't become a little jabroni when put in an ideological corner. 
 
The mods just go the extra mile to keep these people all cuddled up. The best example is how Dad lost his sheet when I called Enguin a nazi for supporting child infanticide, but neither I nor any mod really cares when Roxas or any one of his leftie clones call me a Nazi.
 
I was quite civil in my first post, he ignored it, so you don't have a point there either. There are double standards around here, and the only way debates will work is if it's done the way crab used to do it. Mods butt the funk out of here. But there are too many fragile souls that need protecting for that glorious form of debates to return

 

 

The only person whining is you.  And since you still don't get it, I'm going to move forward.  You can take a leave like Barty did if you want.  But if you have nothing to contribute, stop posting.

 

That's the least you can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only person whining is you.  And since you still don't get it, I'm going to move forward.  You can take a leave like Barty did if you want.  But if you have nothing to contribute, stop posting.

 

That's the least you can do.

I think you should have to explain why me calling Roxas blind for ignoring a clear post that disproved his assertions as "lacking any restraint"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you should have to explain why me calling Roxas blind for ignoring a clear post that disproved his assertions as "lacking any restraint"

I'll make it easy. It's flame, you're attacking them directly and personally, which has always been against the rules. You don't get to justify an unnecessary insult by saying "But I'm not wrong". That doesn't make any sense. We'd never be able to punish anything because most people don't think they're wrong.

 

But enough, take it to PM from now on if you haven't already. And not to me right now because I'm not going to be as kind about it as Dad has been. (And yes believe it or not Dad has been super kind about this stuff) For every post after this not on topic I will hand out 1-3 warning points. To anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine, I really hope this doesn't pass. It would make the senate Blue and basically lock the GOP out of a filibuster proof senate permanently. The maps I cited are from the CA SOS, so anyone can get it. If the CADems would rally behind this, the GOP would be in a mess. Especially if they do it under a blue president to ratify it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you've been hearing about it since late 2016, might I ask which plans you were referring to? As Striker noted, Tim Draper had previously tried to split up California into six states, so while Californians wanting to split up is indeed nothing new (Draper makes the point), more often than not these plans fail. People want a State of Jefferson, and it still hasn't happened yet. I agree that California Republicans would want to break apart because of that Democrat majority; that was the entire point of my previous posts, and it's why I believe they want this; they think it will give them a greater chance at gaining seats.

 

Most of these laws you're citing seem to specifically be angering Republicans/conservatives, which are a minority in this state, so it's hard to believe that it's only a "small majority" supporting laws when it's a minority that's frustrated with gun laws being restricted (Which we actually need, since the common evidence in response to mass shootings suggests that countries with stricter gun laws have significantly fewer mass shootings than we do), and "illegal immigrants" only ever seems to Mexicans, so the racial bias is blatantly apparent that I find it hard to sympathize with the conservatives who would be upset about it. Again, we as a state wanted this; while it may not sit well with conservatives, plenty of people who resent our leniency towards immigration and offering sanctuary states already do not live here to begin with, so they have no real say in whether or not the state should be split.

 

Has California actually been pushing towards socialism? As far as I can tell, that's only ever been a third party interpretation, usually describing "policies in California that I personally don't like" as socialism, and is reducing the ideology to a buzzword that means nothing over than to attach a negative connotation to make California sound more evil than it actually is. Not to mention that quite frankly, the majority of these complaints all stem back to Jerry Brown, whose term is finally coming to end this year anyway, yet he's treated as if he'll somehow still be around for years to come, to the point that Yes California has been trying to designate him as their president. I don't see much merit in basing your entire strategy rejecting one person when the passage of time is more likely to oust him. I know that you and I have talked about STI's before, so I'm not going to repeat that.

 

California has a budget surplus, so your claim that the state is going broke is categorically false, as is your claim that immigrants don't put anything back, as evidenced by them collectively paying $1.53B. So I will argue against a clean break, because if your reasoning for breaking up California is based on completely false claims, then you are offering no persuasive reason to divide the state. Forgive me if I'm not going to sympathize with whatever red California finds reprehensible, and this is not an issue about mitigating conflict, especially when they lack a perspective worth compromising with.

since late 2016, there was talk of republicans wanting to split the state into three. while it did get some vocal support from a few people in california, it was little more than a rumor mill at the time. wasn't expecting it to actually gain traction enough to get proposed. it may well be their attempt to get more seats, but it does the same for democrats to a far greater extent, the most populated sections of the new california would lean heavily democrat, so if this were simply to get more seats, that would be somewhat foolish, since while the change would give them more seats, it would have little if any impact of substance. possibly enough to backfire into their faces, as winter's post claims it removes any future chance of a super majority

 

 

Not getting into the gun debate here, that's it's own topic, especially when you get tangled up in the "what can kill more people faster" part of it, where everything get's thrown into the ring and nobody listens to reason till you lay it out bare. as for illegal immigration, you said the exact word yourself, yet possibly overlooked it: ILLEGAL. and don't play the "we only target mexico" card, we are right next to mexico, can you name another country that's close enough to swim here from in droves to the extent mexico can? or another country close to us that can smuggle in immigrants, guns, and drugs at the rate mexico does? of course we target mostly mexicans, because it's mostly mexicans who come here illegally, and it's extremely simple to deport illegal mexicans in far greater numbers, because they're right next to us. unless you know of a large number of illegal canadians breaking across the border that i'm unaware of?  as for resenting leniency, i can't name one person who has said they want less legal immigration, and nobody has been against making the legal immigration process smoother and less cluttered than it is now. it's the fact that california is actually allowing illegal immigrants, with no background checks, to come over in any numbers they can, and hindering cooperation for safe and efficient removal of said illegal immigrants, which hurts mexico as much, if not more than america, but is also another discussion that i can make another thread for if you'd like. as far as californians not liking the ballot, that'll be demonstrated by the vote in november. arguing about what people want here is pointless when we'll have a guaranteed answer in a few months time. it's like brexit, or trump, incredibly unpopular coverage, and sheet on by all sides at first, but has more than enough potential to make a surprise upset.

 

 

pushing towards socialism would be increasing the volume of public services that are sponsored by the state. does california do that? pretty sure it does. redistribution of wealth is another trait of socialism. yes, the government does it as well, but california's state laws push this far harder than the government does. but i am insanely sheet at arguing whether or not some country or another is socialist, especially since whenever socialism fails, the "it's not real socialism" card is never far behind. so have some links, all read through and double checked by yours truly:

the first, pointing out that california, for all it's glory, has been losing quite a bit on the "quality of life" front: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-homeless-how-we-got-here-20180201-story.html

the second, explaining, in better terms than i, why and how, california is becoming more and more socialist: https://www.ocregister.com/2017/06/11/californias-descent-to-socialism/

the third details the desire for california to continue down it's currently sworn path, and details where exactly the end of that path may well lead. it's arguably the weakest of the 3 for the claim that it's socialist, but it outlines enough claims that the specifics can be held back in favor of the sentiment supporting the claim: http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/26/let-jerry-brown-turn-california-socialist-utopia/

the passage of time may well oust jerry, but can you honestly say the trend of california is leading to anything remotely red? in fact, the blue surge has effectively helped drive out conservatives who lived there, aligning more than well enough with your claim that those who disagree don't live there (because many of them have either left, or are planning to)

 

 

yeah, that's nice, they put back over a billion dollars yearly... too bad they take out about 20 billion yearly. what you forgot to factor with your argument isn't what they contribute, but what they cost, i'm willing to change my mind if you've got that 20 billion link stashed in the back to counter the claim, but one billion is pennies on the dollar compared to what it costs to keep illegal immigrants. sure, they pay taxes when they buy goods and services, but where do they get the money to buy said goods? what services do they provide to afford said services? what taxes are they paying when they get those under-the-table checks? there's a lot going into them, that they do not reciprocate, by simple virtue of not being legally registered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

since late 2016, there was talk of republicans wanting to split the state into three. while it did get some vocal support from a few people in california, it was little more than a rumor mill at the time. wasn't expecting it to actually gain traction enough to get proposed. it may well be their attempt to get more seats, but it does the same for democrats to a far greater extent, the most populated sections of the new california would lean heavily democrat, so if this were simply to get more seats, that would be somewhat foolish, since while the change would give them more seats, it would have little if any impact of substance. possibly enough to backfire into their faces, as winter's post claims it removes any future chance of a super majority

 

 

Not getting into the gun debate here, that's it's own topic, especially when you get tangled up in the "what can kill more people faster" part of it, where everything get's thrown into the ring and nobody listens to reason till you lay it out bare. as for illegal immigration, you said the exact word yourself, yet possibly overlooked it: ILLEGAL. and don't play the "we only target mexico" card, we are right next to mexico, can you name another country that's close enough to swim here from in droves to the extent mexico can? or another country close to us that can smuggle in immigrants, guns, and drugs at the rate mexico does? of course we target mostly mexicans, because it's mostly mexicans who come here illegally, and it's extremely simple to deport illegal mexicans in far greater numbers, because they're right next to us. unless you know of a large number of illegal canadians breaking across the border that i'm unaware of?  as for resenting leniency, i can't name one person who has said they want less legal immigration, and nobody has been against making the legal immigration process smoother and less cluttered than it is now. it's the fact that california is actually allowing illegal immigrants, with no background checks, to come over in any numbers they can, and hindering cooperation for safe and efficient removal of said illegal immigrants, which hurts mexico as much, if not more than america, but is also another discussion that i can make another thread for if you'd like. as far as californians not liking the ballot, that'll be demonstrated by the vote in november. arguing about what people want here is pointless when we'll have a guaranteed answer in a few months time. it's like brexit, or trump, incredibly unpopular coverage, and sheet on by all sides at first, but has more than enough potential to make a surprise upset.

 

 

pushing towards socialism would be increasing the volume of public services that are sponsored by the state. does california do that? pretty sure it does. redistribution of wealth is another trait of socialism. yes, the government does it as well, but california's state laws push this far harder than the government does. but i am insanely sheet at arguing whether or not some country or another is socialist, especially since whenever socialism fails, the "it's not real socialism" card is never far behind. so have some links, all read through and double checked by yours truly:

the first, pointing out that california, for all it's glory, has been losing quite a bit on the "quality of life" front: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-homeless-how-we-got-here-20180201-story.html

the second, explaining, in better terms than i, why and how, california is becoming more and more socialist: https://www.ocregister.com/2017/06/11/californias-descent-to-socialism/

the third details the desire for california to continue down it's currently sworn path, and details where exactly the end of that path may well lead. it's arguably the weakest of the 3 for the claim that it's socialist, but it outlines enough claims that the specifics can be held back in favor of the sentiment supporting the claim: http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/26/let-jerry-brown-turn-california-socialist-utopia/

the passage of time may well oust jerry, but can you honestly say the trend of california is leading to anything remotely red? in fact, the blue surge has effectively helped drive out conservatives who lived there, aligning more than well enough with your claim that those who disagree don't live there (because many of them have either left, or are planning to)

 

 

yeah, that's nice, they put back over a billion dollars yearly... too bad they take out about 20 billion yearly. what you forgot to factor with your argument isn't what they contribute, but what they cost, i'm willing to change my mind if you've got that 20 billion link stashed in the back to counter the claim, but one billion is pennies on the dollar compared to what it costs to keep illegal immigrants. sure, they pay taxes when they buy goods and services, but where do they get the money to buy said goods? what services do they provide to afford said services? what taxes are they paying when they get those under-the-table checks? there's a lot going into them, that they do not reciprocate, by simple virtue of not being legally registered. 

 

Then I'm pretty sure that talk since 2016 would be from Tim Draper, and this is the result of that. But it only gained traction after Tim Draper has failed at least twice before.

 

I just found out that the Republican party had rejected this initiative back in April, so forgive me if I'm suddenly shifting my argument, but I'll try to distinguish what I believe Tim Draper wants from what the GOP wants, since it's clear that his Draper's plan runs against what the GOP wants. While it is more likely to help Democrats, it's too risky of a gamble that I get why Democrats want to sink it. Leaning Democrat is not the same as guaranteeing Democrat seats, and even if these may not create more Republican seats now, it does not rule out that possibility in subsequent elections. And if it would remove any future chance of a supermajority, considering how Democrats have already been losing that, do you really think it would be in their best interests to split their current majority across three states? I'm making up numbers for the sake of argument, but would you rather have three states where you're barely winning 5-4, or a single state where you're winning 15-12? Even if Democrats would have a majority no matter what, staying in a single state ensures that the majority.

 

It's attributing a pure arrogance to the Democratic Party, but when you're already in the lead, you're not going to want something that will make that lead less impressive. So I see this as damaging to both parties, or at least both parties fear it would be. Why create a volatile situation where you stand more to lose than try to take your victories where you can?

 

I didn't overlook the word "illegal", but you're right that it's a topic for another time, so I don't want to say anything more than that, or how much is spent on them. Plus I fear our responses to one another may be getting too long that it may be for the best to trim down on a few of our talking points, especially considering everything else I'm about to say.

 

Supposedly, Calexit is more popular than CAL 3. I have my own issues with Calexit, and that is another topic, but it does illustrate that, within California itself, there is a lot of opposition to it, seemingly from all saids. You're right that it's being sheet on by all sides, but I don't think it has as much potential to win, because a third of the signatures supposedly gathered for this initiative were invalidated. That was key to Draper's strategy, since last time he tried this, so many signatures were invalidated that the ballot measure was disqualified. But there's also that the people who oppose this are not who you'd expect. Democrats, Republicans, and even Calexit all reject this? I just find it hard to believe that there will be many people who actually will end up wanting this.

 

I realize that we're last in quality of life. I'm afraid I really can't say anything to counter that, and I wish we could fix that. I'm dubious about how this initiative could create a scenario that would benefit that. It's certainly a problem that Draper wants to address, but so far it seems like lip service. Perhaps these new states would be best seen as a redistribution of resources, but that in and of itself does not improve our quality of life, especially when San Francisco and Los Angeles would be our worst offenders, and both are located in the state that would retain the standalone "California" name. Though attempting to improve that quality of life would be the strongest case for becoming a socialist state.

 

The second article seems to be a bit at adds with what you're saying. It tries to reconcile the unusual circumstance of a member of the upper class approving of socialism, and Joel Kotkin is suggesting that the ideal of "California socialism" more resembles feudalism. I know you said the "It's not real socialism" card isn't far behind, but… that kind of seems to be what he's arguing? That in trying to pursue socialism, California has instead become a feudalist meritocracy (I'm pretty sure that's not a thing, but you get what I mean).

 

It's not even an argument that the third is the weakest in terms of detailing California's growing socialist perspective. It mentions socialism, but only so far as saying "Let Jerry Brown do this." It's more about California maintaining its autonomy under the current United States administration.

 

I don't think I was saying that the trend of California is leading to anything red. It's more that I saw this initiative as an attempt create such a trend, and I'm glad the blue wave is driving out conservatives. If people choose to leave, and that is their own decision, and I don't fault them for it. After all, they've given up any and all say in pushing back against that blue wave. Tim Draper and Paul Preston (Though I will reiterate, not the GOP's) plans to split up California seems like trying to find a middle ground between staying in California while rejecting the "stronghold" for the blue wave. They don't want to leave California, so much as take the rest of the state away from the blue wave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I'm pretty sure that talk since 2016 would be from Tim Draper, and this is the result of that. But it only gained traction after Tim Draper has failed at least twice before.

 

I just found out that the Republican party had rejected this initiative back in April, so forgive me if I'm suddenly shifting my argument, but I'll try to distinguish what I believe Tim Draper wants from what the GOP wants, since it's clear that his Draper's plan runs against what the GOP wants. While it is more likely to help Democrats, it's too risky of a gamble that I get why Democrats want to sink it. Leaning Democrat is not the same as guaranteeing Democrat seats, and even if these may not create more Republican seats now, it does not rule out that possibility in subsequent elections. And if it would remove any future chance of a supermajority, considering how Democrats have already been losing that, do you really think it would be in their best interests to split their current majority across three states? I'm making up numbers for the sake of argument, but would you rather have three states where you're barely winning 5-4, or a single state where you're winning 15-12? Even if Democrats would have a majority no matter what, staying in a single state ensures that the majority.

 

It's attributing a pure arrogance to the Democratic Party, but when you're already in the lead, you're not going to want something that will make that lead less impressive. So I see this as damaging to both parties, or at least both parties fear it would be. Why create a volatile situation where you stand more to lose than try to take your victories where you can?

 

I didn't overlook the word "illegal", but you're right that it's a topic for another time, so I don't want to say anything more than that, or how much is spent on them. Plus I fear our responses to one another may be getting too long that it may be for the best to trim down on a few of our talking points, especially considering everything else I'm about to say.

 

Supposedly, Calexit is more popular than CAL 3. I have my own issues with Calexit, and that is another topic, but it does illustrate that, within California itself, there is a lot of opposition to it, seemingly from all saids. You're right that it's being sheet on by all sides, but I don't think it has as much potential to win, because a third of the signatures supposedly gathered for this initiative were invalidated. That was key to Draper's strategy, since last time he tried this, so many signatures were invalidated that the ballot measure was disqualified. But there's also that the people who oppose this are not who you'd expect. Democrats, Republicans, and even Calexit all reject this? I just find it hard to believe that there will be many people who actually will end up wanting this.

 

I realize that we're last in quality of life. I'm afraid I really can't say anything to counter that, and I wish we could fix that. I'm dubious about how this initiative could create a scenario that would benefit that. It's certainly a problem that Draper wants to address, but so far it seems like lip service. Perhaps these new states would be best seen as a redistribution of resources, but that in and of itself does not improve our quality of life, especially when San Francisco and Los Angeles would be our worst offenders, and both are located in the state that would retain the standalone "California" name. Though attempting to improve that quality of life would be the strongest case for becoming a socialist state.

 

The second article seems to be a bit at adds with what you're saying. It tries to reconcile the unusual circumstance of a member of the upper class approving of socialism, and Joel Kotkin is suggesting that the ideal of "California socialism" more resembles feudalism. I know you said the "It's not real socialism" card isn't far behind, but… that kind of seems to be what he's arguing? That in trying to pursue socialism, California has instead become a feudalist meritocracy (I'm pretty sure that's not a thing, but you get what I mean).

 

It's not even an argument that the third is the weakest in terms of detailing California's growing socialist perspective. It mentions socialism, but only so far as saying "Let Jerry Brown do this." It's more about California maintaining its autonomy under the current United States administration.

 

I don't think I was saying that the trend of California is leading to anything red. It's more that I saw this initiative as an attempt create such a trend, and I'm glad the blue wave is driving out conservatives. If people choose to leave, and that is their own decision, and I don't fault them for it. After all, they've given up any and all say in pushing back against that blue wave. Tim Draper and Paul Preston (Though I will reiterate, not the GOP's) plans to split up California seems like trying to find a middle ground between staying in California while rejecting the "stronghold" for the blue wave. They don't want to leave California, so much as take the rest of the state away from the blue wave.

 

they rejected it for likely the same reasons winter outlined. but the difference is, this time it made it to the people, not just to the tops of the republican party. i'd agree if you asked me would it fail, but that's not to say it has no chance of success. it's not so hard to frame the ballot in different ways to make sure the most people possible vote for it. to the democrats, advertise this removing the ability of the republican parties to attain a supermajority, something that leftist news has been touting as a liberal nightmare for years, to the republicans, point out the chance to not only create a new red state [spoiler=conveniently glossing the loss of supermajority] which can be reasoned down anyways, once you remember that you can slam the democrats for any attempt they may make at filibusters in a republican controlled congress. due to their endless ridicule and posturing when republicans did so. and you knock down the potential dead votes, and overall voting power of liberal california as well. the loss of a supermajority might hurt, but why worry about it when you can gain 1-2 strong seats in congress. where you would have had none, but that's hypothetical political posture, not what they'll actually do, unless somebody on the splitting party has the balls to be that devious.

 

but to attempt the opposite of what california has been leaning towards ever so slowly.

 

agreed, we'll kick that can down the road.

 

same, it's got barely 20% support, but it's not like there aren't points you can push to make it appeal to more people each time. look at what he's reworked it to from 6 states. he's on the right track to pull it off, and there's 5 months to rework the publicity. will he do it? no, he's too ambitious with it, and i have yet to see him frame his arguments the way they'd be the strongest. it's not impossible but he's likely to flop this once again, and then get his balance right. california itself is helping him out with that though. their own legislation will likely be the deal breaker for republicans, unfortunately, many republicans that i've heard about have already left, so his ballot is likely to suffer the mexico problem, where the people who might be able to change things, are already too busy leaving.

 

put simply, it won't, at least not for the most liberal section of california. in fact, if i succeeds it'l probably speed up the most liberal area's self destruct. it's half lip service. and were he honest (if he can see it at all), he'd likely get away with it far easier. the most liberal sections of california are the sections he wants to break away from the most, you can see it in the way he splits the map. but i have to object to this statement strongly. "Though attempting to improve that quality of life would be the strongest case for becoming a socialist state" it would be the most well meaning looking attempt, but it would be the worst case possible. you cannot create a strong state from purely socialist policies, and were he to succeed in splitting the states, the effect of attempting such would be immediately obvious. a drop of socialism can help you, but pure socialism is legislative suicide for any state. where will you get the funds for the people you are attempting to financially support, when they have no funds to speak of? how will you house people when there is no money in your coffers for construction? how can you (humanely) curb the population, when the very policies you implement allow for everybody and their mother, from anywhere in the world, to come over and absorb resources? i could go on, but that's the gist of things. california is not going down a good path, and that very oversight, is what may well allow draper to scucceed in his attempt. why would you care about losing a supermajority, when your argument can include preventing the collapse of 2/3rds of your state from unwise policies? in addition, the argument that 55 the near guaranteed 55 electoral votes will get cut down greatly. there's potential arguments everywhere, so many that i could literally fill pages just thinking about it. hypotheticals from nearly every situation. even if i dont think he should succeed yet, it legitimately frustrates me that draper is making such poor arguments for his position, and such obvious lines across his state, when he could have drafted far more reasonable legislation, and made his clear disdain for the most liberal aspects of california less evident in his work.

 

Not that it's at odds, but that in the current style of califonia's socialist leanings, the way the upper class is attempting to maintain their riches, and close off other avenues, while the government is attempting to redistribute them via taxes, resembles more feudalism than the traditional socialst style. traditional usually ends up with a bunch of corrupt yahoos at the top of the ladder (Whether or not they actually care about keeping up the socialist appearance near the end of the collapse is optional, but the point stands) said structure often ends with money being inflated beyond usefulness, and a loss of supplies as the country slowly becomes worthless. california, cannot afford to do that, because they don't have complete control over american inflation, and as such, with the greed jar capped out, no more power to be had, and most of the people who've become rich in california having done so through actual honest work (though under the capitalist system), they opt for the feudalist power system. the lords being california legislature, and the taxed being not the common people, but those who actually came up through the system honestly. the entirety of the system is being kept alive through the draining of the rich, instead of the more standard draining of the average citizen, or the (unsuable in single states) printing of more money (not like we need more help there though.). the car does look more sheek with the feudal polish, but under the hood, you'll see all the same socialist policies, but many of the same possibilities remain, and all the weaknesses remain. they've just been worked into a feudal engine. breaking apart the state would demonstrate this far more swiftly, but as we've already agreed on, doing so would require a snake oil salesman for the democrats, and complete understanding of the implications, and brutal honesty for the republicans.

 

which is why i cited it, it remains an affirmation of california leaning socialist, but the main reason is that it says much of what i would have, likely in more words. allowing the states to break weakens democrats and republicans, but it opens up new windows into different political systems for at least 2 of the 3 states that would form from the ashes. one being a close lean into socialism, the other being a brand new red state, ruled almost entirely by republicans. and the third potentially holding value as a new swing state. it mixes up the bag just enough to give insight into 2 new systems, and breaking down powerful advantages for both parties (no more supermajority potential, and no more guaranteed 55 electoral votes) the argument for allowing california to break apart is as strong a support of socialism in california as it is against it. using it as an argument was just to round up the 3, but it remains a good point to make

 

the people leaving (red AND blue) are essentially dragging the problem to another state, which will likely undergo the exact same problem. running into the next state over isn't going to bring the problem to a head, it'll only make it worse in the long run as it expands through the other states. had the republicans stayed, they'd be able to combat the problem better, but as it is, while i think he could convert more than a few everyday democrats and undecided folk, i don't think there's enough red left in that state for draper's plan to have a strong base backing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...