CALEXIT: Would you support a secession? (Fresno: federal, history, comparison)

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

I remember not too long ago Californians making fun of whiney Texans for considering this idea and now Californians are the whiney babies considering it. Hypocritesssss lol

What does this have to do with anything? Do you have anything to invalidate the proposal or not?

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Or would California want access to the 87% of GDP they are leaving?

Not to mention how California would be dependent on US for both energy and water to a lesser extent.

California has no leverage. Especially with its history of poor tax structure for business, over regulation and an unwillingness to utilize natural resourcee and desire to increase the welfare state. It is a recipe for disaster.

As far as energy, I am guessing you mean electricity as the grid would be shared? If so, not a new situation. As it stands, a good chunk of Southern California shares a grid with Northern Baja. Parts of the Northeastern US share one with Canada. But magically, if the US shared one with a former state, there would be problems? LOL okie doke

Now water. Of all the wild claims made, this is the only one that would have some merit. I'll repeat this for probably the third time but trade between CA and the US would include this. I mentioned before, the US maintains access to the LA shipping ports in exchange for CA maintaining some water rights.

The rest of your post is the same tired doom and gloom garbage you keep repeating.

[KenFresno]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

This is getting tiresome. All your challenges have been met over and over throughout this thread. You need to go back and take the time to read more. Pretty much everything you claim here is poorly or not at all thought out.

I actually have read through the all the posts starting with page 1. I have noticed you have used the "we have already solved this" argument many times. Most commonly when you don't have a counter-rebuttal to a insightful and poignant point.

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

Pretty much everything you claim here is poorly or not at all thought out.

And this is coming from the person who used Australia as an example of what Calexit might look like.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Progressives aren't for liberty and progressives run this state.

Only 1/3 of California's support the measure anyways. I know californias don't like trump, but leaving the union is cutting over your arm because you have a hang nail

Calexit: Record Number Of Californians Support Secession, New Poll Finds | Zero Hedge

For the 1 millionth time; The California independence movement, including the current Calexit is older than Trump winning the presidency. Calexit in particular is over two years older. Is there some sort of mental block that is preventing you from understanding that? Repeating this over and over again is not going to make it true. You and several others keep thinking that it's only about politics but it's beyond that.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

Is california the countrys largest state? Or not? Therefore does the port of LA serve the state? Or not. Of course the respective ports serve their respective regions. And our state is the largest market in the nation while Washington and Oregon tegether are about 1/4 rthe size with just as far and difficult a journey to ship forward to other markets. Washington and Oregon are not likely to ever come very close to the size of the California market.

Again, why do you insist companies would leave? Why are you convinced of an adversarial relationship? Most countries in the world are cooperative.

Companies hate uncertainty? Is that why oil companies operate aggressively at great expense in the middle east and other geopolitical hot spots? All kinds of corporations operate all over the uncertain world. They go where they can profit. Does Apple make iPhones in China and sell them in Nigeria or not?

And again where do you get the notion that California would have to pay "its portion of the debt?" What portion would that be? How would you calculate that? As posed to you before would it be 1/50th? In which case you are suggesting that small and or bugger poor states like Mississippi and Wyoming would owe equal share to California - which is crazy. But most curious is what new formed nation ever purchased its independence from its mother country?

The LA port serves the entire nation. The vast vast majority of goods from Asia for the entire country comes through the port of LA. It serves the nation more than it serves the state. Washington would need to expand its port and create infastructure to move goods through the US since LA would no longer be available. This is the greatest leverage ca has since building the infastructure to move the quantity of goods around takes time.

Oil companies are in the Middle East because that is where the oil is. If they had the choice to drill for oil in Iran or the US where would they choose? Your comparison fails on its face.

Like when a couple gets divorced, the debt carried by the couple gets split between them. The US has 20 trillion dollars in debt. California has roughly 15% of the US population so it would take on roughly 3 trillion dollars in debt upon separation.


I don't know why you and others think this is going to be a sweetheart deal for California and leave the US holding the bag. You seem to think That in a peaceful seledstion that California would get everything and give nothing. It defies logic.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Like when a couple gets divorced, the debt carried by the couple gets split between them. The US has 20 trillion dollars in debt. California has roughly 15% of the US population so it would take on roughly 3 trillion dollars in debt upon separation.
.

NO IT IS NOT! This is what you don't get. A secession is not a divorce. This is why it is so hard for you to grasp this concept. Until you realize they are nothing at all alike, you will never get it.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

For the 1 millionth time; The California independence movement, including the current Calexit is older than Trump winning the presidency. Calexit in particular is over two years older. Is there some sort of mental block that is preventing you from understanding that? Repeating this over and over again is not going to make it true. You and several others keep thinking that it's only about politics but it's beyond that.

It's not beyond 1/3 approval in this state. It could be talked about for 20 years, it wouldn't make a difference. Maybe we could start a state of Jefferson thread just for fun since it is actually more likely to happen than this.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

NO IT IS NOT! This is what you don't get. A secession is not a divorce. This is why it is so hard for you to grasp this concept. Until you realize they are nothing at all alike, you will never get it.

It is, because the terms of secession would be a negotiation.

The wording of the ratification to remove a state from the union would be more complicated than "should California leave the union? Yes or No

To think something of this magnitude would be as basic as you describe is beyond naive.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

As far as energy, I am guessing you mean electricity as the grid would be shared? If so, not a new situation. As it stands, a good chunk of Southern California shares a grid with Northern Baja. Parts of the Northeastern US share one with Canada. But magically, if the US shared one with a former state, there would be problems? LOL okie doke

Now water. Of all the wild claims made, this is the only one that would have some merit. I'll repeat this for probably the third time but trade between CA and the US would include this. I mentioned before, the US maintains access to the LA shipping ports in exchange for CA maintaining some water rights.

The rest of your post is the same tired doom and gloom garbage you keep repeating.

Energy is more than the power grid, it is the refineries, the pipelines, the wells, the power plants. California has shunned growth in all these areas and relies more and more on energy from outside the state.

The only thing stopping a state from charging California more via taxes now is the constituion. That would no longer apply if California isn't a state.

Why should the US for the bill for maintaining the infastructure for California's energy needs?

[KenFresno]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

As far as energy, I am guessing you mean electricity as the grid would be shared? If so, not a new situation. As it stands, a good chunk of Southern California shares a grid with Northern Baja. Parts of the Northeastern US share one with Canada. But magically, if the US shared one with a former state, there would be problems? LOL okie doke

Now water. Of all the wild claims made, this is the only one that would have some merit. I'll repeat this for probably the third time but trade between CA and the US would include this. I mentioned before, the US maintains access to the LA shipping ports in exchange for CA maintaining some water rights.

The rest of your post is the same tired doom and gloom garbage you keep repeating.

California actually shares its grid with other states largely because it can't meet its current needs. Data suggests that 26% of all the power used in California comes from other states. Of the remaining 74% that is produced in state, 60% of it comes from natural and 85% of that natural gas comes from other states. So we have clearly established that California is completely at the mercy of other states for its energy needs.

Currently California can purchase the extra power and natural gas at a reasonable cost, largely because its protected by Federal oversight, which is a power granted to it by the Constitution. An independent California would no longer fall under Federal protection concerning pricing, taxes and tariffs. California would have zero leverage in determining how much it is willing to pay for its energy needs. There would be nothing stopping the Federal government from selling power to California at 10x the cost now. We would have no choice but to painfully swallow those costs.

Concerning water issues, its not just the Colorado river, most of our water sources in state come from Republican counties. Like how Tuolumne County is the primary source for the water in SF. If those Republican counties stay in the US, which I assume they will. Then like power, water costs would no longer be federally protected.

So you are right, water and power would be part of a deal between the US and CA, except expect to pay A LOT more money for both.