Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-22-2017, 11:39 AM
 
7,736 posts, read 4,968,246 times
Reputation: 7963

Advertisements

California really needs a intervention. If I were the FEDS. I would storm the California legislature with federal agents. Then arrest any politician that does not follow federal law. I would try them with treason and remove them from power. I would also hold new elections to re elect sane individuals.


That state is so far gone ... theres no return...remember ...it all happened when they get their amnesty in the 80's......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-22-2017, 11:42 AM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
20,794 posts, read 9,435,750 times
Reputation: 15522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyp25 View Post
California really needs a intervention. If I were the FEDS. I would storm the California legislature with federal agents. Then arrest any politician that does not follow federal law. I would try them with treason and remove them from power. I would also hold new elections to re elect sane individuals.
Do you have any idea how illegal that would be? It appears you don't. You're basically prescribing a police state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 11:47 AM
 
35,309 posts, read 52,154,689 times
Reputation: 30999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyp25 View Post
California really needs a intervention. If I were the FEDS. I would storm the California legislature with federal agents. Then arrest any politician that does not follow federal law. I would try them with treason and remove them from power. I would also hold new elections to re elect sane individuals.


That state is so far gone ... theres no return...remember ...it all happened when they get their amnesty in the 80's......
Would nuking the state satisfy your need to control California.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 12:13 PM
 
5,722 posts, read 5,786,399 times
Reputation: 4381
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderlust76 View Post
This really doesn't mean that much as you said, someone that is a RN in a small college city like Morgantown, WV is probably living a higher quality of life than a lot of people with post grad degrees in the large metros on the coast. I have looked into moving to CA but you just don't get enough bang for your buck even in the exurbs of the major cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
Depends on your field. My field pays 50% more in the Bay Area compared to here in Phoenix, and with only a 30% higher COL (if housing is kept to 30% of your household budget). Even after taxes, I would come out ahead there. SoCal is a different story though. Only 20% higher wages with the 30% higher COL in greater LA, so I would lower my standard of living there compared to the Bay
Yeah I agree it depends on your field and where you're at on the ladder or where you want to be on the ladder. For me somewhere like Vegas or Phoenix is probably better it's doubtful I would make enough in CA for it to be worth it. Even if I tried to live the struggle and do the commute from Fontana to downtown L.A. or something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 12:46 PM
 
Location: San Jose
2,594 posts, read 1,234,535 times
Reputation: 2590
Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare View Post
The infrastructure problem is because of two reasons
-. American developers wouldn't know what density was if it slapped them across the face.
-People don't believe in public transportation in the U.S and because we didn't eminent domain rail or other infrastructure 30 years ago the problem has gotten even worse and now their are even more houses that need to be eminent domaines for rail.

For example the suburbs of Tokyo on average hold a density between 20,000 ppsm and 40,000 ppsm. While are roads are too wide to get that type of density things like parking lot codes etcetera make it impossible for a U.S suburb to even hit 20,000 ppsm let alone get into that range. In fact most suburbs are at 2,000ppsm to 5,000ppsm.
There is such a thing as too much democracy. Our state is a good example of this. When every single person has a say and has input into every single matter nothing gets done.

Take our housing situation in the Bay Area as an example. Public hearings for new large scale housing developments in San Francisco were shot down by NIMBY locals for decades. So you have a city with an ever increasing demand for housing but an extremely limited and controlled volume of residential units. Whats going to happen to costs? Locals were so committed to preserving there little town they ended up pricing themselves out. SF in terms of density should resemble Hong Kong. Instead it has giant areas of low density housing on a limited parcel of land. Idiocy.

Let's not even begin to discuss LA and SJ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Self explanatory
12,601 posts, read 7,195,974 times
Reputation: 16799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyp25 View Post
California really needs a intervention. If I were the FEDS. I would storm the California legislature with federal agents. Then arrest any politician that does not follow federal law. I would try them with treason and remove them from power. I would also hold new elections to re elect sane individuals.


That state is so far gone ... theres no return...remember ...it all happened when they get their amnesty in the 80's......
It amazes me that some American citizens think like this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 01:17 PM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,888,584 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
If you would study the Constitution and realize exactly what it is, a contract between the States which created the Federal Government, and in doing so, the States delegated certain powers to the Federal Government, you would understand that what I said is true.

California cannot, nor any other State, make their own immigration and naturalization policies. Such policies violate the Constitution, which delegated that authority to the Federal Government alone, so that such policies would be "uniform."

Illegal aliens must not be treated differently in one state than they are in another. They must not be issued a drivers license in one state, which, being illegal, would then be forced by other states to be recognized. And if California went even further, and granted them all rights of citizenship, that too would require other states to recognize those rights.

Can you begin to see the problem? That is why immigration policy was delegated to the Federal Government alone. All states must comply with Federal Law.

As regards the border wall, it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to secure our borders. California has no choice in the matter. U.S. Border Security is not under the authority of the State of California. They may have no say in the matter. Their lawsuit is frivolous and without merit.
Here was your comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
California is in total violation of the Constitution at every level. They need to be punished severely.
"at every level" - really? Have you read the Constitution? There's a lot in there that has literally nothing to do with immigration. Is CA violating, for instance, any of the many amendments of the Constitution? If they're not violating every part of the Constitution (which...obviously, they are not), then your post was just hyperbolic nonsense.



But let's address your second post since I now see you want to make it "just" about immigration (how convenient - goal posts successfully moved).

I don't actually see them making any of their own policy on immigration. If anything, the concept of "sanctuary city" policy is that they do not want to make their own policy. That's exactly it! The issue is one of local or state resources being used to do the job of the federal government. If anything, they're saying to the federal government "do your job".

I know why this upsets people - but you should really look at what sanctuary city policy states at a very specific level - it's probably not what you think it is.

You should also realize that this concept of local vs. federal jurisdiction has been looked at many times by the Supreme Court - and they have often sided with local arguments on this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 01:18 PM
 
7,736 posts, read 4,968,246 times
Reputation: 7963
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
Do you have any idea how illegal that would be? It appears you don't. You're basically prescribing a police state.
Illegal ? Illegal as in, not following federal law?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 01:18 PM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,888,584 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Town FFX View Post
It amazes me that some American citizens think like this.
Amazingly scary, that is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 01:20 PM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,888,584 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno View Post
There is such a thing as too much democracy. Our state is a good example of this. When every single person has a say and has input into every single matter nothing gets done.

Take our housing situation in the Bay Area as an example. Public hearings for new large scale housing developments in San Francisco were shot down by NIMBY locals for decades. So you have a city with an ever increasing demand for housing but an extremely limited and controlled volume of residential units. Whats going to happen to costs? Locals were so committed to preserving there little town they ended up pricing themselves out. SF in terms of density should resemble Hong Kong. Instead it has giant areas of low density housing on a limited parcel of land. Idiocy.

Let's not even begin to discuss LA and SJ.
There are very valid points in there. CA allows for a single individual to bring down an entire development project. It's a total double-edged sword. While I like that concept, in principle, it is grossly exploited and misused very frequently (especially by NIMBYs who just want their neighborhood to never change for eternity).

I'm very much on your side. Although, we should be careful to not advocate for the pendulum to swing too far the other direction (removing all control at the local level). But we obviously need a better balance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:50 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top