Calexit: Could it Happen?

[San Cervantes]

Eh, that quite made no sense.

Rephrasing it... The most patriot thing we can do is stop the government's constant babysitting.

The same government right now that wants to nanny women that they're nothing but baby factories.

That is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[Great Minarchistan]

Eh, that quite made no sense.

Rephrasing it... The most patriot thing we can do is stop the government's constant babysitting.

That's not babysitting, it's called governing. You are advocating shattering the founders' dreams of a United America by supporting seccession. You sound like an anarchist.

George Washington & His Illuminated Group settled US as a group of autonomous states. In fact, they would love more freedom to those, unlike what has been practiced since 1861. Also, anarchists would defend the abolition of those States

[Traxa]

With brexit occurring last year many people have begun to talk about an independent California.
If California were independent it would have somewhere between the 6th and 9th largest economy in the world, it has more economic power than France. It's home to more people than Canada and multiple other countries. California also has many differences politically with the rest of the US states. So I'll leave it you to debate, should California become its own country?

California alone takes in almost a 3rd of all the federal aid given to the states every year for things going from education to help maintaining infrastructure to things dealing with federal prisons and military bases. So no it wouldn't be more economically powerful than France, its economy would tank, and would tank rather quickly. This is a dumb idea, just like some silly texans wanting independence when Obama won his first election. Why we keep having these threads is beyond me

[Gauthier]

The same government right now that wants to nanny women that they're nothing but baby factories.

[cracks a smile] Trump isn't that bad...

Pence, the Republicans in Congress and his future Supreme Court nominees however...

[San Cervantes]

That's not babysitting, it's called governing. You are advocating shattering the founders' dreams of a United America by supporting seccession. You sound like an anarchist.

George Washington & His Illuminated Group settled US as a group of autonomous states. In fact, they would love more freedom to those, unlike what has been practiced since 1861. Also, anarchists would defend the abolition of those States

Even though George Washington supported the creation of the constitution which united those states under one centralized government? If you think Washington was some kind of anti-government libertarian you really need to brush up on your history.

[Gauthier]

The same government right now that wants to nanny women that they're nothing but baby factories.

That is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Actually it is considering it contradicts his insistence that wanting California to secede is about stopping "government's constant babysitting".

[Prussianaa]

Nope.

[UED]

The majority of Californians, both Democrat and Republican, support remaining in the union. California will not secede unless the world collapses into nuclear warfare Fallout style.

[Tyrassueb]

Should it? No. What California should start doing though is throwing its weight around more. They have over 1/10 of the population yet are outweighed in numerous ways by much less populous states (especially in congress and the Electoral College) while also having the most powerful economy of any US state. Say what you will, they are the economic workhorse state, and provide more into the Federal government's tax revenues than most other states per capita.

That's actually a reason to make them leave. Federal budget is fairly a joke, and reduce its power over US is a good idea.

No it is not. It does mean that maybe the states that continually bombast the federal government for spending what it raises while simultaneously taking in far more than they pay in for the very subsidies they decry should maybe look up the term "hypocrite" and take a good long look in the mirror.

Can California become better? All signs point to yes. One big thing they could do is start cutting back on almond farms and start growing less soil-harsh crops to conserve more water. Once they can get that in check, most everything else is downhill.

Implying agriculture budget is a small share of their GDP and that measure wouldn't have a considerable impact.

I'm not directly talking about overall budgeting. Right now one of the biggest issues California is facing is near constant droughts brought on thanks to many soil-harsh agricultural goods, almonds being among one of the worst. Roll back some of the farmland used for these bad-for-the-environment crops and supplement them with crops that will not lead to a Dust Bowl 2.0 eventually and then California can turn it's gaze towards many other issues, not least among them the homeless, the rampant housing costs and the current public schooling crisis (wherein poor neighborhoods remain systemically behind the more prosperous neighborhoods in education goals thanks in large part to the way most states, California among them, use local property taxes to pay for local school districts when numerous studies prove this simply exacerbates and grow youth and young adult delinquencies, crime and drug use in these communities).

[Karamiko]

California would do fine on its own. But it'll do better if it stays a part of the US.

[San Cervantes]

Unlike what has been practiced since 1861

I sure hope you're not referring to Lincoln.

[The Two Jerseys]

Are we going to have one of these threads every other week now?

[Imperial Idaho]

Imagine an angelic choir singing hell no and you have my response.

As annoying as their fleeing the literally sinking ship that is California is it's for the best of the state and the US to have California remain in its place.

[Tyrassueb]

The majority of Californians, both Democrat and Republican, support remaining in the union. California will not secede unless the world collapses into nuclear warfare Fallout style.

I for one welcome our new two-headed ursine overlords!

[Vladimirstan]

I'm a resident of California who bleeds Democratic blue. This is a dumb idea.

[Karamiko]

I'm a resident of California who bleeds Democratic blue. This is a dumb idea.

Agreed.

[USS Monitor]

That's one state out of 11.

Virginia, Texas, Alabama, and Louisiana. I'm currently in the process of looking at Tennessee and South Carolina, and if you so wish I will look for the others. So far, however, it is quite clear all delegations were elected by popular vote. Furthermore, even if we ignore the above, your original contention that the secession was done soley by State Governments isn't even true, since all of these links show they were special conventions.

Time to take that L, bud.

OK. It's not something I ever felt a great need to research because the problems with voting rights at that time make it kind of moot, and even if it was supported by a majority of the white male population, I don't much care.

Even if the Confederacy was a legitimate sovereign nation from 1861 to 1865, I still don't care. The 3rd Reich was a sovereign nation, and nobody has a problem with us invading them.

Secession is fine and dandy, but it doesn't suddenly excuse you from responsibility for everything else you do.

If California secedes, they should have some patience while the rest of the Union gets used to the idea and make a real effort to avoid going to war. If the Union doesn't recognize their independence right away, and it doesn't immediately remove it's military installations, but it's still standing back and not interfering while the secessionists set up their new government, that doesn't make it right to go to war. If the Union starts setting up new military bases or it gets to be 5 or 10 years later and the Union still hasn't budged, then that's different.

[USS Monitor]

No. Hell no.

Trump will likely turn out to be the worst president America has had since before the turn of the 20th century, but that in no way warrants seceding from the Union. Only when he defies the Constitution and begins to take away the rights of people across America will it be acceptable for states to declare independence. Until then, an independent California would only make matters worse by encouraging states like Texas and Georgia to seriously think about pulling out the next time the Democrats take power. With either case, the situation would be extremely bad, as a sizable portion of our nuclear arsenal would immediately be in the hands of a foreign nation.

We can not under any circumstances allow the nation to become fractured over the next four years, because we will very quickly begin to slide down the most dangerous slippery slope in our history. The economic and military prowess of a hypothetical ex-state should be entirely irrelevant in arguments like these.

Why is it a problem for Texas or Georgia to leave?

[Tyrassueb]

No. Hell no.

Trump will likely turn out to be the worst president America has had since before the turn of the 20th century, but that in no way warrants seceding from the Union. Only when he defies the Constitution and begins to take away the rights of people across America will it be acceptable for states to declare independence. Until then, an independent California would only make matters worse by encouraging states like Texas and Georgia to seriously think about pulling out the next time the Democrats take power. With either case, the situation would be extremely bad, as a sizable portion of our nuclear arsenal would immediately be in the hands of a foreign nation.

We can not under any circumstances allow the nation to become fractured over the next four years, because we will very quickly begin to slide down the most dangerous slippery slope in our history. The economic and military prowess of a hypothetical ex-state should be entirely irrelevant in arguments like these.

Why is it a problem for Texas or Georgia to leave?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

[USS Monitor]

Why is it a problem for Texas or Georgia to leave?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

That doesn't mean it would be a bad thing for Texas to become independent.

[Taverkia-Aloo]

It does have the economic power to survive as an Indie nation right? But isn't it unconstitutional for it to cede?

[Tyrassueb]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

That doesn't mean it would be a bad thing for Texas to become independent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo8A_v3_Nks

[Cannot think of a name]

It does have the economic power to survive as an Indie nation right? But isn't it unconstitutional for it to cede?

It's not a thing. At best we joke about it, maybe sometimes when we're frustrated we sulk like a teenager "I'll just run off on my own, then they'll know..." but like that teenager we just suck it up and get back to the business of kicking ass.

It mostly ever comes up because someone is being a big baby about the fact we won't tow some bullshit line or some youngin doesn't catch the sarcastic sneer.

The only ones who are serious about even altering California are the State of Jefferson folk that want to split the state and they weird every one out.

[USS Monitor]

That doesn't mean it would be a bad thing for Texas to become independent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo8A_v3_Nks

The quality of a person's life isn't measured by how powerful the country they live in is, or the size of their country's economy. For example, China has a larger economy than Canada, but the average Canadian still has a higher standard of living than the average person in China.

I would never want to live in Texas, whether it secedes or not, but that doesn't mean having it secede would be bad for us up here in New England.

[The Corparation]

That depends. California might wind up really getting into nuclear and building combination nuclear power/desalinization plants.

Desalinization is very expensive, of course, but it might be doable if they could then sell their electricity to Mexico (or the United States).

They've been looking into that one for years, and it's just too expensive with current technology as well as the fact it would take years to do.

You mean starting river diversions?

No, the US would have no legal obligation to continue sharing the Colorado or the linked to Truckee River.

I see two major problems with your plan. (Well a hell of a lot more than two, but we'll start with two to keep it simple)
1) The US has a legal obligation to share Colorado River water with Mexico. Mexico is downstream of California. You would need to somehow divert the river to get to Mexico without going near California.
2) The Truckee River starts in California. I'm curious as to how you plan to divert water away from somewhere that is upstream of you.

It does have the economic power to survive as an Indie nation right? But isn't it unconstitutional for it to cede?

It's not a thing. At best we joke about it, maybe sometimes when we're frustrated we sulk like a teenager "I'll just run off on my own, then they'll know..." but like that teenager we just suck it up and get back to the business of kicking ass.

It mostly ever comes up because someone is being a big baby about the fact we won't tow some bullshit line or some youngin doesn't catch the sarcastic sneer.

The only ones who are serious about even altering California are the State of Jefferson folk that want to split the state and they weird every one out.

I'm honestly still baffled why we haven't unloaded all those Jefferson folks onto Oregon.