Jump to content

Welcome to Yugioh Card Maker Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

Three California Initiative Makes November Ballot


Necrobump!

Guest, the last post on this topic is over 30 days old and a new post will be considered as necrobumping!



  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
42 replies to this topic

#21
God Emperor Cow

God Emperor Cow

    Merry Neomas!

  • Moderators
  • 11,822 posts
    Last Visit Today, 07:58 PM
  • Alias:Lord CowCow
  • Spouse:Shiki/Aix

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.


8PBUpdp.gif


#22
The Necromancer

The Necromancer

  • Night's Watch

  • 14,445 posts
    Last Visit Today, 05:05 PM
  • Discord:#0196
  • Spouse:Fate

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


GQB7sDc.gifH1TI5wa.pngsp8QpRU.gif

bngoeJd.gif


#23
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • 3,614 posts
    Last Visit Today, 06:23 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

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 shit 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 shit 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.c...0201-story.html

the second, explaining, in better terms than i, why and how, california is becoming more and more socialist: https://www.ocregist...t-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...cialist-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. 


  • Dad likes this

"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#24
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    I am not afraid to keep on living

  • The Chariot
  • 26,563 posts
    Last Visit Today, 07:57 PM

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 shit 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 shit 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.c...0201-story.html

the second, explaining, in better terms than i, why and how, california is becoming more and more socialist: https://www.ocregist...t-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...cialist-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 shit 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.


Posted Image


#25
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • 3,614 posts
    Last Visit Today, 06:23 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

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 shit 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

conveniently glossing the loss of supermajority

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.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#26
Nathanael D. Striker

Nathanael D. Striker

    Livin' the dream.

  • Topic Starter
  • Twilight Wanderer

  • 19,542 posts
    Last Visit 6 minutes ago
  • Discord:Striker#1560
  • Alias:Striker
So, there is a post going around Facebook telling Democrats not to support this as it'd give Republicans 4 seats in the Senate. Apparently some people haven't been paying attention to the National Elections and the cost-benefit analysis involved (i.e. Senate seats vs electoral votes). *sigh* I just wish people could think critically and track down evidence.

#27
Draconus297

Draconus297

    Dragon Lord

  • AGM Founder
  • 5,677 posts
    Last Visit 7 minutes ago
I mean, logically speaking, no one should support this. As outlined above, it makes Democrats have to gamble more for their seats, but if they do win that gamble they've got potentially 2 extra seats over the Republicans.

It's just a stupid idea overall, and Draper should have learned that throughout the last ten drafts of his plan.
I'm also on DeviantART
I'm in the AGM, as its founder
Oh, and CowCow says I'm a Tyrunt.One of these days I will evolve . . .
But I am a Pokémon of my own


LEc7qUd.png

November/December AGM Deck Challenge:
Burn damage OR single-card support!
PM me for more details on AGM Deck Challenges, for your chance at 1000 Points!

SKDRKF CNMLKQNKQ:
PADE XACQZIMTS!

#28
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    I am not afraid to keep on living

  • The Chariot
  • 26,563 posts
    Last Visit Today, 07:57 PM

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

conveniently glossing the loss of supermajority

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. "[background=#f7f7f7]Though attempting to improve that quality of life would be the strongest case for becoming a socialist state[/background]" 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.

 

Okay, minor point, but could you please properly capitalize your posts? You've shown that you can, so it's a little difficult trying to read your posts when you neglect that. Given how long your posts are, not having much capitalization, if any, just makes your sentences blur together.

 

Given how the ballot measure was vague, I rather doubt their ability to put in a persuasive argument. You could make the claim that it would be removing the ability for Republicans to gain a supermajority, except that is a bold-faced lie without much evidence to support it, and given that Tim Draper wants more Republican representation, it would not be in his best interests to make that claim. You have to consider the position that he's arguing from, and what he would actually want to say to persuade Democrats. Giving a message that could persuade Democrats would risk alienating Republicans, because using "It removes the threat of a Republican supermajority" as a selling point to Democrats might as well just be telling Republicans to give up, and telling Republicans that this could create a new red state (You know, despite the fact that this is supposedly the same team arguing against a Republican supermajority) is just going to give Democrats all the more reason to reject this. Your suggestions for the arguments to persuade either side are neglecting how the side these arguments are not catering to would react. Maybe you could get away with this in commercials and the like, but in sample ballot booklets (Which some people may not even read), there's a space to provide a singular argument in favor of this, and having two completely opposing messages is not going to look good in that booklet. Draper needs a singular, bipartisan argument to persuade voters, not completely contradictory messages designed solely for the sake of either one party or the other.

 

While Draper has had more sense in dividing the state in three instead of six, the problem is that he's trying to split up the state at all, no matter how many states would result from this. Even Draper claimed "Everybody wants to leave California", although it was more about businesses taking their work elsewhere. IIRC, Draper's arguments for Six Californias were exactly the same as his arguments for Three Californias now. He's done the absolute barest minimum to change from his arguments then to his arguments now, mostly just sticking to the same complaints, and grouping together the counties between those three states instead of states. If he hasn't revised his arguments after four years, I don't expect him to revise them much over the next four.

 

I'm aware he most wants to break away from the liberal center of California, which is the overlap I saw between his and Paul Preston's maps. I agree that it'd be accelerating that liberal segment to self-destruct, and I think that's what he's trying to do. Break away the rest of the state, leave that liberal segment to die. I don't think he is making any plans to financially support anyone; in fact, his proposal seems to suggest that it'll be up for the new governments created by this initiative. This initiative is poorly designed because it focuses only on redefining the state borders, and absolutely nothing else. Financial support, improved quality of life, and variety of political representation, among other things, all seem like possibilities that to be decided upon at a later date, by someone else. This initiative could potentially open the floodgates for all of those, yes, but I suspect the process would be too far dragged out that, by the time the state divisions would be finalized, you should have already had those provisions implemented, and then it would be too little, too late. I get what you're saying about all the problems California is facing, but I think people would want a fast solution, and Draper is not offering that at all. People don't want something that could claim to open the path to a solution; they just want the solution.

 

Despite my misgivings with this initiative, I realize a lot of it is ultimately speculation. The bottom line is that this initiative seems like splitting up the state for the sake of splitting up the state. Draper's arguments are poorly constructed because he hasn't given any reason to want this. He says there's a problem, and this is his answer to that, but in no way is he articulating how this could act as a solution to the problems. Otherwise, this entire initiative seems completely pointless. Of all the different things you're concerned about and could possibly see this leading to fixing, how much of that do you actually see Draper himself discussing? It's not that his arguments are poorly constructed; it's that he's not even making those arguments at all.

 

I think discussing the difference between socialism and feudalism is getting somewhat off-topic. Maybe I'm just too tired and not in the right state of mind to respond to that properly, and again, I'm a little wary of our exchanges getting too bloated that we may feel we have to respond to everything, but the responses themselves could end up getting a bit longer. I understand the point you're making, but I don't think I really have anything more to offer in response to that, so I'll have to leave that point aside.

 

Given the example of political ideologies those new states could have, do you see why I understand why Democrats are against this? It mixes up the bag, yes, but considering factors like how Republicans control the House (Not that it stops them from falsely scapegoating Dems if they're constantly keeping the GOP's hands tied), I could see Democrats wanting their own supermajority in Califorania, especially since this state is both favored and maligned across the country as a Democratic stronghold. That variety is going to hurt that stronghold. Leaning into socialism is probably the safer option than risking losing a Democratic stronghold to a gamble that could give the GOP another foothold.

 

If people leaving the state are dragging their problems to another state, then… well, that's their problem now. Though also keep in mind (And there are more factors just this, keep in mind), Bernie Sanders still left an impact on people in the 2016 elections, with a few organizations starting up to follow his ideals. And those aren't exclusive to California, nor can I really say they started there when this is all about a senator from Vermont. If Republicans aren't staying, and indirectly hurting Draper's support base, then that really means nothing beyond them just leaving. At most, it proves more evidence to Draper's point, that there is fewer Republican representation. And yes, you mentioned Democrats are also leaving, though I think Democrats leaving California are proportionately going to hurt their party less than Republicans leaving. Leaving does make it impossible for them to confront the problem, but it's a "problem" precisely because they're living.

 

Perhaps he could persuade more Democrats than Republicans. But convincing Democrats goes entirely against what he wants.

 

So, there is a post going around Facebook telling Democrats not to support this as it'd give Republicans 4 seats in the Senate. Apparently some people haven't been paying attention to the National Elections and the cost-benefit analysis involved (i.e. Senate seats vs electoral votes). *sigh* I just wish people could think critically and track down evidence.

 

Electoral votes are in fact one of the pieces of evidence cited, because it would split up California's electoral votes. Giving Republicans four seats in the Senate is not a guarantee, but the fears people are citing are not unfounded.

 

I mean, logically speaking, no one should support this. As outlined above, it makes Democrats have to gamble more for their seats, but if they do win that gamble they've got potentially 2 extra seats over the Republicans.

It's just a stupid idea overall, and Draper should have learned that throughout the last ten drafts of his plan.

 

Yeah, but this is about making just three states now, not six. Totally different.

 

 

Posted Image


#29
Nathanael D. Striker

Nathanael D. Striker

    Livin' the dream.

  • Topic Starter
  • Twilight Wanderer

  • 19,542 posts
    Last Visit 6 minutes ago
  • Discord:Striker#1560
  • Alias:Striker

Electoral votes are in fact one of the pieces of evidence cited, because it would split up California's electoral votes. Giving Republicans four seats in the Senate is not a guarantee, but the fears people are citing are not unfounded.


True about the electoral votes, and I did mention that to a friend who shared the post. Moreso how the 55 Democrats get won't be guaranteed if the states split due to Southern California. As for the Republican seats, I'd imagine 2 happen with a possibility of 3. But 4? I doubt it.

#30
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • 3,614 posts
    Last Visit Today, 06:23 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien
your own response

 

Word is slower on my computer, and usually more annoying than either wordpad or notepad, (my computer is 8 years old now, and it’s age is starting to show a bit more) so I usually choose notepad over word to reduce the strain. But considering the length of the replies, and the tedium of spellchecking on notepad, yeah, I’ll use word for now.

 

Whether or not they can put a persuasive argument together right now is definitely in doubt, but he’s definitely getting better at making his divisions and arguments over time. It would give the democrats an extra seat alongside the republicans, and said seat would be yet another rather blue state overall, even if it could swing, so making the argument that it would remove supermajorities isn’t as false as it seems. California’s red voters are leaving it, meaning what’s left is going to be bluer overall. Yes, draper wants more red, but that’s called playing the long game, the plan, as well as I can see it, seems to be split the states, rework one of the three, leave the other to swing for the time being, and let the third collapse under the weight of its own altruism, rebirthing it from the ashes as either a swing state, or a completely red state. A good plan in theory, but terribly executed, because he’s not working hard enough on the most important part of it, aka, the division itself. No, giving a message to persuade democrats is the best option, because republicans, no matter how little they like the plan initially, already have more than enough motivation to move out. This provides a solution to said plan of moving that allows them to remain home, or at least move a shorter distance, and actually support the conservative candidates from their home state. The end game is similar, but has far more upsides for the conservative voter, and it still allows the liberal voter to do as they please, it simply prevents said desires from affecting as large a swath of people as it currently does. Even if it’s broken up, it’s still California.

’allow me to explain’

 

Even though it’s a republican based proposal, you only really need to win over the democrats, winning over the republicans is a bonus.

                                                                            

I agree, properly revising his arguments is key to winning, alongside lowering his biased lines. It’s necessary to cut into the state in a brand new way, and it’s fine to give more room to what would become ‘center California’, and he needs to realize this if he intends to succeed. My estimate is that it’ll take at least one more failed draft for him to figure it out though. Why he can’t understand such basic things, I don’t know.

 

It is perfectly fine to leave said rules up to the new governments, and kicking that stone down the road is understandable. That said, it’s definitely something he shouldn’t be doing. Not without at least putting down a framework to kick that can towards. He’s splitting the state into three new forms, the legal work needed to do that is immense, and I can understand why he wouldn’t want to go through it. That said, a framework covering what he would advise for each state would definitely go leagues in making the idea more palatable for both sides of the fence. Again though, leaving it open allows for each state to reform in their own self-image. A nice thought, if nothing else.

 

It isn’t though, there’s quite a few reasons to do so, but yeah, he hasn’t fully outlined them.

’So let me give three:’

 

I agree.  It affects the state heavily, but it’s too massive of a topic to actually keep within the current reply thread.

 

Losing said stronghold is nothing compared to collapsing it by hand. Reluctance to downsize when the state needs to break cleanly is no less reckless than the current proposal. The break may need work, but the fact that it needs to make said break sometime soon, is definitely a fact. They run the risk of destroying all 55 electoral votes they possess if they keep down the road they’re on now.

 

You don’t see why republicans leaving are a problem? Alright, first up, the republicans are still taxpayers, combine the taxpayers leaving with the current rules making California a sanctuary state, and you should understand why the numbers of people leaving matters. California is running off its funds in favor of the illegal sponges. It’s more than just losing votes, it’s losing people who are willing to work and pay taxes, in favor of those who work under the table, and cost far more money to keep than to remove. Republicans (and by extension democrats) leaving, is extremely damaging, when California’s entire sanctuary system runs off of the fuel that its legal, tax paying workers provide.

I believe I said it earlier, but the republicans are leaving in droves, the democrats outnumber them 4-1, convincing whomever will get it done is the most important part, the rest all comes later. You can consolidate the conservative faction in one state after you get the plan off the ground, and only democratic support will allow that to happen. It’s called playing the long game.


  • Dad likes this

"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#31
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    I am not afraid to keep on living

  • The Chariot
  • 26,563 posts
    Last Visit Today, 07:57 PM

https://apnews.com/c...ure-from-ballot

 

I'm not sure how likely this would be to go through, but opponents are trying to get the California Supreme Court to remove this initiative from the ballot, arguing that such a significant change to the state should receive two-thirds approval from the State Legislature before being presented to voters.


Posted Image


#32
Nathanael D. Striker

Nathanael D. Striker

    Livin' the dream.

  • Topic Starter
  • Twilight Wanderer

  • 19,542 posts
    Last Visit 6 minutes ago
  • Discord:Striker#1560
  • Alias:Striker

https://apnews.com/c...ure-from-ballot
 
I'm not sure how likely this would be to go through, but opponents are trying to get the California Supreme Court to remove this initiative from the ballot, arguing that such a significant change to the state should receive two-thirds approval from the State Legislature before being presented to voters.


Why do you think this plan is unlikely to succeed?

#33
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • 3,614 posts
    Last Visit Today, 06:23 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

that's actually a pretty strong argument for getting it wiped from the balot, htough seeing the attempt being made shows me that at least some people view the ballot as a proper threat. using the environment as an excuse to scrap the ballot's a cute trick, but the logic behind holding it back does check out, if barely.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#34
I Hate Snatch Steal

I Hate Snatch Steal

    Elite Member

  • Elite Members
  • 2,263 posts
    Last Visit A minute ago

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.

Well said. I hope this works out.


If you duel with your cards and have stories to share, then this thread is for you: http://forum.yugiohc...sharing-thread/

My fanfiction.net profile:
https://www.fanfiction.net/u/1525039/

Funny conversations and funny posts


how katio vs mizael should have ended


So, if Yuma forgives Vector for betrayal and evil intentions WAY more often then he should, then why isnn't he doing the same thing with Don 1000? /sarcasm

#35
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    I am not afraid to keep on living

  • The Chariot
  • 26,563 posts
    Last Visit Today, 07:57 PM

Why do you think this plan is unlikely to succeed?

 

Their claim hinges on the idea that this is too significant to go through the process. I could see it simply being decided that, since it's already gone through the process, it would be silly to decide now that it's not appropriate for the ballot.

 

that's actually a pretty strong argument for getting it wiped from the balot, htough seeing the attempt being made shows me that at least some people view the ballot as a proper threat. using the environment as an excuse to scrap the ballot's a cute trick, but the logic behind holding it back does check out, if barely.

 

The article itself is pretty vague, so there's more to it than just "the environment." My understanding is that the water lines would need to be accounted for when dividing the state. So it's a legitimate issue that's been cited before this.


Posted Image


#36
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • 3,614 posts
    Last Visit Today, 06:23 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

The article itself is pretty vague, so there's more to it than just "the environment." My understanding is that the water lines would need to be accounted for when dividing the state. So it's a legitimate issue that's been cited before this.

How much damage would that do realistically though? It's not like breaking up the states would actually destroy water lines. Yeah, it'd cause some paperwork issues, even way down the line, (hell, all power lines, sewer routes, ect would eventually have to be looked into to minimize any immediate or eventual state-to-state problems) but that's arguably nothing in comparison to the damage that the state is facing from it's own current policies. splitting up the water distribution, in a dry state like california has always been a question, but it's not like the procedures already in place need to be eradicated just because it turns into three states. at worst they might have some sharing percentages, but it could be an additional chance for new water refining plants, among other things.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#37
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    I am not afraid to keep on living

  • The Chariot
  • 26,563 posts
    Last Visit Today, 07:57 PM

I'm not at all suggesting that it would destroy the water lines, and you're vastly underestimating the problem if you think it'd cause "some paperwork issues" like that's no big deal.

 

https://www.sacbee.c...e213292869.html

 

The issue is that the water rights are a highly convoluted mess, so while you wouldn't be removing the current procedures, you would still need to untangle them to follow along with the division of the states. The rights could catch the state up in a variety of lawsuits and litigation over who controls the water supplies. The concern isn't that there would be sharing percentages, but rather than Northern California could hoard much of the water supply for itself.


Posted Image


#38
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • 3,614 posts
    Last Visit Today, 06:23 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

I'm not at all suggesting that it would destroy the water lines, and you're vastly underestimating the problem if you think it'd cause "some paperwork issues" like that's no big deal.

 

https://www.sacbee.c...e213292869.html

 

The issue is that the water rights are a highly convoluted mess, so while you wouldn't be removing the current procedures, you would still need to untangle them to follow along with the division of the states. The rights could catch the state up in a variety of lawsuits and litigation over who controls the water supplies. The concern isn't that there would be sharing percentages, but rather than Northern California could hoard much of the water supply for itself.

i didn't mean you thought it would literally destroy the lines, i meant it wouldn't be as bad as you may believe.

 

putting it simply, what you see as a disaster, i see as potential for thousands, if not millions of new jobs on the market. and voting to split up is not an immediate effecting action. look at brexit for evidence of that (even though Theresa may is possibly the worst negotiator in the history of politicians, the point stands). there would be no physical effect upon the land, there would only be tons of litigation. that's not making light of said paperwork, it's simply pointing out that there would be ample time and opportunity to handle said paperwork. you appear to be viewing it as if the second the split vote wins, everything would break apart. it would not, there would still be many other things being placed in order before said split takes full effect, all related rights being a part of that.  also, 2 of the 3 states would still border on the ocean, meaning saltwater refineries would definitely be a potential solution for 2 of the three. that said, if northern California is where the majority of the currently drinkable water comes from, then they would then have a new exportable item. it may be the cold capitalist option, but considering central California has so few issues with implementing money sinks as it is, water would be far from the worst thing you could spend taxpayer cash on.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#39
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    I am not afraid to keep on living

  • The Chariot
  • 26,563 posts
    Last Visit Today, 07:57 PM

I don't see how this could add potential for those thousands to millions of new jobs. What new opportunities would this create that are not possible already, and how would this accomplish that?

 

I understand that the states would not be immediately split, as the initiative is about directing people to create the divisions. As I've said before in this thread, it's essentially telling other people to take care of it themselves. It offers no provisions, and the benefits to this are scarcely stated, if at all. You make a good point about saltwater refineries, but I see nothing suggesting that such a solution is being considered. Why support this initiative when there's only a chance that someone else may offer solutions later down the line?

 

This initiative is a rather short-sighted plan. "I suggest we break up the state along these borders, and someone else can sort out the consequences of that." In a way, my issues with this initiative are that it's something of a paradox. There's no explicit solutions in the ballot itself that offer a persuasive reason to support this, and while you could argue that this opens up the potential for later initiatives, those would still have to be decided on later down the line, and would primarily need to be implemented for the sake of solving problems that this specific initiative created in the first place.

 

We could go further with this discussion, but it would only get further more removed from the proper text of the initiative itself.


Posted Image


#40
vla1ne

vla1ne

    Edited for spelling errors.

  • Elite Members
  • 3,614 posts
    Last Visit Today, 06:23 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

I don't see how this could add potential for those thousands to millions of new jobs. What new opportunities would this create that are not possible already, and how would this accomplish that?

 

I understand that the states would not be immediately split, as the initiative is about directing people to create the divisions. As I've said before in this thread, it's essentially telling other people to take care of it themselves. It offers no provisions, and the benefits to this are scarcely stated, if at all. You make a good point about saltwater refineries, but I see nothing suggesting that such a solution is being considered. Why support this initiative when there's only a chance that someone else may offer solutions later down the line?

 

This initiative is a rather short-sighted plan. "I suggest we break up the state along these borders, and someone else can sort out the consequences of that." In a way, my issues with this initiative are that it's something of a paradox. There's no explicit solutions in the ballot itself that offer a persuasive reason to support this, and while you could argue that this opens up the potential for later initiatives, those would still have to be decided on later down the line, and would primarily need to be implemented for the sake of solving problems that this specific initiative created in the first place.

 

We could go further with this discussion, but it would only get further more removed from the proper text of the initiative itself.

While possible and necessary may seem similar on paper. The two  are completely different incentives in practice. splitting the state into 3 means it is no longer possible to avoid dipping the government wallet further into saltwater refinement tech (assuming north california were to play stingy). what would become central california is right next to a massive source of water, the pacific ocean. saltwater refining is expensive, and doing so when there are other sources of water more easily available is, predictably, not in human nature. which is why you don't see it as often ans irrigation freshwater from farther sources. it's possible to further progress desalination technology, and such advancements would help all land life down the road, as it could lead to more effective crop irrigation, and lower overall strain on individual oceans, lakes and ponds. the opportunities are not new, and they have been possible for a long time. but splitting the states would make them necessary, and thus any and all advancement in the field, that allowed it to be done more effectively would be profitable, increasing the drive to improve the process. making more jobs, ect. get where i'm going with that?

 

it may be empty of plans, but the delayed nature means that plans can still be drawn up over time, whether it were empty or filled with terrible ideas, neither would matter enough to fully prevent it from going through.

 

 

it's pretty much guaranteed that california, as a whole, is liable to go bankrupt if it keeps on the current course. splitting it, means breaking off that course, if even 1/3 of the state makes it, breaking up, is in and of itself, a solution to the problem of california's slow, but steady failure. it'll be better than the entire state going down. and the smaller the area of the crash, the easier it will be to pick up the pieces, and the fewer people will be harmed. the paperwork sorting out the split is what is called kicking the can down the road. something that governments have done for ages, so that they could handle smaller sections at a time. only so much needs to be done at a time (steady progress is required in either case). and failing to resolve said issues properly could be able to render the split moot anyways, or at least prevent it until all of said issues are resolved.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users