New California's Secession From (Old) California

[Wallenburg]

I didn't know San Diego was a rural interest. Also, when you said "majority worshipping ilk", I think you meant "decent democracy-loving Americans".

No. I don't, because the people like you who seem to beover ly majoritarian are not decent americans,

If your first personal attack fails, hand them another one!

you worship the idea of democracy,

Oh, how awful! We should obviously be bowing before a self-appointed demigod dictator.

and oppose anything that might say "Hey, those people live entirely different, but they're the minority so they should have no recourse because muh majoritarianism."

I've been to San Diego. People there are far more different from people in San Bernadino County than from people in LA.

These people have found that they because of a heavy outnumbering, they have little or no chance of effecting any change on a stagnant cesspool in sacramento, and thus they want to break off so they can govern themselves and not be governed by SF and LA

And what of the countless people in these counties that don't want to secede? Under two separate Californias, they would have little or no chance of bringing about change in whatever backwater capital this new state would establish.

[Claorica]

No. I don't, because the people like you who seem to beover ly majoritarian are not decent americans,

If your first personal attack fails, hand them another one!

you worship the idea of democracy,

Oh, how awful! We should obviously be bowing before a self-appointed demigod dictator.

and oppose anything that might say "Hey, those people live entirely different, but they're the minority so they should have no recourse because muh majoritarianism."

I've been to San Diego. People there are far more different from people in San Bernadino County than from people in LA.

These people have found that they because of a heavy outnumbering, they have little or no chance of effecting any change on a stagnant cesspool in sacramento, and thus they want to break off so they can govern themselves and not be governed by SF and LA

And what of the countless people in these counties that don't want to secede? Under two separate Californias, they would have little or no chance of bringing about change in whatever backwater capital this new state would establish.

So what, the people of Northern and eastern california are just fucked?

We should just force them to stick to the oppressive and punitive government they currently are stuck under, following the backwards and idiotic rule of Sacramento?

This majoritarian mindset is poison, and needs to be stamped out now: Democracies suck, majoritarianism is bad.

[Farnhamia]

@Farn (sorry quoting is annoying on mobile)
This whole thing just seems ridiculous. Not as much as Calexit but up there. The state prolly couldnt do it all on it's own.

Uhm ... you do get the part where I told you they just want to leave California and not leave the US, right?

[Claorica]

I find it annoying and idiotic how people living in a country literally founded because farmers and businessmen in a rural part of a nation broke off from that nation because they were being ruled by a super-urbanized capital a thousand miles away that was entirely out of touch, and where their had no voice whatsoever, are so averse to a group of farmers and businessmen in a rural part of a state being able to break off from that state because they are being ruled by a super-urbanized capital a hundred miles away that is entirely out of touch and where they have little voice whatsoever.

[Wallenburg]

If your first personal attack fails, hand them another one!

Oh, how awful! We should obviously be bowing before a self-appointed demigod dictator.

I've been to San Diego. People there are far more different from people in San Bernadino County than from people in LA.

And what of the countless people in these counties that don't want to secede? Under two separate Californias, they would have little or no chance of bringing about change in whatever backwater capital this new state would establish.

So what, the people of Northern and eastern california are just fucked?

No, the conservatives in the counties these secessionists would want to take from California represent a minority. Very different situation.

We should just force them to stick to the oppressive and punitive government they currently are stuck under, following the backwards and idiotic rule of Sacramento?

You talk about oppression as you advocate dictatorship, rule by the few, and suppression of the majority. Amazing.

This majoritarian mindset is poison, and needs to be stamped out now: Democracies suck, majoritarianism is bad.

Sieg heil!

[Farnhamia]

I find it annoying and idiotic how people living in a country literally founded because farmers and businessmen in a rural part of a nation broke off from that nation because they were being ruled by a super-urbanized capital a thousand miles away that was entirely out of touch, and where their had no voice whatsoever, are so averse to a group of farmers and businessmen in a rural part of a state being able to break off from that state because they are being ruled by a super-urbanized capital a hundred miles away that is entirely out of touch and where they have little voice whatsoever.

All they have to do is follow the procedure set out in the Constitution. You remember the Constitution, the document written by farmers and businessmen to set up the government of the nation they created? Oh, and those farmers and businessmen didn't live in a part of their nation, they lived in that nation's colonies and were afforded fewer rights than the people living in that super-urbanized capital.

[Claorica]

So what, the people of Northern and eastern california are just fucked?

No, the conservatives in the counties these secessionists would want to take from California represent a minority. Very different situation.

We should just force them to stick to the oppressive and punitive government they currently are stuck under, following the backwards and idiotic rule of Sacramento?

You talk about oppression as you advocate dictatorship, rule by the few, and suppression of the majority. Amazing.

This majoritarian mindset is poison, and needs to be stamped out now: Democracies suck, majoritarianism is bad.

Sieg heil!

No, I talk about a compromise between the rule of the majority and the minority which has never been protected under any system except through the application of geography-based districting, as opposed to the oppression of majoritarianism and application of ochlocracy by people who are obviously leftist and only support it because they just so happen to have the urbanites on their side.

ANd the Conservatives in these counties are a majority in these counties. THe only place where the Far-Left liberals hold a majority in CA is in the dense coastline. They are fucked if you don't offer some respite other than "well, you're just a minority. deal with the oppression because muh majoritarianism"

Majoritarianism is as much an evil as Fascism and Communism.

[Wallenburg]

No, I talk about a compromise between the rule of the majority and the minority which has never been protected under any system except through the application of geography-based districting, as opposed to the oppression of majoritarianism and application of ochlocracy by people who are obviously leftist and only support it because they just so happen to have the urbanites on their side.

If you believe we live under mob rule, you haven't read a single word of either the state or federal constitution. Or any of the rules and procedures of the state or federal government.

ANd the Conservatives in these counties are a majority in these counties. THe only place where the Far-Left liberals hold a majority in CA is in the dense coastline.

That is true.

They are fucked if you don't offer some respite other than "well, you're just a minority. deal with the oppression because muh majoritarianism"

Let me get this straight: it's oppression simply to have a liberal government that some conservatives live in? Does that hold true for conservative governments ruling over liberals?

Majoritarianism is as much an evil as Fascism and Communism.

Are you an anarchist? Because apparently rule by the few and rule by the many are equally evil to you. So the only alternative is rule by none.

[Claorica]

No, I talk about a compromise between the rule of the majority and the minority which has never been protected under any system except through the application of geography-based districting, as opposed to the oppression of majoritarianism and application of ochlocracy by people who are obviously leftist and only support it because they just so happen to have the urbanites on their side.

If you believe we live under mob rule, you haven't read a single word of either the state or federal constitution. Or any of the rules and procedures of the state or federal government.

ANd the Conservatives in these counties are a majority in these counties. THe only place where the Far-Left liberals hold a majority in CA is in the dense coastline.

That is true.

They are fucked if you don't offer some respite other than "well, you're just a minority. deal with the oppression because muh majoritarianism"

Let me get this straight: it's oppression simply to have a liberal government that some conservatives live in? Does that hold true for conservative governments ruling over liberals?

Majoritarianism is as much an evil as Fascism and Communism.

Are you an anarchist? Because apparently rule by the few and rule by the many are equally evil to you. So the only alternative is rule by none.

The states are essentially required by one of the worst SCOTUS Cases still standing to submit to a government by mob rule (Majoritarianism), One which has resulted in idiotic cosmetics-based firearms laws, punitive (to someone who actually uses a large amount of petroleum) fuel taxes and regulations, and rule by one dense region over the entirety of the state in the case of california. It is oppression to be placed under punitive laws which act for the benefit of others but to your own detraction, as many of these Urban-friendly laws do in relation to Rural Areas. Hell, even in balanced Missouri preferential treatment is given to the two major cities.

I am not an anarchist, I simply hold the two opinions that, first, in this case that the Rural Areas should be allowed to break off into another state such that they can govern themselves, and, second, that there should be a system in any "democratic state" which allows for representation of rural interests over Urban and the over-representation in at least one house of legislature of the Rural persons, such that they are not lorded over by Urban and suburban populations in the name of majoritarianism.

I echo the prophetic words of Everett Dirksen, Republican Senator from Illinois and key writer in the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts:

The forces of our national life are not brought to bear on public questions solely in proportion to the weight of numbers. If they were, the 6 million citizens of the Chicago area would hold sway in the Illinois Legislature without consideration of the problems of their 4 million fellows who are scattered in 100 other counties. Under the Court's new decree, California could be dominated by Los Angeles and San Francisco; Michigan by Detroit.

[Bruke]

The states are essentially required by one of the worst SCOTUS Cases still standing to submit to a government by mob rule (Majoritarianism).

I echo the prophetic words of Everett Dirksen, Republican Senator from Illinois and key writer in the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts:

The forces of our national life are not brought to bear on public questions solely in proportion to the weight of numbers. If they were, the 6 million citizens of the Chicago area would hold sway in the Illinois Legislature without consideration of the problems of their 4 million fellows who are scattered in 100 other counties. Under the Court's new decree, California could be dominated by Los Angeles and San Francisco; Michigan by Detroit.

Hear hear! I wouldn't go so far as to call it mob rule, but its certainly true that in states like California often many people, usually in the rural areas, are sidelined in their own state.

[Jordkloden]

@Farn (sorry quoting is annoying on mobile)
This whole thing just seems ridiculous. Not as much as Calexit but up there. The state prolly couldnt do it all on it's own.

Uhm ... you do get the part where I told you they just want to leave California and not leave the US, right?

Yes I do. When I compared it to Calexit, that was comparing the stupidity of each, not necessarily that they're both secessionist "movements" because only one is.

[Farnhamia]

Uhm ... you do get the part where I told you they just want to leave California and not leave the US, right?

Yes I do. When I compared it to Calexit, that was comparing the stupidity of each, not necessarily that they're both secessionist "movements" because only one is.

Oh, good. I was getting confused because you seemed to be confused yourself and I hoped I hadn't added to your confusion.

[San Lumen]

If you believe we live under mob rule, you haven't read a single word of either the state or federal constitution. Or any of the rules and procedures of the state or federal government.

That is true.

Let me get this straight: it's oppression simply to have a liberal government that some conservatives live in? Does that hold true for conservative governments ruling over liberals?

Are you an anarchist? Because apparently rule by the few and rule by the many are equally evil to you. So the only alternative is rule by none.

The states are essentially required by one of the worst SCOTUS Cases still standing to submit to a government by mob rule (Majoritarianism), One which has resulted in idiotic cosmetics-based firearms laws, punitive (to someone who actually uses a large amount of petroleum) fuel taxes and regulations, and rule by one dense region over the entirety of the state in the case of california. It is oppression to be placed under punitive laws which act for the benefit of others but to your own detraction, as many of these Urban-friendly laws do in relation to Rural Areas. Hell, even in balanced Missouri preferential treatment is given to the two major cities.

I am not an anarchist, I simply hold the two opinions that, first, in this case that the Rural Areas should be allowed to break off into another state such that they can govern themselves, and, second, that there should be a system in any "democratic state" which allows for representation of rural interests over Urban and the over-representation in at least one house of legislature of the Rural persons, such that they are not lorded over by Urban and suburban populations in the name of majoritarianism.

I echo the prophetic words of Everett Dirksen, Republican Senator from Illinois and key writer in the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts:

The forces of our national life are not brought to bear on public questions solely in proportion to the weight of numbers. If they were, the 6 million citizens of the Chicago area would hold sway in the Illinois Legislature without consideration of the problems of their 4 million fellows who are scattered in 100 other counties. Under the Court's new decree, California could be dominated by Los Angeles and San Francisco; Michigan by Detroit.

So according to you we should go back to a time when urban centers were shafted out of their fair share of representation and ignored by the state legislature?

What would your ideal system of representation? One in which the less populated rural areas have their votes count more for statewide elections and they get more representation because of land area? Do tell me how that's fair or democratic or is it only your views and opinions matter and everyone else doesn't?

[Jordkloden]

Yes I do. When I compared it to Calexit, that was comparing the stupidity of each, not necessarily that they're both secessionist "movements" because only one is.

Oh, good. I was getting confused because you seemed to be confused yourself and I hoped I hadn't added to your confusion.

Much confusion about. One might even call it A Land of Confusion upon a Ball of Confusion.

[Gig em Aggies]

The states are essentially required by one of the worst SCOTUS Cases still standing to submit to a government by mob rule (Majoritarianism), One which has resulted in idiotic cosmetics-based firearms laws, punitive (to someone who actually uses a large amount of petroleum) fuel taxes and regulations, and rule by one dense region over the entirety of the state in the case of california. It is oppression to be placed under punitive laws which act for the benefit of others but to your own detraction, as many of these Urban-friendly laws do in relation to Rural Areas. Hell, even in balanced Missouri preferential treatment is given to the two major cities.

I am not an anarchist, I simply hold the two opinions that, first, in this case that the Rural Areas should be allowed to break off into another state such that they can govern themselves, and, second, that there should be a system in any "democratic state" which allows for representation of rural interests over Urban and the over-representation in at least one house of legislature of the Rural persons, such that they are not lorded over by Urban and suburban populations in the name of majoritarianism.

I echo the prophetic words of Everett Dirksen, Republican Senator from Illinois and key writer in the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts:

So according to you we should go back to a time when urban centers were shafted out of their fair share of representation and ignored by the state legislature?

What would your ideal system of representation? One in which the less populated rural areas have their votes count more for statewide elections and they get more representation because of land area? Do tell me how that's fair or democratic or is it only your views and opinions matter and everyone else doesn't?

Or how about quit assuming we want to shaft the cities all we're saying is that the rural areas need the same amount of representation as the cities. Cities are important but so are farms. Why don't you tell me how it's fair that people in these rural areas have to deal with laws and regulations created by city dwellers mainly for city dwellers?

[San Lumen]

So according to you we should go back to a time when urban centers were shafted out of their fair share of representation and ignored by the state legislature?

What would your ideal system of representation? One in which the less populated rural areas have their votes count more for statewide elections and they get more representation because of land area? Do tell me how that's fair or democratic or is it only your views and opinions matter and everyone else doesn't?

Or how about quit assuming we want to shaft the cities all we're saying I should that the rural areas need the same amount of representation as the cities. Cities are important but so are farms. Why don't you tell me how it's fair that people in these rural areas have to deal with laws and regulations created by city dwellers mainly for city dwellers?

except its not possible to do that in state like California.

The system is perfectly fine how it is in that the farms get representation based on their population and those people go to Sacramento or any other state capital. They get to draft bills and amendments and debate like anyone else.

In a Republic you dont create one set of laws for different areas. The law applies to everyone.

[Sovaal]

Or how about quit assuming we want to shaft the cities all we're saying I should that the rural areas need the same amount of representation as the cities. Cities are important but so are farms. Why don't you tell me how it's fair that people in these rural areas have to deal with laws and regulations created by city dwellers mainly for city dwellers?

except its not possible to do that in state like California.

The system is perfectly fine how it is in that the farms get representation based on their population and those people go to Sacramento or any other state capital. They get to draft bills and amendments and debate like anyone else.

In a Republic you dont create one set of laws for different areas. The law applies to everyone.

I mean technically speaking “republic” is just any non-monarchist state. So I mean a republic totally could have duffering laws for differing regions.

[San Lumen]

except its not possible to do that in state like California.

The system is perfectly fine how it is in that the farms get representation based on their population and those people go to Sacramento or any other state capital. They get to draft bills and amendments and debate like anyone else.

In a Republic you dont create one set of laws for different areas. The law applies to everyone.

I mean technically speaking “republic” is just any non-monarchist state. So I mean a republic totally could have duffering laws for differing regions.

No not really. Oh quite a few things thats simply not possible

[Krasny-Volny]

OK, to clarify: an extremely tiny group nobody has ever heard of until now wrote and issued a declaration of independence for millions of people they don't even represent. A majority of Californians - whatever their politics - wouldn't support secession from the US or even secession from the greater state of California. Anybody who does is probably a rare ideologue who smokes way too much dope and has no idea of the enormous practical difficulties such an initiative would pose.

[Gig em Aggies]

Or how about quit assuming we want to shaft the cities all we're saying I should that the rural areas need the same amount of representation as the cities. Cities are important but so are farms. Why don't you tell me how it's fair that people in these rural areas have to deal with laws and regulations created by city dwellers mainly for city dwellers?

except its not possible to do that in state like California.

The system is perfectly fine how it is in that the farms get representation based on their population and those people go to Sacramento or any other state capital. They get to draft bills and amendments and debate like anyone else.

In a Republic you dont create one set of laws for different areas. The law applies to everyone.

Actually it's not perfect maybe in your mind but if it were perfect then everyone I mean everyone would get what they want and all would have equal representation but they don't. actually you do tell me how does having let's say laws that state that city buses be fueled by renewable energy affect the farms and vice versa how do laws saying you can only use a certain type of fertilizer on crops affect the city?

[San Lumen]

OK, to clarify: an extremely tiny group nobody has ever heard of until now wrote and issued a declaration of independence for millions of people they don't even represent. A majority of Californians - whatever their politics - wouldn't support secession from the US or even secession from the greater state of California. Anybody who does is probably a rare ideologue who smokes way too much dope and has no idea of the enormous practical difficulties such an initiative would pose.

Exactly correct. This group doesn't represent the majority of people in the rural areas of California.

[Gig em Aggies]

OK, to clarify: an extremely tiny group nobody has ever heard of until now wrote and issued a declaration of independence for millions of people they don't even represent. A majority of Californians - whatever their politics - wouldn't support secession from the US or even secession from the greater state of California. Anybody who does is probably a rare ideologue who smokes way too much dope and has no idea of the enormous practical difficulties such an initiative would pose.

That could be stated for the founding fathers a small minority group speaking for the majority.

[San Lumen]

except its not possible to do that in state like California.

The system is perfectly fine how it is in that the farms get representation based on their population and those people go to Sacramento or any other state capital. They get to draft bills and amendments and debate like anyone else.

In a Republic you dont create one set of laws for different areas. The law applies to everyone.

Actually it's not perfect maybe in your mind but if it were perfect then everyone I mean everyone would get what they want and all would have equal representation but they don't. actually you do tell me how does having let's say laws that state that city buses be fueled by renewable energy affect the farms and vice versa how do laws saying you can only use a certain type of fertilizer on crops affect the city?

What's wrong with either of those laws? That fertilizer law was not written by just city people. But that law could effect in the city in that certain fertilizers for example could have bad effects on water supply for example.

[Claorica]

The states are essentially required by one of the worst SCOTUS Cases still standing to submit to a government by mob rule (Majoritarianism), One which has resulted in idiotic cosmetics-based firearms laws, punitive (to someone who actually uses a large amount of petroleum) fuel taxes and regulations, and rule by one dense region over the entirety of the state in the case of california. It is oppression to be placed under punitive laws which act for the benefit of others but to your own detraction, as many of these Urban-friendly laws do in relation to Rural Areas. Hell, even in balanced Missouri preferential treatment is given to the two major cities.

I am not an anarchist, I simply hold the two opinions that, first, in this case that the Rural Areas should be allowed to break off into another state such that they can govern themselves, and, second, that there should be a system in any "democratic state" which allows for representation of rural interests over Urban and the over-representation in at least one house of legislature of the Rural persons, such that they are not lorded over by Urban and suburban populations in the name of majoritarianism.

I echo the prophetic words of Everett Dirksen, Republican Senator from Illinois and key writer in the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts:

So according to you we should go back to a time when urban centers were shafted out of their fair share of representation and ignored by the state legislature?

What would your ideal system of representation? One in which the less populated rural areas have their votes count more for statewide elections and they get more representation because of land area? Do tell me how that's fair or democratic or is it only your views and opinions matter and everyone else doesn't?

I don’t see how having ONE OF TWO be geographically drawn instead by population is somehow shafting the cities, except by making it so that they can no longer wield their population density like a riding crop telling the rural areas of their states where to go and what to do.

[San Lumen]

So according to you we should go back to a time when urban centers were shafted out of their fair share of representation and ignored by the state legislature?

What would your ideal system of representation? One in which the less populated rural areas have their votes count more for statewide elections and they get more representation because of land area? Do tell me how that's fair or democratic or is it only your views and opinions matter and everyone else doesn't?

I don’t see how having ONE OF TWO be geographically drawn instead by population is somehow shafting the cities, except by making it so that they can no longer wield their population density like a riding crop telling the rural areas of their states where to go and what to do.

Im sorry but what does that even mean?