Do You Support Calexit Knowing that It's Sponsored by Russia? (Sacramento: taxes, centers)

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by Finper

So who would be the leader of the new country? Would our gov Brown become king or president? Would we have any politicians at all? Senators? Mayors? All gone? Would there be elections? What would happen to the unions and pensions? Would there be a police force like there is now? Would we still have car health and house insurance? What about mortgages? Banks that hold those are in the US. What about FUTA, social security and Medicare? I and a lot of other people will be long gone across the border to the USA but it's interesting questions you might want to think about

Originally Posted by expatCA

And think of all the costs to business with locations outside the US. They would have expensive legal changes to make as would their employees, Insurance, medical etc would all change and costs would change and go up, due to a smaller base. The number of things that would have to change, even small things would be very costly. Just think of signs that would need to show an independent Country, etc.

Another interesting question is why these issues are seen as uniquely new when dozens upon dozens of new nations have been formed in the past century - everyone of them dealing with all those issues (successfully) though having less resources to work with than California.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

3/4 the countries on those list are former colonial possessions who were DITCHED by former Empires that could no longer afford to support (or suppress) them. The others on that list became indepednent due to THREAT or USE of force just like I claimed. You either didn't read the link you posted or you're purposefully choosing ignorance because you didn't think I would actually click that link.

You are seriously a dishonest person.



Yup, just like in OEF where they faced guys with mattel walkie talkies, no supply lines, no advanced armor or gun ships, and only old soviet era AKs and RPGs. Because the coalition forces totally destroyed those extremist without any effort, so much so that the Middle East is now devoid of armed extremist and totally at peace.

So which is it, according to the Obama administration, internal militias were supposedly a higher threat to the country than Islamic terrorist. Yet, here you are saying an armed populace poses no threat to the central government. Which side of your mouth will you talk out of Stanley?

Your analysis of the reasons "3/4 of the nations on the list" became independent is humorously flawed in every respect. The central fact, however, remains that as said almost none resorted to violent overthrow and few others if any were feared by their mother governments such (especially) Britain. Many many colonies and territories and satellite nations now independent had/have resources of great value which is why they were occupied and ruled to begin with. Many of them have thriving economies now as free nations. Others don't and continue to lean on foreign aid in some cases from the very nations that "ditched them."

You claim the new were dumped because they couldn't be managed any longer? That doesn't remind you of California as somewhat regarded as a rogue state now?

As for OEF and other "freedom fighter" conflicts the ragtag aren't defeating the equiped and trained and supplied superior forces. Politics and imaging and war related business interests perpetuate those conflicts. The OEF in particular might as well have been publicly declared by Brown and Root and Haliburton. These aren't uprisings targeted for quick quelling and resolution. These are designer power plays and revenue machines. The fantasy that unorganized unshaven ignorant peasants can defeat technologically sophisticated forces backed by unlimited business and power interests hardly rises to adolescent level dreaming.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

Another interesting question is why these issues are seen as uniquely new when dozens upon dozens of new nations have been formed in the past century - everyone of them dealing with all those issues (successfully) though having less resources to work with than California.

They were smaller and less developed an did not in general have the infrastructure, businesses, etc that CA does. They are not very good comparisons and.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by expatCA

They were smaller and less developed an did not in general have the infrastructure, businesses, etc that CA does. They are not very good comparisons and.

That is exactly why they are excellent comparisons. California has more resources and better positioning by far than any of the dozens and dozens of new countries in the world. If they could do it ...

This is exactly the point being made over and over and over.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

That is exactly why they are excellent comparisons. California has more resources and better positioning by far than any of the dozens and dozens of new countries in the world. If they could do it ...

This is exactly the point being made over and over and over.

CA has more complexity which makes it harder.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by expatCA

CA has more complexity which makes it harder.

"Makes it harder" than what? "Makes it harder" to do what?

More complexity is a result of more powerful and diverse economy ... greater infrastructure and resources ... cultural and educational sophistication. Those things are precisely the point of its potential over the potential of so many other already auccessful independent breakaway nations.

Very curious how you try to present power as weakness.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

"Makes it harder" than what? "Makes it harder" to do what?

More complexity is a result of more powerful and diverse economy ... greater infrastructure and resources ... cultural and educational sophistication. Those things are precisely the point of its potential over the potential of so many other already auccessful independent breakaway nations.

Very curious how you try to present power as weakness.

Complexity is not power. It is the result of power being used, but not necessarily the power to change.

Since I doubt CALEXIT will ever occur, it is simply fun being in these discussions.

Neither the Federal Government nor the States want to see the Country begin to pull apart.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Complexity is not power. It is the result of power being used, but not necessarily the power to change.

Since I doubt CALEXIT will ever occur, it is simply fun being in these discussions.

Neither the Federal Government nor the States want to see the Country begin to pull apart.

Did someone say "complexity is power?" You are the only one who has brought up complexity. And your second statement "It is the result of power being used, but not necessarily the power to change." seems like nothing more than a word salad.

What the country or states want to see makes no difference. What the citizenry and economic drivers want is the primary motivator in this case.

It is an interesting topic though. Yes.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Complexity is not power. It is the result of power being used, but not necessarily the power to change.

Since I doubt CALEXIT will ever occur, it is simply fun being in these discussions.

Neither the Federal Government nor the States want to see the Country begin to pull apart.

Here's something that always intrigues me. Do you honestly think the country is going to last forever and never change? That the current union will be around for all eternity? If your answer is no then what is it about your lifetime that makes it so special that the country can't pull apart during your lifetime?

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Here's something that always intrigues me. Do you honestly think the country is going to last forever and never change? That the current union will be around for all eternity? If your answer is no then what is it about your lifetime that makes it so special that the country can't pull apart during your lifetime?

I do not expect the Country to pull apart in my life time. I do expect to see more struggles between the political parties and the Country being even more divided, but the damage a pulling apart of the Country would cause, would be very bad and no one would want to see that. The idea it would be best for everyone is not a very viable position as both CA and the USA need each other.