CALEXIT: Would you support a secession?

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

You're the one making the claim cool guy!

You said:



I'm saying that's complete bull ****, and you know it. That's why you can't even name 10 examples yourself. Why do you have to constantly lie and be dishonest about your debate points? Can you be honest for once?

The question has been asked and answered several times in this thread. The list is for your reference. But that's not what you are here asking for is it. The difference between you and others posting here is that as with all threads you jump in you arent interested in anything except starting fires.

Look back through the thread for your answer. Have a nice day. And remeber to keep your windshield clean for safe driving.

[KenFresno]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

No such thing has been established. Your reasoning is grossly like swiss cheese. All you established is current operations. You have ignored a great range of options from conservation,to nuclear, wind, solar, retaining more of our oil and natural gas resources rather than selling them to outside markets. Energy is traded by brokers. There is a lot of energy traded out of California as well as brought in. The deficit is addressable through innovation that California is very well positioned to develop and profit from.

Does California have more sunshine than Germany?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...newable-energy

Could California develop other forms of energy and over time become entirely energy dependent? Sure. But this take decades, not years, decades. Nuclear power stations from conception, to planning, to completion takes anywhere from 8 to 10 years till its finally operational. And that is if everything goes to plan. In the meantime Californians would be paying astronomically high energy prices. Businesses are not going to wait around for 20 years till energy becomes more affordable, they will leave en masse.

I don't want to see my lifestyle degraded immensely, my business suffer greatly and my house depreciate grossly just so California can become a independent one party nation. With Independence the ends do not justify the means.

Just because you cannot come to terms with facts that undermine your position does not mean my reasoning is faulty. Far from it.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by KenFresno

Could California develop other forms of energy and over time become entirely energy dependent? Sure. But this take decades, not years, decades. Nuclear power stations from conception, to planning, to completion takes anywhere from 8 to 10 years till its finally operational. And that is if everything goes to plan. In the meantime Californians would be paying astronomically high energy prices. Businesses are not going to wait around for 20 years till energy becomes more affordable, they will leave en masse.

I don't want to see my lifestyle degraded immensely, my business suffer greatly and my house depreciate grossly just so California can become a independent one party nation. With Independence the ends do not justify the means.

Just because you cannot come to terms with facts that undermine your position does not mean my reasoning is faulty. Far from it.

Your reasoning is deeply faulty. You have drawn a limited scenario to fit your conclusion. You have no basis whatsoever for assuming adversarial relationships for one thing. And you ignore free market competition for another. Additionally you ignore conservation ... to say nothing of the reality that all these factors have incrementally cumulative potential.

There is no basis for declaring that California would be paying "astronomically high energy prices." And businesses will do business wherever they can profit. Abandoning a market of 40 million population that has all the advantages California offers to particularly its wealthy and established residents is completely unlikely.

You specifically went right past the reference to Germany's turn to solar. Double the population to serve. Similar geographical size. Far less sunshine. Heading for energy independence anchored in solar which doesnt take long as nuclear.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Well, at least you finally see that the differences that exist in the US are irreconcilable. That can be flipped around; would you vote for a pro very gun control candidate who advocated more local autonomy? Would you vote for a pro national health care candidate who...?

No I do not see the differences as irreconcilably. The majority of people do not seem to have a problem with more federal Control. In fact the things I listed above are favorites of CA and are indications of the way most are voting and the result of ... more federal Control. Abortion, Gay rights and no wall.

Would you vote for a candidate that was against the above and yet wanted more States rights?By the way I am not a pro 2nd amendment supporter at all.

I am not against a National healthcare law if it was done right.

Now would you vote for a candidate who was against the above 3 items I listed and yet favored your position on States rights?

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Then you are really talking about a change in existing law to reduce Federal control. This was the way the US functioned before the Civil War and to a great extent until WWII. That takes people voting for a Congress membership that agrees. That is unlikely to happen as most people vote feel good issues rather than true do good issues.

Example:

Would you vote for an anti abortion candidate who agreed with you about broadening States Rights?

Would you vote for an anti immigration candidate who wanted to build the Wall and who agreed with you about ... States rights?

Would you vote for an anti Gay rights candidate who ...?

Originally Posted by expatCA

No I do not see the differences as irreconcilably. The majority of people do not seem to have a problem with more federal Control. In fact the things I listed above are favorites of CA and are indications of the way most are voting and the result of ... more federal Control. Abortion, Gay rights and no wall.

Would you vote for a candidate that was against the above and yet wanted more States rights?By the way I am not a pro 2nd amendment supporter at all.

I am not against a National healthcare law if it was done right.

Now would you vote for a candidate who was against the above 3 items I listed and yet favored your position on States rights?

These points you and Gentoo are discussing are quite good and pertinent to the topic. There is a flaw in the comparisons though that leads toward faulty conclusions. You pointoutthat people vote "feel good" as opposed to "do good". But whats "do good" is also quite subjective. Some would say completely subjective.

Bottom line remains that there are deep polarizations of issues in our nation today. "Feel good " "do good" definitions are actually part and parcel of the divisions. The Treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI created nine new countries carved out of the former German Empire. But these countries weren't created indiscriminately they were formed out of regions with pre existing cultural identities. The US today has evolved into somewhat regional identities culturally and resource specific. Time for a new Treaty? Perhaps that is the path to a new Commonwealth based on democratic and free market interests.

[KenFresno]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

Your reasoning is deeply faulty. You have drawn a limited scenario to fit your conclusion. You have no basis whatsoever for assuming adversarial relationships for one thing. And you ignore free market competition for another. Additionally you ignore conservation ... to say nothing of the reality that all these factors have incrementally cumulative potential.

There is no basis for declaring that California would be paying "astronomically high energy prices." And businesses will do business wherever they can profit. Abandoning a market of 40 million population that has all the advantages California offers to particularly its wealthy and established residents is completely unlikely.

You specifically went right past the reference to Germany's turn to solar. Double the population to serve. Similar geographical size. Far less sunshine. Heading for energy independence anchored in solar which doesnt take long as nuclear.

Its not adversarial, its economic exploitation which is what businesses and countries do. Its supply and demand. Independent California would for several decades be entirely reliant on the US for its energy needs. The US would make massive sums of money by exploiting California's energy shortage. If the US want to slap massive tarriffs on California it could because California has no economic leverage. The only reason why California is not railroad in terms of energy costs is because it is part of the US.

To bring it down to terms you will understand. Its why bottled water costs $10 dollars at a concert. Nobody would pay that much for bottled water in a grocery store because they have choices. At a concert you don't have choices so they exploit your situation for maximum profit. California does not have immediate energy choices outside of the US.

You mentioned solar, the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in southern California took 5 years to build and its time frame from inception to completion took almost 10 years. Again, these things take a long time. Better measured in decades then in years.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by KenFresno

Its not adversarial, its economic exploitation which is what businesses and countries do. Its supply and demand. Independent California would for several decades be entirely reliant on the US for its energy needs. The US would make massive sums of money by exploiting California's energy shortage. If the US want to slap massive tarriffs on California it could because California has no economic leverage. The only reason why California is not railroad in terms of energy costs is because it is part of the US.

To bring it down to terms you will understand. Its why bottled water costs $10 dollars at a concert. Nobody would pay that much for bottled water in a grocery store because they have choices. At a concert you don't have choices so they exploit your situation for maximum profit. California does not have immediate energy choices outside of the US.

You mentioned solar, the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in southern California took 5 years to build and its time frame from inception to completion took almost 10 years. Again, these things take a long time. Better measured in decades then in years.

You are correct about economic exploitation and supply and demand. You are completely wrong that California has no economic leverage or choices. That is what Has been pointed out to you several times and repeatedly to others through this thread. California has the worlds sixth strongest economy. It controls the nations single most valuable market and port to/from Asia. It puts half of all America's produce on your tables. It is the nations second or third biggest oil producer. The majority of Americas venture capital is invested in California. It is our nations leader in manufacturing output. How you ignore those things as "no leverage" defies understanding.

It also doesnt matter if solar takes 5 years. It is an ongoing evolution already taking place. You are painting a picture as if California will acheive independence next year and the rest of the nation will pounce to rape and kill. Kinda hilarious. The referendum wont even come up for another year or two. Likely fail first try. A few mores years have another go at it. And if it manages to ever pass then transition to independence over a period of several more years. Meanwhile ... all kinds of wheel sturn. Meanwhile all kinds of people more cleveer than random internet forum posters will be figuring out profitable paths to solutions.