Californians Call to Secede from the US; "CalExit"

[New Axiom]

Cone to cut would never survive independent...but maybe It would survive as a Canadian overseas territory

NATO is unlikely to survive Trump with this congress if they align with Russia.

It's not good, no, but i suppose it works. I guess this is the part where I say quiet down and deal with it.

Until a Democrat wins in the same way twice, I will see this existing system as something to favor the GOP.

We don't even need NATO; Russia isn't the Soviet Union.

[Outer Sparta]

Trump may have won now, but his future isn't that bright for 2020. Strangers things have happened, so don't underestimate that. If I were Trump, I'd focus on current affairs, get a competent cabinet, and genuinely heal the 2016 scara.

Unless there's a recession, the incumbent always wins. Trump has to hope he doesn't get an economic slowdown.

He can't make a lot of stumbles in office, or he'll lose to the Democrat candidate.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Trump may have won now, but his future isn't that bright for 2020. Strangers things have happened, so don't underestimate that. If I were Trump, I'd focus on current affairs, get a competent cabinet, and genuinely heal the 2016 scara.

Unless there's a recession, the incumbent always wins. Trump has to hope he doesn't get an economic slowdown.

Nixon didn't have a recession and look at him.

[The Rebel Alliances]

Well, as a Republican who voted for Hillary, lets just wait and see. As for the 'CalExit' that is literally nothing. No state is seceding, and talk of it will die down in days.

As for Trump, he now has the job of convincing me that his Presidency will suck less than Hillary. Hell who knows, maybe things will improve.

I always was an optimist.

[The Serbian Empire]

The republic's design was poor at best with this "Electoral College". It led to war mongers in Trump and Bush winning despite not winning the popular vote because of where they won rather than by anything in that in Europe or Canada would be called Democratic.

FPTP is simpler and more democratic.

Just remove the secretive methods and stop handing Wyoming an elector ratio three times that of California or Texas per person.

[Valaran]

The republic's design was poor at best with this "Electoral College". It led to war mongers in Trump and Bush winning despite not winning the popular vote because of where they won rather than by anything in that in Europe or Canada would be called Democratic.

Actually parts of Europe also use systems where governing parties don't always end up with 50+% of the vote.

NATO is unlikely to survive Trump with this congress if they align with Russia.

Somewhat hyperbolic conjecture at this stage. A rapprochement with Russia is not 'alignment', and it was Trumps' comments (it would never be McCain's comments, for instance)

Until a Democrat wins in the same way twice, I will see this existing system as something to favor the GOP.

An arbitrary definition of favourability. The ways in which candidates win is equally subject to specific contexts of their respective elections, and thus relevant comparisons to be made are limited at best.

[The Serbian Empire]

Unless there's a recession, the incumbent always wins. Trump has to hope he doesn't get an economic slowdown.

Nixon didn't have a recession and look at him.

He had impeachment and stagflation was starting due to OPEC blockades.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Riots for one thing. I'm not saying people should riot, but it could happen.

And if riots of a major scale happen by radical members of left, then the only thing they will accomplish is putting more people off of their beliefs and securing the 2020 election even more so for Trump.

But it would be unnecessary violence. It would look good for Trump if he stopped a riot from happening

But there is the other parts of the GOP that hate trump and refuse to work him.

There literally is no major wing that will do this. Trump just got them back into power, and got himself a big mandate. He's implement their policies, and they'll implement his (besides, neither is very dissimilar).

Plus, he seemed genuine.

You're basing this off one comment in one speech, and appearances. Its a politician's job to seem genuine - how do you think he appears to most of his supporters? There is currently no practical change from this 'feeling', and a long history detailing that it is unlikely to occur, in light his past form (which has not been atypical to his general bearing up to now). There is no substantive reason to take him at his word as of yet, and plenty of cause for scepticism.

Look, at the risk of an assumption, I am going to posit that you want this to be true, which is why you've latched onto this 'sign'. Which I get, but it doesn't make it true.

No, it needs to be. America needs to heal from nearly tearing itself apart.

The only way to do that is to unify.

[Wallenburg]

Actually parts of Europe also use systems where governing parties don't always end up with 50+% of the vote.

That's rather good, considering that a system where governing parties always end up with the majority of the vote is called a one-party state.

[The Serbian Empire]

The republic's design was poor at best with this "Electoral College". It led to war mongers in Trump and Bush winning despite not winning the popular vote because of where they won rather than by anything in that in Europe or Canada would be called Democratic.

Actually parts of Europe also use systems where governing parties don't always end up with 50+% of the vote.

NATO is unlikely to survive Trump with this congress if they align with Russia.

Somewhat hyperbolic conjecture at this stage. A rapprochement with Russia is not 'alignment', and it was Trumps' comments (it would never be McCain's comments, for instance)

Until a Democrat wins in the same way twice, I will see this existing system as something to favor the GOP.

An arbitrary definition of favourability. The ways in which candidates win is equally subject to specific contexts of their respective elections, and thus relevant comparisons to be made are limited at best.

Giving excessive elector numbers to mostly Republican small states like Idaho, Montana, etc. is not what we call democratic when votes there effectively are worth thrice as much as a Californian or a Texan.

[Valaran]

No, it needs to be. America needs to heal from nearly tearing itself apart.

The only way to do that is to unify.

It is indeed a critical structural issue. My point is that one comment by Trump doesn't mean he's now an ardent crusader of national unity, no matter ow much we would like the President elect to become this role.

[NERVUN]

I hope California achieves secession, and I even started a petition for Connecticut's secession.

You are an idiot.

You are flaming, *** One day ban ***.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Nixon didn't have a recession and look at him.

He had impeachment and stagflation was starting due to OPEC blockades.

Still wasn't a recession.

Did HW Bush have a recession?

[Valaran]

Giving excessive elector numbers to mostly Republican small states like Idaho, Montana, etc. is not what we call democratic when votes there effectively are worth thrice as much as a Californian or a Texan.

Its called a voter imbalance, which honestly happens elsewhere too. Not saying that it is good, but it is rich to reject the results in such a system now. If it was such an issue, campaign on it from now, but the election was conducted under this system, and everyone was well aware of this.

Actually parts of Europe also use systems where governing parties don't always end up with 50+% of the vote.

That's rather good, considering that a system where governing parties always end up with the majority of the vote is called a one-party state.

Yup, though this isn't a panacea to that.

[The Serbian Empire]

He had impeachment and stagflation was starting due to OPEC blockades.

Still wasn't a recession.

Did HW Bush have a recession?

Yes, in 1990-91. That's why Bill Clinton won.

[Wallenburg]

That's rather good, considering that a system where governing parties always end up with the majority of the vote is called a one-party state.

Yup, though this isn't a panacea to that.

Well, duh, of course it isn't.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

No, it needs to be. America needs to heal from nearly tearing itself apart.

The only way to do that is to unify.

It is indeed a critical structural issue. My point is that one comment by Trump doesn't mean he's now an ardent crusader of national unity, no matter ow much we would like the President elect to become this role.

Hillary said she wanted unity. President Obama said that he is confident that things will be ok after talking to Trump.

[The Funeral Party]

I Don't mind this at all and good luck Calfornia! If you want to survive secede and merge with Canada ^_^

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I Don't mind this at all and good luck Calfornia! If you want to survive secede and merge with Canada ^_^

I wouldn't mind having Jontron in Canada.

[The Serbian Empire]

Giving excessive elector numbers to mostly Republican small states like Idaho, Montana, etc. is not what we call democratic when votes there effectively are worth thrice as much as a Californian or a Texan.

Its called a voter imbalance, which honestly happens elsewhere too. Not saying that it is good, but it is rich to reject the results in such a system now. If it was such an issue, campaign on it from now, but the election was conducted under this system, and everyone was well aware of this.

That's rather good, considering that a system where governing parties always end up with the majority of the vote is called a one-party state.

Yup, though this isn't a panacea to that.

It was intentional by the founding fathers to control Slave states. Now it favors agrarian states full of ranchers and wheat farmers in the Plains or Vermont.

[Major-Tom]

Well....remember when people in 2012 said "TEXAS WILL SECEDE, ALAMO PT 2 SNEAKY RICKY'S REVENGE?!" Didn't happen. At all.

[Valaran]

Hillary said she wanted unity. President Obama said that he is confident that things will be ok after talking to Trump.

Obama literally has to say this, since the point is to ensure a peaceful and smooth transfer of power. Everything in his speech was geared towards making the transfer as smooth as possible.

It does not mean that he actually believes Trump will be this crusader you wish him to be.

[Valaran]

It was intentional by the founding fathers to control Slave states. Now it favors agrarian states full of ranchers and wheat farmers in the Plains or Vermont.

I am aware of its flaws. This isn't a basis for rejecting the results.

[Valrifell]

Well....remember when people in 2012 said "TEXAS WILL SECEDE, ALAMO PT 2 SNEAKY RICKY'S REVENGE?!" Didn't happen. At all.

That's what they want you to think.

[Valaran]

Yup, though this isn't a panacea to that.

Well, duh, of course it isn't.

Sorry for stating the obvious, but apparently I'm having to drill that in a lot on this thread.