More Californians than ever want to secede from US
167 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51737646]We have the most lethal collection of fighting forces in the history of mankind. We have guided bombs, drones equipped with missiles, more armored vehicles than we need, and tough, highly realistic training.
The Taliban and al-Qaeda? They have almost nothing but small-arms, mortars, home-made rockets and IEDs. Their training is, in many cases, laughable. They've spent the last decade and a half making us look stupid.
Warfare is no simpler than politics.[/QUOTE]
The middle east is effing hard to fight in I think, particularly against people who have lived there for years. The Soviets learned this in the 80s and apparently Bush wasn't paying attention.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;51737643]Yeah?[/quote]
so the unity of the united states trumps the freedom and the right to sovereignty of the californians, even if all of them do not want to be in the USA?
[quote]Because it would be illegal? They didnt seek permission from the Federal Government to negotiate it? Theres probably a whole host of reasons they could come up with both legitimate and not.[/quote]
does that matter?
[quote]Why are you even arguing it to begin with?[/QUOTE]
well i argue it would still be a coup regardless. your argument hinged on the legality of it, which doesnt matter if its still essentially a coup in form and function
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51737657]Who said they would overthrow it? They would prevent California from leaving the union and possibly arrest some politicians and the governor for Conspiracy or Treason, though the charges might end up dropped, and if not the sentences would be light. The legislator would go on although some empty seats would need refilled, and the scene would be a reminder that attempting to leave the union is prohibited.[/QUOTE]
so what do you do when the californians vote in pro-independence politicians the next year who follow through on their demands? do you occupy the country again or what?
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51737657]Who said they would overthrow it? They would prevent California from leaving the union and possibly arrest some politicians and the governor for Conspiracy or Treason, though the charges might end up dropped, and if not the sentences would be light. The legislator would go on although some empty seats would need refilled, and the scene would be a reminder that attempting to leave the union is prohibited.[/QUOTE]
For the sake of argument, let's assume the secession movement is a popular one. You've arrested the legislators who voted for secession (at the behest of their constituents), and now their seats need to be refilled.
Do you fill those seats with federal appointees, thereby imposing unelected officials on a people that don't want them? Or do you hold new elections, possibly resulting in a legislature that votes, again, for secession?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51737670]so the unity of the united states trumps the freedom and the right to sovereignty of the californians, even if all of them do not want to be in the USA?[/QUOTE]
Dont want to sound like a dick but, kind of. Its also illegal for California to secede on its own.
I mean i dont know how to really answer that first part because of how you worded it. I dont disagree with freedom and sovereignty but like, the example you're painting i do and stuff.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51737670]does that matter?[/QUOTE]
I dont know dude you're the one asking the question?????
You asked how the US Gov could justify itself and i told you how???
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51737670]well i argue it would still be a coup regardless. your argument hinged on the legality of it, which doesnt matter if its still essentially a coup in form and function[/QUOTE]
It would never be allowed to separate, it would be prevented before it could happen, and even if it did, what the Government would do in response does not meet the definition of a Coup so no, it would not be a coup.
If i changed the definition of a bird to "swampland reptilian known for spinning", i could make a crocodile a bird, but i cant do that either.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51737670]so what do you do when the californians vote in pro-independence politicians the next year who follow through on their demands? do you occupy the country again or what?[/QUOTE]
Well, first, it wouldnt be a country, and second, yes.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;51737697]Dont want to sound like a dick but, kind of. Its also illegal for California to secede on its own.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to point out that it's also illegal on the federal level for Californians to grow and sell Cannabis. At the same time, it's perfectly legal on the state level. Due to the Supremacy Clause, federal law trumps state law, and yet...
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51737721]I'd like to point out that it's also illegal on the federal level for Californians to grow and sell Cannabis. At the same time, it's perfectly legal on the state level. Due to the Supremacy Clause, federal law trumps state law, and yet...[/QUOTE]
The feds are allowing it to happen in that case.
Lot of hypocrites in here. Ive seen a lot of you support independent catalonia, scotland, kosovo, kurdistan ect. Ect. But whenever it comes to the US you mock them? Even though Califonia would be the MOST viable of any of the other nations ive listed.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51737670]so what do you do when the californians vote in pro-independence politicians the next year who follow through on their demands? do you occupy the country again or what?[/QUOTE]
I guess you'd have to, wouldn't you? Although I'd imagine the Federal Government would be quite annoyed with radical Californians wasting their time and money on a futile effort, like a child that keeps trying to play with the thermostat every time daddy looks away. Also, you keep using loaded words like "occupy" and "coup", when it's just the Federal Government ensuring the law of the land is enforced.
[editline]27th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Richoxen;51737765]Lot of hypocrites in here. Ive seen a lot of you support independent [del]catalonia, scotland[/del], kosovo, kurdistan ect. Ect. But whenever it comes to the US you mock them? Even though Califonia would be the MOST viable of any of the other nations ive listed.[/QUOTE]
I didn't know Californians were an oppressed ethnic minority at risk of ethnic cleansing by the larger state...
How is independent California more necessary than Kosovo or Kurdistan?
...and when they annexed back into mexico?
Here's an idea: Let the people who want to move out of the US to move out of the US! They can be given a small patch of land each to farm up in Alaska or something.
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51737881]Here's an idea: Let the people who want to move out of the US to move out of the US! They can be given a small patch of land each to farm up in Alaska or something.[/QUOTE]
But Alaska is...?
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51737773]I guess you'd have to, wouldn't you? Although I'd imagine the Federal Government would be quite annoyed with radical Californians wasting their time and money on a futile effort, like a child that keeps trying to play with the thermostat every time daddy looks away. Also, you keep using loaded words like "occupy" and "coup", when it's just the Federal Government ensuring the law of the land is enforced.
[editline]27th January 2017[/editline]
I didn't know Californians were an oppressed ethnic minority at risk of ethnic cleansing by the larger state...
How is independent California more necessary than Kosovo or Kurdistan?[/QUOTE]
Yeah dude, thanks for ignoring Scotland and Catalonia. Great deflection.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;51737887]But Alaska is...?[/QUOTE]
Note:
[quote] They can be given a small patch of land[/quote]
[QUOTE=AaronM202;51737697]Dont want to sound like a dick but, kind of. Its also illegal for California to secede on its own.
I mean i dont know how to really answer that first part because of how you worded it. I dont disagree with freedom and sovereignty but like, the example you're painting i do and stuff.[/quote]
well i mean there's either saying "california should have the right to self-determination" or "california should not have the right to self-determination".
[quote]It would never be allowed to separate, it would be prevented before it could happen, and even if it did, what the Government would do in response does not meet the definition of a Coup so no, it would not be a coup. If i changed the definition of a bird to "swampland reptilian known for spinning", i could make a crocodile a bird, but i cant do that either.[/quote]
it would be just an undemocratic and sudden violent regime change rather than a coup then i suppose
[quote]Well, first, it wouldnt be a country, and second, yes.[/QUOTE]
why? if you occupy the country then and people keep on voting for pro-independence politicians who keep trying to declare independence, do you remove their right to vote or what?
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51737773]I guess you'd have to, wouldn't you? Although I'd imagine the Federal Government would be quite annoyed with radical Californians wasting their time and money on a futile effort, like a child that keeps trying to play with the thermostat every time daddy looks away. Also, you keep using loaded words like "occupy" and "coup", when it's just the Federal Government ensuring the law of the land is enforced.[/QUOTE]
so you are telling me that if a majority of people in california voted for independence, and voted for politicians who kept on issuing declarations of independence and associated pro-independence policies, that the response is to treat them like children who don't know whats best for them and therefore they need to be occupied by the army to prevent them from leaving the country?
and no im not using loaded words, you're using strange euphemisms that disguise the fact you would be imposing direct rule from a government that lacks the consent of the governed
like what the fuck else do you call it when the army would have to sit in california year-on-year to prevent them declaring independence by arresting the politicians they elect and imposing direct rule with none of the people they are ruling over agreeing to this state of affairs?
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51735627]They don't have enough water to sustain themselves and their large economy. Also they can't leave legally. And if they left illegally they would be invaded and conquered.
Actually, this doesn't sound like a bad idea. Maybe we can have a "California Reconstruction" and purge all the lefty filth from the state.[/QUOTE]
Jeez, and I thought that Cinnamonbun was going to be the only one making psychotic posts in SH today.
[QUOTE=Richoxen;51738054]Yeah dude, thanks for ignoring Scotland and Catalonia. Great deflection.[/QUOTE]
Scotland is a bit different, and I've never heard of Catalonia so I can't make any arguments for or against them.
california can try to leave if they want, i am not sure if they will be able to do so well
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51738085]so you are telling me that if a majority of people in california voted for independence, and voted for politicians who kept on issuing declarations of independence and associated pro-independence policies, that the response is to treat them like children who don't know whats best for them and therefore they need to be occupied by the army to prevent them from leaving the country?[/QUOTE]
It's illegal to leave the union. Simple as that. We let people leave, and it shows we have no integrity. Then everyone is going to want out for stupid reasons and the United States will be fragmented in a decade. It'd be like the fall of the Soviet Union all over again, including the decades long economic hardships and the flood of top-of-the-line military hardware into the hands of newly empowered criminal elements.
Besides if California really becomes as radical as you imply, we'll likely be seeing insurgent movements and terrorist attacks on the United States, at which point the military would be deployed. But that's completely unrealistic, California no matter how bad they want to succeed, is probably not going to become a rogue state like the one in your examples. We're a stable country, and they're one of the wealthiest states.
[QUOTE=Cone;51735709]guess the 2nd amendment's not good for much then lol[/QUOTE]
Not in California lol, is there a gun there that isn't illegal for private citizens to own?
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51738620]Not in California lol, is there a gun there that isn't illegal for private citizens to own?[/QUOTE]
Single-shot .22 rifles :v:
Seriously though, California's done a lot to piss off their gun owners. I can't see very many of them supporting secession. If anything, they'd want to secede from California themselves.
We should work on keeping the union together, not splitting up.
Californians are some of the worst drivers I've ever seen and my rural western sensibilities don't agree with the liberal attitudes of SoCal but fuckin a guys, don't forget we're all Americans here. Partisanship is probably the worst shit to ever happen to this country with all the baseless divisions it has caused.
[editline]27th January 2017[/editline]
We who live in the US are Americans at least, don't really mean all of the Europeans who know exactly what's happening on the ground here in the states thanks to the media.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;51735607]Good, I don't want them anyways. Unfortunate they can't actually leave.[/QUOTE]
We live in the same country you know, don't feed the retarded fire of secession by thinking your state is any better.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51738819]Single-shot .22 rifles :v:
Seriously though, California's done a lot to piss off their gun owners. I can't see very many of them supporting secession. If anything, they'd want to secede from California themselves.[/QUOTE]
You can buy an Ak47 that fires 7.62x39mm in almost every state without a license.
They're so lazy they won't even bother to leave the country, they want the country to leave them.
[editline]28th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Richoxen;51739081]You can buy an Ak47 that fires 7.62x39mm in almost every state without a license.[/QUOTE]
California has banned them by name, and by feature.
[QUOTE=Ridge;51739160]
California has banned them by name, and by feature.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.atlanticfirearms.com/component/virtuemart/shipping-rifles/cai-ak-47-wasr-10-7-62x39mm-rifle-2254-detail.html?Itemid=0[/url]
[QUOTE=Richoxen;51739186][url]https://www.atlanticfirearms.com/component/virtuemart/shipping-rifles/cai-ak-47-wasr-10-7-62x39mm-rifle-2254-detail.html?Itemid=0[/url][/QUOTE]
That's basically a glorified SKS at that point.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51738487]It's illegal to leave the union. Simple as that. We let people leave, and it shows we have no integrity. Then everyone is going to want out for stupid reasons and the United States will be fragmented in a decade. It'd be like the fall of the Soviet Union all over again, including the decades long economic hardships and the flood of top-of-the-line military hardware into the hands of newly empowered criminal elements.[/quote]
well its my opinion that if a country is really great to live in, then there won't be any independence movements. if the only thing holding the united states together is the fact that its illegal to leave, then it implies that your country doesn't really have a collective identity at all.
plus doesn't it go against the original principles of the United States to prevent people from declaring independence with military force?
[quote]Besides if California really becomes as radical as you imply, we'll likely be seeing insurgent movements and terrorist attacks on the United States, at which point the military would be deployed. But that's completely unrealistic, California no matter how bad they want to succeed, is probably not going to become a rogue state like the one in your examples. We're a stable country, and they're one of the wealthiest states.[/QUOTE]
well at the moment sure, but the USA is a flawed democracy with increasing authoritarianism and inequality, a political system thats become ossified and polarized, and regional identities and languages are still developing and diverging from one another. all of these could be manageable, but the fact that the American nation doesn't really exist makes me doubt you.
Pointing to a document and saying "you were warned" might've justified an unprovoked invasion in the 19th century, but not today. A modern union is held together by the promise of fairness and stability, and if those things aren't there the union falls apart, and anyone who resorts to violence to keep it together is going to have take responsibility for the bloodshed that happens in what they're calling their land.
California/Texas/wherever else isn't there yet, but they're getting closer. Making things fair for each state takes sacrifices that the federal government is never willing to make, and it likely won't change until its too late.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51735595]Not gonna happen.[/QUOTE]
Let them leave, then watch as the fault line triggers and they learn to swim.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.