Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Heck, it would be so much fun to name them....let's see....Canafornia (north), Earthquakania (next one south), BrushFiregayania, and the southern most one would be ...North Mexico.,
LOL!
My proposition is:
North California
San Andreas
Santa-Analand
North Mexico
This thread is stupid. There are only two issues which need to be dealt with 1) the 2/3rds rule means that a 2/3rds vote is needed before any spending can be cut or taxes raised which effectively means the minority can completely block everything. That's not good. 2) Direct democracy is often unrealistic and dumb as every stupid **** continually votes to massively increase spending on issues they like while contradictorily voting that he and his friends should never pay taxes. They want everything but they want to pay for nothing; it's stupid.
This thread is stupid. There are only two issues which need to be dealt with 1) the 2/3rds rule means that a 2/3rds vote is needed before any spending can be cut or taxes raised which effectively means the minority can completely block everything. That's not good. 2) Direct democracy is often unrealistic and dumb as every stupid **** continually votes to massively increase spending on issues they like while contradictorily voting that he and his friends should never pay taxes. They want everything but they want to pay for nothing; it's stupid.
If you think this thread is stupid then why post here? I dont think it's stupid. I think it's perfectly logical. Given the current state that the government of California is in it's definetly possible that California may divide.
I think the people should be able to decide what needs to be cut, or what taxes need to be raised.
If it means that I will stop having to pay to water lawns in SoCal, I'd be all for it.
One of the biggest problems in CA is that LA has the population and therefore the vote. That can be a real headache for the rest of us. I won't go into the massive financial liability that is LA because that's already been done to death and we all already know our taxes are so high because we have to subsidize LA's problems.
If the state divided, LA would crash and burn.
Most people don't realize that California's primary industry is agriculture and that we provide a little more than half the nation's food supply. Basically whichever region controlled the water will win. The Valley that produces all that food is normally a hot and dry place. If not for the water piped in from Northern CA and the Colorado river, the valley and SoCal would literally dry up.
Up here in the SF area, we have water. We provide water to about 5 million people in LA. Since our area popluation is a little more than 7 million, just the folks getting water from us is more than 2/3. I simply can't realistically see the vast majority of the voters in SoCal voting away NorCal and the valley and all that cool clear water. LA also needs the tax revenues from all those folks to the north who actually pay taxes so again, they'd be really hesitant to let that revenue slip away.
People like to assign a lot of blame to conservatives and liberals but it's all very simple. California is all about water management. Contrary to popular opinion, California's massive economy and (until recently) wealth is all about food and not centered on the cities. Yes the cities manage money and all that great stuff but it's not the fancy cultural centers that make the wheels spin, it's the farms. You control the vote, you control the water, when you control the water you control the agrcultural industry, when you control that, you own CA. Pretty simple actually. No, as pleasant the idea of splitting the state up may be, it's not gonna happen.
The State of Confusion....lead by Miss Sogynist
The State of Decay...lead by Miss Represent
The State of Insanity...lead by Miss Creant
and...
The State of Foolishness...lead by Miss Spoke.....
There was talk back in the 50's about dividing California into north and south but that is long past being effective since all of California is pretty much the same because of illegal immigration; before someone disagrees, just look at how the population is not just increasing but accelerating into every city.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,027,552 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by who?me?!
heck, it would be so much fun to name them....let's see....canafornia (north), earthquakania (next one south), brushfiregayania, and the southern most one would be ...north mexico.:d:d,
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,027,552 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
Well, okay, if you want to be an extremist, I guess that's your right. When someone blames all of the bad things in the world on either liberals or conservatives, I think of them as irrational.
Yes I do think it will help. Well as Califorin's will have more of a chance to live better. It worked for the Caralina states. But it should be only 3 states. North, Centerl, and southern California.
I will move up out of S.Cali, hoping there you dont have to speek spanish to get a good health care job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
