posted by like_that

I don’t know about few smaller nations, but definitely could see some of the bigger states splitting up.

I don't know.  You clearly can't discharge or renogiate those pension/public liabilities by splitting off, and it's hard to imagine ANY sharing agreement withstanding judicial review.

posted by justincredible

At some point in my lifetime I think there will be a pretty big shakeup in how the United States looks. Either a new state (or multiples) will form from the existing 50 splitting up, or the United States will dissolve into a few smaller nations. 

I started a thread about this a couple years ago - something like the peaceful separation of the nation  .........many thought I was nuts I am sure, but at some point the rational folks will have to split from the irrational. 

posted by majorspark

When can we do away with the "known to California" warnings to cause something bad to happen to me? 

Those are a (costly) joke.  The state is run by absolute nutjobs. 

posted by justincredible

I'm curious as to what makes this so crazy?

the whole damn thing. Texas declaring independence from the US, splitting up California into more states, Colorado trying to annex the Northeast corner of the state into another state. Its all asinine. There is NO chance that the US government/military would allow any of this shit to happen. Texas provides a HUGE federal tax base to the USA, the Dems would never win an election if California's electoral votes were split like that, etc. I'm just saying we need to stop wasting so much time on dumbass shit like this and fix what the fuck it is that is making you think these things need to happen. 

It's crazy because its a useless waste of time, and almost assuredly these things are done for some sort of a publicity stunt and nothing more. To me, these articles are a Kardashian tweet, it's a good chuckle but is never worth discussing.

posted by j_crazy

I'm just saying we need to stop wasting so much time on dumbass shit like this and fix what the fuck it is that is making you think these things need to happen. 

What if the best fix for rural Californians is to break away from urban Californians? I don't necessarily disagree with most of your post, but who's to say the best fix won't be extremely difficult?

I did the math on another thread and forum for Electoral Votes and how it would change...

I already did the math on this one for another site. Here was my post...

Just out of curiosity I ran the numbers.

Currently California has 57 Electoral Votes (55 from HoR, 2 from Senate).

If this did happen...

The "New California" which would presumably be a "red state" would have 18 Electoral Votes (16 for HoR and 2 for Senate).

The "Old California" which would stay a "blue state" would have 39 Electoral Votes (37 for HoR and 2 for Senate).

This would essentially take about 16 EC votes out of the D nominee for POTUS every 4 years and add 18 for the R nominee.

The race to "270" would become the race to "271".

It would also change the super majority in the Senate to break a filibuster from 60 to 61/62 (61.2 but I am not sure they require rounding up).


I am not sure how/what needs to happen federally (HoR, Senate, etc) if anything at all for this to happen, but if it has to look for the Democrats to rail against it heavily, blaming racism, or anything the can because they would be losing EVs every POTUS election.

To your last question, I believe the state legislature would have to approve it (not likely) and then the federal legislature would have to approve it. I'm not sure if it just a majority, or a supermajority to pass.

If the federal government didn't have so much power then it wouldn't really matter what the breakdown of electoral votes and congressional seats were. Unfortunately we've got this great collective idea that one small city at the far end of the country should weild immense power over a vast landscape of over 325 million people. As it stands the two political parties play games with the electorate to jockey for control over the federal government every 4-8 years so they can force their will on the rest of the country.

posted by justincredible

If the federal government didn't have so much power then it wouldn't really matter what the breakdown of electoral votes and congressional seats were. Unfortunately we've got this great collective idea that one small city at the far end of the country should weild immense power over a vast landscape of over 325 million people. As it stands the two political parties play games with the electorate to jockey for control over the federal government every 4-8 years so they can force their will on the rest of the country.

Pretty much.  This is why I say the people advocating for the popular vote to determine elections are also advocating for disenfranchisement.  Most of them don't even realize this nor understand why we are a republic. 

Bingo

Looks like that line of demarcation is pretty close to the San Andreas Fault line.  Hmm.

posted by justincredible

To your last question, I believe the state legislature would have to approve it (not likely) and then the federal legislature would have to approve it. I'm not sure if it just a majority, or a supermajority to pass.

I assume, also, that a state splitting up would require 2/3 of states to approve.

And because it's about power, it will never happen because the Dems lose seats in the HoR and Senate, and because the CA gov loses people, resources and revenues.

It really shouldn't matter.  Like you said, the feds have too much power or this is a non-issue.  I don't imagine it really sucks to live in CA despite some of the crazy policies.  But I'm pretty sure when these pension bombs start blowing up that people are going to pack-up their shit and move. 

posted by gut

I assume, also, that a state splitting up would require 2/3 of states to approve.

And because it's about power, it will never happen because the Dems lose seats in the HoR and Senate, and because the CA gov loses people, resources and revenues.

It really shouldn't matter.  Like you said, the feds have too much power or this is a non-issue.  I don't imagine it really sucks to live in CA despite some of the crazy policies.  But I'm pretty sure when these pension bombs start blowing up that people are going to pack-up their shit and move. 

Probably depends on where you live. I have a friend from college who works with one of the parks in the northern end and, from pics he posts online, that looks like an amazing place to be.

Northern California looks amazing.

posted by justincredible

Northern California looks amazing.

Put me in an environment like that and I'd be a hazard to anyone within 5 miles of me at any given time because I'd be in my own personal Skyrim, running around in home-made armor and yelling FUS ROH DAH or whatever at people. At least until I ran into a bear and had notably less success in real life combat with one than my character does in the game.

posted by Heretic

Probably depends on where you live. I have a friend from college who works with one of the parks in the northern end and, from pics he posts online, that looks like an amazing place to be.

Yeah, I was referring to the govt policies not really affecting your day-to-day.....but the COL and taxes in the urban areas are indeed pretty brutal.  And statewide you still have high taxes.

posted by justincredible

What if the best fix for rural Californians is to break away from urban Californians? I don't necessarily disagree with most of your post, but who's to say the best fix won't be extremely difficult?

the best fix for that is to stop gerrymandering, increase the representation of those people in the house, etc. having 1 congressman for every 604,000 constituents is ridiculous. you could also stop all lobbying efforts so the only way for a rep to get paid is to rep his people better and keep getting elected.

a shit ton of things easier than creating a new fucking state.

You make good points. No need to be so angry. At the very least this might help get people talking.

no anger, just how i talk, you know that...

i also agree with 99% of what you're saying i'm just saying there is a 0.0% chance of this happening so we'd better use our time trying to fix the issues that cause this conversation to come up.

posted by j_crazy

no anger, just how i talk, you know that...

 

i also agree with 99% of what you're saying i'm just saying there is a 0.0% chance of this happening so we'd better use our time trying to fix the issues that cause this conversation to come up.

Calm the fuck down.

Everyone always complains about lobbyists....but do you have any idea how uninformed and stupid some of these Congresspeople are?  You DO NOT want to see the crap that gets passed if industry insiders aren't hanging around keeping them from passing some really dumb, harmful laws & regulations.  In many cases, lobbyists are the only thing standing in the way of complete incompetence.

posted by gut

Everyone always complains about lobbyists....but do you have any idea how uninformed and stupid some of these Congresspeople are?  You DO NOT want to see the crap that gets passed if industry insiders aren't hanging around keeping them from passing some really dumb, harmful laws & regulations.  In many cases, lobbyists are the only thing standing in the way of complete incompetence.

so stupid congresspeople are worse than congresspeople who are bought and fed biased information?

congresspeople who are lobbies are still stupid, they're just making choices based on the interests of those with money, usually businesses.

posted by gut

Everyone always complains about lobbyists....but do you have any idea how uninformed and stupid some of these Congresspeople are?  You DO NOT want to see the crap that gets passed if industry insiders aren't hanging around keeping them from passing some really dumb, harmful laws & regulations.  In many cases, lobbyists are the only thing standing in the way of complete incompetence.

The offset is money changing hands in one form or another. Is it really a net gain? Doubt it. Not to mention that the typical lobbyist is not a SME, they're the dumbass whose office was down the hall before it was time to get on the other side of the gravy train.

posted by MontyBrunswick

so stupid congresspeople are worse than congresspeople who are bought and fed biased information?

congresspeople who are lobbies are still stupid, they're just making choices based on the interests of those with money, usually businesses.

Yeah, as usual a lot of things you read in the news are pretty uninformed.  My experience is admittedly anecdotal, but I've seen firsthand how and why lobbying money is spent at your typical firms....and a lot of times it's opposing self-interested lawyers on the other side.  Other times, Mr. Down-on-his-luck consitutent is angry and confused, writes his Congressman who then introduces a bill he has no understanding of the consequences of.

Other instances, you have deep pocketed industry groups on opposite sides.  And that could actually be productive.  Other times you have various SJW/environmental groups, which can be well-funded as well, pushing their harmful agenda and corporate lobbyists have to step in and say "woah, this doesn't do what you think it does, let me educate you".

Pretty much all of the lobbying I've seen has been defensive and reactive.  That hardly makes it all benign, but still a long ways from how it's usually portrayed.