• 'California Will Launch Its Own Damn Satellites,' Governor Brown Tells Trump
    104 replies, posted
How deluded do you have to believe where you actually think California could actually secede from the union? The only reason the CSA had a fighting chance was because back then, our army wasn't federalized hardly at all. You had the Army (or armies) of Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, etc. That were commanded by and comprised completely of residents of that state. When south carolina seceded, it had a military to defend itself. California doesn't have shit. It has tons of military bases, sure, but the soldiers within are loyal to the Federal government, most of them probably aren't even from California. They wouldn't stand a chance if they tried to secede illegally, in a civil war fashion. I would try to make a case that it'd be possible if secession was SOMEHOW legal in some bizarro universe, but there's no way in hell that'll happen in real life. No way in hell the federal government is going to willingly give up jurisdiction over any of the 50 states, especially not its biggest moneymaker. It's just quite simply not going to happen.
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;51541506]How deluded do you have to believe where you actually think California could actually secede from the union? The only reason the CSA had a fighting chance was because back then, our army wasn't federalized hardly at all. You had the Army (or armies) of Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, etc. That were commanded by and comprised completely of residents of that state. When south carolina seceded, it had a military to defend itself. California doesn't have shit. It has tons of military bases, sure, but the soldiers within are loyal to the Federal government, most of them probably aren't even from California. They wouldn't stand a chance if they tried to secede illegally, in a civil war fashion. I would try to make a case that it'd be possible if secession was SOMEHOW legal in some bizarro universe, but there's no way in hell that'll happen in real life. No way in hell the federal government is going to willingly give up jurisdiction over any of the 50 states, especially not its biggest moneymaker. It's just quite simply not going to happen.[/QUOTE] I know someone will probably bring up the state's national guard so to nip that in the bud - ANGs train with the US army up and as such until they are sent back to the state. They are drilled as federal soldiers and Washington reserves the right to federalize any national guardsmen at any time.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51541494]Uh, yes it does set a precedent? Maybe not in [I]your[/I] country but [I]in the US[/I] it does. You can pull that "leaders of the free world is a paradox" but giving anyone anything because they demand it is not the definition of freedom. California is not a nation separate or distinct from the rest of the US. They have no legal right nor an international right to self determination.[/QUOTE] no your country isn't special, you tell yourselves you are free and for freedom, yet you are so quick to resort to violence to deprive aspiring nations of their inherent right. what i'm saying is that it's not up to you to decide. i know right now californians see themselves as americans, but if comes a day where they don't, they unilaterally reserve the right to self-determination. this goes for every peoples in the world. even in the US it's not a matter of law.
I'll leave my argument with making as simple as possible. California CAN secede from the US. The US may not recognize and try to stop them, but at any time they can cut ties with the federal government and essentially enact secession. It's bad, it'll be bad, and the US will take it back, but no amount of kicking and screaming and arguing the semantics of it can stop California from essentially divorcing itself from the US and operating independently until the US comes and kicks its ass just like they did a few hundred years ago. I don't want it to happen, but don't dismiss it as a possibility. That's how Trump got elected, and that's how it will happen. Nothing makes someone do something quite like saying [I]you can't.[/I] Recognize it as a possibility and know what you'll do to prevent it, and what you'll do if they do it.
[QUOTE=Sonador;51541581]I'll leave my argument with making as simple as possible. California CAN secede from the US. The US may not recognize and try to stop them, but at any time they can cut ties with the federal government and essentially enact secession. It's bad, it'll be bad, and the US will take it back, but no amount of kicking and screaming and arguing the semantics of it can stop California from essentially divorcing itself from the US and operating independently until the US comes and kicks its ass just like they did a few hundred years ago. I don't want it to happen, but don't dismiss it as a possibility. That's how Trump got elected, and that's how it will happen. Nothing makes someone do something quite like saying [I]you can't.[/I] Recognize it as a possibility and know what you'll do to prevent it, and what you'll do if they do it.[/QUOTE] Yeah no one gives a shit about this "they have the ability to if they really wanted to" bullshit. I am perfectly able to go break into my neighbor's house and rob him, doesn't mean I legally can. [editline]16th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mechanical43;51541545]no your country isn't special, you tell yourselves you are free and for freedom, yet you are so quick to resort to violence to deprive aspiring nations of their inherent right. what i'm saying is that it's not up to you to decide. i know right now californians see themselves as americans, but if comes a day when they don't, they unilaterally reserve the right to self-determination. this goes for every peoples in the world. even in the US it's not a matter of law.[/QUOTE] Pretty damn sure everyone here can agree that military confrontation would be the [I]last resort[/I] passing by a number of escalations that bypass numerous chances for compromise. [editline]16th December 2016[/editline] It doesn't even matter if Trump won despite what they want. If they want to be heard, they can just vote in democrats to Congress. And if they lose and Republicans win California, then it's pretty damn clear that those voicing a need to secede because they're losing elections (clearly after they cry and stomp their feet), are a very very very very tiny minority in a very very very large and populated state.
The next 4 years needs to be the democratic party's time to trumpet states rights.
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51541545]no your country isn't special, you tell yourselves you are free and for freedom, yet you are so quick to resort to violence to deprive aspiring nations of their inherent right. what i'm saying is that it's not up to you to decide. i know right now californians see themselves as americans, but if comes a day when they don't, they unilaterally reserve the right to self-determination. this goes for every peoples in the world. even in the US it's not a matter of law.[/QUOTE] I'd agree that they have the right to. It's just not a decision that makes sense from any side. California may have a strong economy, but the only reason they're thriving is due to them being part of the United States. Upon secession they'd be a new, upstart state and would have to re-negotiate trade rules, countless regulations and laws and such. No way in hell they're going to be able to negotiate better terms than they're getting as part of the US, which has been THE economic powerhouse for decades. Not to mention they're not self-sufficient at all when it comes to water, food, or even power. They're not making it alone. The only state that I really think could secede and eke out a decent, even prosperous existence is Texas. And even they don't stand much to gain.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51541630]The next 4 years needs to be the democratic party's time to trumpet states rights.[/QUOTE] Indeed, but the irony should not be lost.
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51541455]a war doesn't set legal precedent, it has got nothing to do with US law. what it does is tell the states that they are bound by coercion of force if it has to go there. two really different things. in my opinion it tarnishes your reputation as ''leaders of the free world''.[/QUOTE] A legal precedent is not written law, it's simply a previous legal decision that can be referenced as an example for future legal decisions. The South succeeded. The federal government decided that legally, they have no right to do so. It's a legal precedent. And on your last point, frankly nobody cares. Our position as ~leaders of the free world~~ is nothing more than a joke in the first place, in my opinion.
States being able to launch their own satellites is a-ok to me.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;51541961]A legal precedent is not written law, it's simply a previous legal decision that can be referenced as an example for future legal decisions. The South succeeded. The federal government decided that legally, they have no right to do so. It's a legal precedent. And on your last point, frankly nobody cares. Our position as ~leaders of the free world~~ became a joke with the Patriot Act over a decade ago, in my opinion.[/QUOTE] even if not written it is still considered law, you're just being obtuse. they didn't decide legally, they went at war and as winners of war they imposed their will on their adversaries. the way you learn your history in school is framed in such a weird way, I guess it has to do with totally squashing any idea about secession from your minds.
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51541980]even if not written it is still considered law, you're just being obtuse. they didn't decide legally, they went at war and as winners of war they imposed their will on their adversaries. the way you learn your history in school is framed in such a weird way, I guess it has to do with totally squashing any idea about secession from your minds.[/QUOTE] ....do you understand what a legal precedent is? Maybe I was being too vague for you to understand. A legal precedent is [B][I]not a written or unwritten law in any capacity[/I][/B]; it is simply a previous legal decision that can be referenced as an example for future legal decisions. The Civil War set a legal precedent. Past that, I do agree the way we're taught about the Civil War is a bit misleading. Lincoln's decision to make it about slavery half way through the war ultimately framed the Union as being on the right side of history, and it makes history classes kinda pass by the more relevant discussion of states rights vs federal rights and why the South left over that. But anyway, I stand by this California succession rhetoric being fucking absurd. Leaving the Union would be a terrible decision, and the majority of us here realize that. Come back with your "you guys are such fascists~~" rhetoric when the majority here has changed their mind.
sure, cali can secede, all their import/export businesses would move up north to washington and oregon, would give a nice economic boost to us
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51542017]sure, cali can secede, all their import/export businesses would move up north to washington and oregon, would give a nice economic boost to us[/QUOTE] Tacoma would be a nightmare trying to ramp up to longbeach capacity. Lots of that would go to Houston, too. So be my guest Cali.
All this talk of succession and im wondering how in the blue hell would California ever manage it? I mean its like a scooter trying to ram into a tank.
The best part in me eyes would be the fact that California's power from the Hoover Dam would be denied, it'd effectively have all of it's port taken or blockaded by the US Navy based on the west coast, and would most likely have its own internal conflicts. I'd imagine places like Jefferson[Northern Cali] would form their own states and Eastern California would be split up between Arizona and Nevada.
[QUOTE=OvB;51541227]California leaving will give precedent for Texas to leave. You'll neuter the United States and hand world supremacy to Russia and China.[/QUOTE] Like any of this is actually going to happen. Secession is illegal and if they force it through anyway it means war. Good luck with that.
They'd not be trying to attack the US, they'd be trying to leave it. The US would bring the pain regardless, though.
What the fuck is up with Americans being OK with forcefully taking back a state if they ever wanted to declare independence? How can you be fine with other nations splintering into independent states and hail it as an expression of those people's freedom yet feel righteous about forcefully denying your own state's right to self-determination through [I]fucking armed conflict?[/I] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51541392]Because California isn't a fucking nation. A nation is defined by wikipedia, is "A nation (from Latin: natio, "people, tribe, kin, genus, class, flock") is a large group or collective of people with common characteristics attributed to them — including language, traditions, mores (customs), habitus (habits), and ethnicity. By comparison, a nation is more impersonal, abstract, and overtly political than an ethnic group." - Californians by this are not in any shape way or form separate from other Americans in the country. They have no right to self determination anymore than an individual county in the United States has a right to secede from the country.[/QUOTE] This is fucking stupid, you don't need to develop a different culture or ethnicity to have a right to self-determination, political divide is enough, and I'm pretty sure the will to secede itself would be enough of a divide to justify it. Unless you want to apply the same logic to China and say Taiwan doesn't have a right to self-determination? You're just trying to find bullshit arguments to justify wanting to go to war with any seceding state and impose your own view on them.
[quote]"Rick, I got some news for you: California is growing a hell of a lot faster than Texas. And we've got more sun than you have oil," he said.[/quote] So cute. I wonder why Californias move to Texas in record numbers and we have a term now here called, "California Transplant." Maybe that sun stuff and other things costs too much and ain't that great? [url]http://freebeacon.com/issues/number-californians-moving-texas-hits-highest-level-nearly-decade/[/url]
[QUOTE=Tudd;51542514]So cute. I wonder why Californias move to Texas in record numbers and we have a term now here called, "California Transplant." Maybe that sun stuff and other things costs too much and ain't that great? [url]http://freebeacon.com/issues/number-californians-moving-texas-hits-highest-level-nearly-decade/[/url][/QUOTE] The articles source gives some nice numbers that all say that still more people and money are going into California than into Texas so maybe that "sun stuff" is really great?
[QUOTE=Overhauser;51542676]The articles source gives some nice numbers that all say that still more people and money are going into California than into Texas so maybe that "sun stuff" is really great?[/QUOTE] Which of CSV files are you looking at?
The ones for the individual states [editline]17th December 2016[/editline] The article agets even more ridiculous when you calculate outflow vs. inflow. Texas: Outflow to Cal: 20523 Inflow from Cal: 25288 Your "California Transplant" is 4765 Tax returns. Given that not everyone does a Tax return lets double it for good measure, that's still around 10k people.
Seceeding would be a big blunder, but pushing state rights would be perfect.
The verb succeed means to come after and take the place of, or to accomplish something desired or intended. Secede means to withdraw formally from membership in an organization. The two are occasionally confused. 3 pages of this issue. It's secede / secession. Please, I'm getting an aneurysm.
[QUOTE=01271;51543158]The verb succeed means to come after and take the place of, or to accomplish something desired or intended. Secede means to withdraw formally from membership in an organization. The two are occasionally confused. 3 pages of this issue. It's secede / secession. Please, I'm getting an aneurysm.[/QUOTE] didn't want to touch on it, but yeah it's getting to me too.
And you all though the texit crap was stupid
[QUOTE=01271;51543158]The verb succeed means to come after and take the place of, or to accomplish something desired or intended. Secede means to withdraw formally from membership in an organization. The two are occasionally confused. 3 pages of this issue. It's secede / secession. Please, I'm getting an aneurysm.[/QUOTE] successful secession has successfully succeeded in seceding talks to secede successfully imo
[QUOTE=_Axel;51542507]What the fuck is up with Americans being OK with forcefully taking back a state if they ever wanted to declare independence? How can you be fine with other nations splintering into independent states and hail it as an expression of those people's freedom yet feel righteous about forcefully denying your own state's right to self-determination through [I]fucking armed conflict?[/I] This is fucking stupid, you don't need to develop a different culture or ethnicity to have a right to self-determination, political divide is enough, and I'm pretty sure the will to secede itself would be enough of a divide to justify it. Unless you want to apply the same logic to China and say Taiwan doesn't have a right to self-determination? You're just trying to find bullshit arguments to justify wanting to go to war with any seceding state and impose your own view on them.[/QUOTE] Well for one, Taiwan is already self determining so that's a rather moot point. But if it were part of PRoC, then I would still say no, they wouldn't because they are culturally identical to the people on the mainland. Also, lol "wanting to go to war"
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51544257]They were in 1949.[/QUOTE] As I said, I would still say no. But they're already independent so it's a moot point.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.