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