Lion of the Blogosphere

Calexit in the news again

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article178435876.html

I’m all in favor of this. By ditching California, we get rid of 55 electoral votes for Democrats. Furthermore, a large number of illegal aliens in other states will flock to California which will inevitably have an open-borders amnesty policy. Without the California delegation to Congress, it will then become a lot easier to enact Stephen Miller’s anti-immigrant legislation.

Could this lead to a three-way partition of the United States? Four western “blue” states (Hawaii, Washington, Oregon and California) form one country, the liberal Northeast (DC, Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and the New England states) forms a second country, and the remainder of the country becomes a solid conservative country with its capitol in Texas.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

October 13, 2017 at EST am

Posted in Politics

140 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Great, just give away the best real estate and some of the most beautiful land to the enemy.

    …and the remainder of the country becomes a solid conservative country with its capitol in Texas.

    Texas has demographic trends that will make it a democrat state soon.

    Remember California used to be overwhelmingly White and solidly Republican. Never again.

    Texas will be Democrat, Houston, Dallas, Austin etc already are.

    Florida is swinging Democrat. Puerto Ricans are going to be flooding in by the hundreds of thousands due to the hurricane and the Democrats are demonizing Trump over that.

    Republicans are going to get crushed once Trump’s generation dies out.

    It looks really bad.

    Rifleman

    October 13, 2017 at EST am

    • The Southwestern States of Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Arizona (after another Hispanic reconquest from the Red Republican guards in the desert) should be renamed as the Kingdom of Hispania.

      JS

      October 13, 2017 at EST am

    • Here’s Mr Magoo for you.

      Trump is using twitter and his red meat throwing to distract his enemies.

      They are upset with the nonsense and underestimating Trump’s actions:

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/scalias-all-the-way-down-1507847435

      Scalias All the Way Down

      While the press goes wild over tweets, Trump is remaking the federal judiciary.

      Ask most Republicans to identify Donald Trump’s biggest triumph to date, and the answer comes quick: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. That’s the cramped view.

      The media remains so caught up with the president’s tweets that it has missed Mr. Trump’s project to transform the rest of the federal judiciary. The president is stocking the courts with a class of brilliant young textualists bearing little relation to even their Reagan or Bush predecessors. Mr. Trump’s nastygrams to Bob Corker will be a distant memory next week. Notre Dame law professor Amy Coney Barrett’s influence on the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could still be going strong 40 years from now.

      Mr. Trump has now nominated nearly 60 judges, filling more vacancies than Barack Obama did in his entire first year. There are another 160 court openings, allowing Mr. Trump to flip or further consolidate conservative majorities on the circuit courts that have the final say on 99% of federal legal disputes.

      This project is the work of Mr. Trump, White House Counsel Don McGahn and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Every new president cares about the judiciary, but no administration in memory has approached appointments with more purpose than this team.

      Rifleman

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • But conservatism sucks. Who has any use for the kinds of conservatives that can make it though elite us law schools?

        Maybe they’re better than what Clinton would have given us (this hinges almost entirely on not cucking on immigration) but they still suck.

        Magnavox

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • And how is the number of judges he can appoint a function if Trump himself. If anything there are judges who are going to stave off their retirement as long as possible because they’re so hysterically scared of Trump.

        Magnavox

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

    • 1. Texas is not CA. The Texas electorate, not just its population, is already majority minority and there is no chance it goes blue in the next 30 years (Hillary won less of the vote there than Obama did in 2008). Even the Democrats admit that Trump will win Texas by double digits in 2020.

      2. Florida is not swinging Democrat. It has been trending red for years. Even if 500,000 PR’s move to Florida by 2020, and it won’t even be half that, that will not be enough to swing the state. 500,000 PRs = 400,000 registered voters = 200,000 actual voters = 150,000 D votes and 50,000 R votes = net 100,000 D votes = not enough to swing the state even if the state doesn’t continue its rightward trend.

      3. Generation Z whites are even more racist than Boomer whites. All generations of whites are growing increasingly racist.

      Take that doomer bullshit and shove it up your ass.

      As for CA: HI, AK and CA are really their own countries. AK is ours but HI and CA need to be let go. We can probably break off and salvage some of the inland regions.

      Otis the Sweaty

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • 2. Florida is not swinging Democrat.

        Yes it is. You forget Obama won the state TWICE.

        Trump voters need to get out of New York, New Jersey and move to Pennsylvania. Or retire to Florida. Move out of Illinois and into Wisconsin. Get out of Mass and the area and into New Hampshire.

        All that matters is the electoral college because the overall population looks bad and getting worse.

        You are in denial, Otis.

        Rifleman

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • FL voter rolls have moved +62,000 to the R’s since the election.

        Andrew E.

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • Texas was more of a swing state last year than Iowa. I agree it’s still ours in 2020 unless the Democrats are kicking our asses across the board, but the long-term trend is grim.

        Richard

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • “2. Florida is not swinging Democrat”

        Ehh….I’m not sure about that. First, I think your “200,000 actual voters = 150,000 D votes and 50,000 R votes” math doesn’t work. I think 50,000 R votes is way optimistic.

        The state has been a purple state for years. Frankly I thought it would go for Hillary in 2016, but demographics are destiny, and an influx of hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans over the next few years is only going one way politically.

        Mike Street Station

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • Whites opposed immigration in the past even when it was other whites coming in. Mexicans oppose immigration from Central America. I’m far from certain that Mexican-Americans want to recreate that country here.

        Curle

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

    • Texas already has the same demographics as California. Difference in the two states is in white solidarity, which Trump is increasing in a huge way. By the time Trump’s generation dies out, you could have a consistent 80-90% of whites voting Republican. Furthermore, as the cucks die out, since the GOP technically controls all branches of government it could change demographics in GOP’s favor. There are 2 million Russian speaking refugees from Ukraine GOP could import. South Africa has almost 5 million whites.

      PerezHBD

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • Trump really needs to bring in some white south africans. Their women are hot too.

        Jack

        October 14, 2017 at EST pm

      • Greg Pandatshang

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

    • Texas’ demographics aren’t great, but comparing it with California is inaccurate. Different sort of whites, different sort of Republicans.

      IHTG

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • Also different sort of Mexicans. Texas Mexicans are whiter, more pro-business, tend to come more from Northern Mexico. California Mexicans tend to be darker, more socialist even before immigrating, come from Southern/Central Mexico.

        Trump lost TX Hispanics by ~25 points but lost CA Hispanics by ~50 points. That 25 point gap is actually about the same as the gap between TX whites and CA whites.

        Wency

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • @Wency

        Your numbers may be correct for 2016 (I don’t know), but in 2012 there was literally no difference between the voting patterns of CA and TX Hispanics. In both states Obama got 71% of the Hispanic vote, Romney 27%.

        Richard

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • Wency,

        “Trump lost TX Hispanics by ~25 points but lost CA Hispanics by ~50 points. That 25 point gap is actually about the same as the gap between TX whites and CA whites.”

        I’ve never cared for this reasoning.

        A loss is a loss, especially in a winner-take-all system like America’s.

        map

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

    • “Great, just give away the best real estate and some of the most beautiful land to the enemy.”

      Yep. Peace in our time.

      Why do you want to keep fighting with the Leftists?

      Let them go off an have their transgendered, post-natal abortion socialist paradise and leave the rest of us alone.

      Just have common defense agreement and keep rights to port of San Diego.

      Lion o' the Turambar

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • Why do you want to keep fighting with the Leftists?

        You don’t have a choice. They will keep fighting you. They will NEVER leave you alone. If CA seceded, Leftists would not all move to the paradise. Millions of them would stay in the remaining USA and keep pushing for whatever crazy shit is currently in fashion.

        Tarl

        October 14, 2017 at EST pm

    • Pay people to renounce their citizenship. The people that don’t take the payments are some combination of rich and emotionally attached to the US.

      And don’t respond with the idiotic conservative myth that this country has no money.

      Magnavox

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • I’m not clear, even if California voted to exit, and Congress agreed, that you could come up with a legal way to remove US citizenship from 40 million Californians. I think you could wind up with California as an independent country with 40 million dual citizens. That would be the worst possible scenario.

        Mike Street Station

        October 14, 2017 at EST am

      • Paying people to do something is weakness. We shouldn’t have to pay immigrants and anchor babies to renounce anything, Revoke their citizenship and toss them out.

        destructure

        October 14, 2017 at EST pm

    • What has happened to California is a tragedy. That state has deserts, mountains, a huge coast, giant Redwoods agriculture etc and we are giving it away to foreigners while we get to keep Michigan, NY and Iowa. All the highways are bad enough but the immigration influx is what has destroyed it.

      Arizona , Oregon and Washington are nice states too.

      Imagine what this disaster of a country could have been if just kept the immigrants out after WWII.

      ttgy

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • Upstate New York has very beautiful mountains and forests.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • Northern Michigan has a great deal of natural beauty: Hiawatha National Forest, the three most impressive Great Lakes (Superior, Huron, Michigan) and a decent amount of state parks. Very cold in the winter, but that’s part of the package.

        Lewis Medlock

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • “Upstate New York has very beautiful mountains and forests”

        True, but they don’t even approach that of the Sierras. In fact, by CA standards, there are no mountains in the US east of Colorado.

        J1

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

    • Texas will not vote Democrat any time soon. The only reason people assume this is because they look at “demographics” and say “California” yet they don’t scratch beneath the surface.

      Whites in Texas vote 70%+ Republican. Whites in California NEVER had such political solidarity, even when California was a red state. Keep in mind also, Hispanics in Texas vote 40%+ Republican also. In California, they don’t even vote 20% R.

      So for Texas to even be competitive, Hispanics would have to be 2/3 of the voters. They’re not even 1/3. Texas’ white population also has zero reason for leaving the state, because there’s no income tax and the cost of living isn’t ridiculous because of all the open land.

      Also, Texas’ Hispanics are phenotypically whiter than California’s Hispanics.

      I’d worry more about Florida because it’s full of non-Southern whites who’d rather flee than fight.

      Bilbo Baggins

      October 14, 2017 at EST am

    • “Great, just give away the best real estate and some of the most beautiful land to the enemy”

      There’s a consistent, probably incorrect assumption that if California seceded, it would be California as currently laid out. If California were to secede, it would be primarily California west of I5. The part of the state east of that admittedly rough boundary (Sacramento would go, much of the delta wouldn’t) would literally go to war to remain part of the US.

      J1

      October 15, 2017 at EST pm

  2. Inevitably, once the blue states go bankrupt the welfare crowd will flock to the conservative states for gibs. That is why it is essential that the new conservative union have very strict immigration and voter Id laws. Also it should be written in stone that only tax paying citizens be allowed to vote in said states.

    B.T.D.T.

    October 13, 2017 at EST am

    • Also it should be written in stone that only tax paying citizens be allowed to vote in said states.

      All that does is guarantee that the tax paying citizens engineer their own gib me that’s (contracts, subsidies, favorable regulation). It’s just idiot conservativism 101.

      Magnavox

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • I realize you fancy yourself as the cool contrarian, but why not try presenting ideas rather than just rubbishing other people’s. Follow my advise and you will lessen the chances of looking like a fool. Guaranteed.

        Roli

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • God forbid you actual point out anything wrong with what I said. It’s much easier just to imply I’m foolish for some ummmmm reasons.

        I’ve twice proposed in this thread paying people to renounce their citizenship.

        Magnavox

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • What’s wrong with that? Gibs for taxpayers is social welfare. Gibs for leeches is parasitism.

        gothamette

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • So favorable regulation of health care alone nets the industry 2 trillion a year. All means tested programs together are only 1 trillion, and the plurality of that is itself part of the giveaway to the medical industry.

        It’s a question of being rational and intelligent not just acting on so called principles that amount to nothing more than the hatred of poor people (leeches as you so charmingly call them).

        Magnavox

        October 14, 2017 at EST pm

      • yes. the idea that taxes go to lazy poor people is repeated ad nauseam, as if repeating it made it true. so called “conservatives” are more retarded than california liberals. and neither has any idea how he is being played. sad!

        ron burgundy

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

    • “Also it should be written in stone that only tax paying citizens be allowed to vote in said states.”

      Since most states, including Texas and California, have sales taxes, anyone who buys anything is paying taxes. This makes all citizens tax paying citizens. I’m not sure what your point is.

      mikeCA

      October 14, 2017 at EST am

      • I’m talking about those who pay income tax

        B.T.D.T.

        October 14, 2017 at EST pm

      • cut the military budget by 90%. this will have a much greater effect on your tax bill than letting the poor die.

        ron burgundy

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

  3. Groups in Northern California and Southern Oregon have been trying to break form a new state of Jefferson since at least the 1940s. In November 1941 activists with hunting rifles blocked one of the main roads and handed out copies of a declaration of independence. That movement came to an abrupt end on Dec 7, 1941 when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, but there continue to be activists promoting the State of Jefferson idea in Northern California.

    There was an attempt a few years ago to gather signatures for a ballot proposal to break California into six states. Although it was backed by a deep pockets donor, it failed to gather enough signatures to get on the ballot.

    There is the group Yes California that has been promoting Calexit for some years. Yes California’s biggest problem has been that the head of the group, Louis Marinelli, didn’t actually live in California. He was living in Russia.

    It is not clear if the California Freedom Coalition is related to Yes California, but they appear to have a spokesperson who actually lives in California.

    I would not hold my breath waiting for California to succeed.

    Mike CA

    October 13, 2017 at EST am

    • “I would not hold my breath waiting for California to succeed.”

      Seconded. Even if it’s a typo.

      driveallnight

      October 15, 2017 at EST pm

    • it’s funny, but it’s true. it’s not texans or californians or vermonters, but native oregonians who have the strongest identity. and oregonians hate californians. visit but don’t stay.

      ron burgundy

      October 15, 2017 at EST pm

  4. Canadians are enthrall of the blue states and any departing blue state would likely be invited to join Canada. However, even blue states have a level of libertarianism which would not sit well with our culture, which tends to be liberal and liberal only. My question is how long would California’s golden industries like Hollywood and Silicon Valley survive if the state were swamped by even more Mexicans? I’m old enough to remember the repeal of apartheid in South Africa and how at the time our TV screens were full of social scientists, politicians, celebrities telling us that country would now enter a new boom time. Does California have no sense of history? Will Beverly Hills and San Francisco become the exclusive enclaves for whites, Jews and Iranians? Will Indians be damned to the San Fernando valley or some equivalent? Will the rest of the country drift towards Chiapas level dysfunction?

    Roli

    October 13, 2017 at EST am

    • The central valley already drifted to Mexican levels of dysfunction. Silicon Valley and the entire Bay Area just simply price out Mexicans. All the 100k jobs go to Asians and Whites.

      JW Bell

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

    • Does California have no sense of history?

      None at all. I’m a rare 5th generation Californian, but it’s striking how little sense or interest there is in California’s past over here. This is a commuter state whose effective memory only goes back to the ’60s.

      Richard

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

    • “Does California have no sense of history?”

      Oh that was funny! I got a chuckle out of that. The answer is of course not. 5,000 years of human history was tossed away by the baby boomers. History began with them.

      Mike Street Station

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • “History began with them.”

        Who needs Aristotle and Cicero when you’ve got Abbie Hoffman and Timothy Leary?

        Lewis Medlock

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

    • …in thrall to… two words + “to”. “thrall” is an archaic term for slavery.

      ron burgundy

      October 15, 2017 at EST pm

  5. It sounds like a good idea, but the reason it won’t work is that the real enemy is not the greedy and opportunistic whites who promote Leftism for their own self-aggrandizement. The enemy is the urge to engage in such behavior, which lurks in the heart of every white person.

    If the United States were partitioned into Redland and Blueland, people like Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton would stay in Redland and push Leftwards.

    fortaleza84

    October 13, 2017 at EST am

    • Blue Californians have been fleeing leftist created social disorder, high taxes and expensive housing for Washington, Oregon, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and Texas.

      Once they get there they’re happy but think just a few generous tax & debt funded progressive programs for social justice, the homeless and the environment will make their new homes even nicer.

      Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

    • Whites are generally more curious about non-whites than the reverse.

      Given the nature of modern civilization was all about Whites taming the non-white savages.

      JS

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

    • And the redland people would be so enthralled by the wealthy that they worship that they would let them bring in as many immigrants as they wanted.

      Magnavox

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • magnavox gets it.

        99% of the commenters here are just brain washed zombies of the 0.01% and they don’t even know it. sad!

        ron burgundy

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

  6. “Four western “blue” states (Hawaii, Washington, Oregon and California) form one country, the liberal Northeast (DC, Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and the New England states) forms a second country, and the remainder of the country becomes a solid conservative country with its capitol in Texas”

    Yes, keep dreaming on. Pacific Bumvilla + Liberaloonia + Prolandia = Meriprolestan

    JS

    October 13, 2017 at EST am

    • lion would’ve done a lot better if he’d proposed a division based on nationality and ethnicity. new england would be its own division as english is still the plurality of nationalities outside the cities.

      ron burgundy

      October 15, 2017 at EST pm

  7. Aren’t there an awful lot of high IQ people in CA and WA?

    Dave

    October 13, 2017 at EST am

    • Not proportionally. Not anymore, at least as far as WA is concerned. The answer was yes in the 70s.

      Curle

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • it is odd that bill gates, a native of seattle has been replaced by an import to seattle from new mexico, bezos, as world’s richest man. and america’s most “successful” serial killer killed in seattle, ridgeway. Twin Peaks was all about the evil in the forest. and db cooper’s identity is still unknown.

        ron burgundy

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

  8. By the way, I’ve been thinking about things and I’ve changed my mind.

    A couple years ago you asserted that there is a woman shortage and I disagreed. Now I agree that there is a woman shortage.

    Of course that’s not what we are used to hearing; mainstream media continues to insist that there is a man shortage; that it’s very difficult for women to find suitable men for long-term relationships and marriage. Whereas the actual, statistical truth is that male births are more common than female births and males outnumber females in every age group at least up to 35. Combine that with the flat to declining demographics and the fact that men tend to be a bit older than the women they marry, and there is clearly a woman shortage.

    So how is it that these talking heads (usually female) conclude that there is a man shortage? By putting qualifications on what it means to be an eligible (or marriageable) man. He should be employed. If the woman has a college degree, he should have one too. etc. etc.

    Which is fine, but if we are going to compare the number of marriageable men to marriageable women, then we need to choose reasonable definitions of “marriageable” for both sexes. Let’s suppose that a marriageable man is one who is single, employed; at least as educated as the woman; has enough financial resources to support 2 or 3 children, and is healthy and fertile enough to have a reasonable chance of fathering 2 or 3 healthy children. Similarly, a marriageable woman should be single, childless, and healthy and fertile enough to have a reasonable chance of bearing 2 or 3 healthy children.

    Using these definitions, there is a shockingly small number of eligible women, i.e. women who are single, childless, under 30, and not obese. Competition for these women is intense, probably the ratio is at least 5 to 1 in their favor.

    My impression is that most of these “where are the eligible men” articles are written by or about women in their mid to late 30s or older. i.e. women who are not themselves marriageable by any reasonable definition. But even then, there are plenty of men who are willing to marry such women; such women need only drop the perceptual filters which literally blind them to men who are not significantly above them in terms of looks/money/status.

    I think that for a long time there’s been something of an imbalance in favor of women, since their fertility window is so much shorter than mens’. But things have gotten a good deal worse for men (in terms of romantic prospects) due to the obesity epidemic; rampant single motherhood; demographic stagnation; workplace safety improvements; falling death rates in wars; childhood immunizations; and so on. A lot of these things have improved life for men in general but have simultaneously diminished mens’ romantic prospects.

    fortaleza84

    October 13, 2017 at EST pm

    • Yes, I’ve had the idea kicking around in my head for a couple years that whereas previous generations of men were often decimated by hot war (and thus never fathered children) the present generation of men are casualties of a different kind of war (the war of progressivism against reality) and will likewise never father children.

      Andrew E.

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

    • women’s minds want equality. their genitals want inequality. sad!

      ron burgundy

      October 15, 2017 at EST pm

  9. This is not going to happen.

    gothamette

    October 13, 2017 at EST pm

    • The principle argument for Trump re-election is that it would push Cal-Exit to a near certainty.

      Lion o' the Turambar

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • You don’t understand how full of shit most California Democrats are. There will be no Cal-Exit because there is no Cal-Identity, and too much Cal-Apathy. Most of the people now living in California figure they’ll probably be living somewhere else in the future.

        Richard

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • Sesesh? The last time states trying to secede from the union, everybody predicted that it would be over in a month.

        gothamette

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

  10. There are deeper fundamental problems here to do with the free movement of peoples and federalism. Splitting the country up probably won’t really fix anything. Three neighboring countries in the former USA would have huge problems with each other that would in practice require something closely resembling a government to mitigate. The EU has roughly the same problem.

    The ability of states to control who votes and who can take permanent residence is the real problem. It would make more sense to figure out what constitutional amendments we need than to say “just smash the whole thing up.”

    State sized regions are going to need much greater autonomy and control of who gets permanent residence than they have now. Fixing this doesn’t require dismantling the federal government, or the EU for that matter.

    bobbybobbob

    October 13, 2017 at EST pm

    • There are deeper fundamental problems here to do with the free movement of peoples and federalism.

      The main problem with talk of secession is that it amounts to empty posturing without hope for action: California stands to lose too many Federal benefits to make their threat more than a political bluff. For example, an independent California would have to pay for Medicaid and Medicare replacements entirely by itself. On the right, the “neoconfederates” are impotent blowhards following a backwards strategy: If they are too weak to take power at the national level they are too weak to secede.

      A realistic opportunity for secession ended in 1865.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • Liberals believe that California contributes more to the economy than crappy “red” farming states, so they are not going to be afraid of secession based on losing government benefits.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • They believe that because it’s true as far as I can tell. If you have some other interpretation I’m all ears.

        Magnavox

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • Liberals believe that California contributes more to the economy than crappy “red” farming states, so they are not going to be afraid of secession based on losing government benefits.

        On balance they would be crushed by the loss of government benefits. California has 1/3rd of the nation’s Medicaid patients. With independence they would have to raise their already exorbitant tax rates. And that’s just Medicaid. They would have to replace Medicare, and who knows what else.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • Minus federal income tax, the state taxes in California are tiny.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • Yeah, these delusional potheads really think their welfare state is some major contributor to the US economy. Californians really think they are as big as France.

        What they fail to realize is that California is not France. France managed to maintain itself as a cohesive state for over a thousand years. France has a much broader and more robust economy than anything in California. California has Silicon Valley…but SV depends heavily on the intellectual property rights pursued and defended by the United States. What happens to Apple to when the rest of the world simply reverse engineers the technology they developed? What will California do about it? California secession will mean Silicon Valley will move.

        Cali does produce a lot of food…but it has to import its own water. Cut the water supply off a San Francisco becomes unlivable. What are they going to do to get the water back in? Print California Greenbacks? Pay for everything in gold?

        It’s laughable. Now, Texas and the rest of the South can seceded and maintain themselves as a separate country.

        Nonetheless, this secession issue was settled in 1865. Calexit is a government in rebellion and it should be put down with harsh military force.

        map

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • The most important is of course food sourcing.

        Where do blue state parasites get their food source, is a good question?

        Secession might make blue states even wealthier, given the fact, that anything sold to SWPLs are marked at a premium price, which means farmers who source their food exclusively to these parasites, are making a mint, and are held to a higher standard in return.

        JS

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • Ever wonder why corporate food chains are still in business in pricey Manhattan, despite the abundance of many fine food stores and decent restaurants?

        NAMs, because of the large population of NAMs who work in Manhattan, and those who live in the outlying, partially, gentrified areas of Manhattan, tend eat at McDonalds, Subways, Popeyes, and the other garbage chains that the rest of America enjoys.

        Secession of states will make America a very interesting place and SWPLs become more adamant about their safe space and exquisite amenities. Liberal blues states will become more expensive and exclusive, where its citizens will ensure everything is at a premium price to ward off undesirables.

        JS

        October 14, 2017 at EST am

      • The flood of federal money is going to stop at some point. It’s ultimately based on deficit spending backed up by the petro-dollar and trade deficits. The petro-dollar is in the slow process of falling apart right now. Arguments against secessionism that are based on the assumption of a rich federal government handing out goodies and holding the power to crush dissenters will fall apart in years ahead.

        So imagine los federales as broke and much weaker than they are now. We’re still going to have to figure out serious problems of governance on this continent in that situation. It’s back to 1787 but with a different set of problems. A bunch of squabbling statelets simply isn’t going to work. We have to have ideas about how to fundamentally fix the federal government.

        bobbybobbob

        October 14, 2017 at EST am

      • Taxes in California are high. What are you talking about. Businesses and upper middle class people are leaving the state in droves entirely on account of taxes.

        bobbybobbob

        October 14, 2017 at EST am

      • “They believe that because it’s true as far as I can tell. If you have some other interpretation I’m all ears.”

        For a while, California thought it could actually afford a single payer system. And they’re currently spending 50 billion on a bullet train to nowhere. It’s not just the populace but the political class too that is delusional about what they can afford.

        Mike Street Station

        October 14, 2017 at EST am

      • Several of the alt-right members from California support an exit strategy and an exodus of non-whites from the state.

        The problem with this arrangement is that who will take up the menial work. Someone has to wipe off “the poop on the pavement” and ain’t them, or else they would be in a slaughterhouse for Whole Foods, somewhere in no man’s land, cleaning up animal parts and blood.

        Secession should be about cleansing of parasites regardless of race, those who are net takers in society (and yes, many value transference industries are net takers).

        JS

        October 14, 2017 at EST am

      • Minus federal income tax, the state taxes in California are tiny.

        Most of their state taxes are the highest in the country. They would be even higher if they did not receive billions in various federal programs.

        Yeah, these delusional potheads really think their welfare state is some major contributor to the US economy.

        France has different, but still serious, problems.

        California contributes to the economy only because functions it would have to do by itself if it were a sovereign nation are picked up by Washington’s vast expenditures.

        California’s tech industry would flee if whatever the state receives in Federal subsidies had to be paid from their own tax base.

        For a while, California thought it could actually afford a single payer system.

        The estimated cost for single payer in California was $400 billion per year; over twice California’s annual budget.

        That number included the state taking over Medicaid and Medicare funds now financed by Washington to fund their single payer system (it was doubtful they could use those funds for single payer because of legislative constraints restricting how states can use Medicaid and Medicare funds).

        If they declared independence to have single payer health care they would go bankrupt immediately implementing single payer.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        October 14, 2017 at EST pm

      • Btw, $400 billion per year was the LOW estimate for California single payer, assuming the state implemented it properly.

        Now imagine them implementing single payer when the true cost could well be double that low estimate and without Medicaid and Medicare subsidies from the other 49 states and you see why they will never actually secede.

        It’s ultimately based on deficit spending backed up by the petro-dollar and trade deficits. The petro-dollar is in the slow process of falling apart right now.

        The petro-dollar is strong because it is based on America’s military industrial complex providing the defense for the rest of the First World and their are no plausible challengers to it. The euro almost fell apart because Greece threatened bankruptcy, China’s financial system is too closed off and corrupt for outside currency investors to park their cash, and the BRICS are an economic joke minus China.

        A currency built on our nuclear arsenal can stay solvent longer than anyone will remember Austrian economics.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        October 14, 2017 at EST pm

      • Several of the alt-right members from California support an exit strategy and an exodus of non-whites from the state.

        Stupid ideas like this are why the alt-right is hopeless – a real nationalist like Bismarck (or Lincoln) would remove the non-whites from California and send them to an underpopulated interior state because California’s land is inherently more valuable to an unapologetically nationalist government.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        October 14, 2017 at EST pm

      • TUJ: Where are you getting these numbers from? Every source says that California pays more in federal taxes than it receives in spending. You seem genuinely too stupid to understand that California pays taxes to the federal government and doesn’t just receive federal spending. Or do you not understand that an independent California wouldn’t have to pay those taxes?

        And as for single payer, at $400 billion, health care would be about the same as much per person as the national average already is. So there’s really no point. Even at the actual low estimate of $331 billion it would be pathetic. If they managed to get it down to the first world average it would be $160 billion. Like I said it’s a dysfunctional political culture.

        Magnavox

        October 14, 2017 at EST pm

      • California believes that it pays more in federal taxes than it gets out of it because, when their government employees retire, those employees move to other states, and take the pension revenue with them. This includes all employees at the federal, state and local level.

        Even so, all of this is illusory.

        California depends heavily on the US dollar, the US military and the intellectual property rights protected by the government…all of which California could never defend on its own. Heck, California has to import water.

        GDP statistics for a state are a very dubious estimate.

        map

        October 14, 2017 at EST pm

      • The only state really capable of becoming its own nation is Texas. Texas has its own army and navy, its own power grid and it sells a very valuable commodity that trades all over the world. When storage of that commodity gets too low, you have to go back to Texas to get more.

        Texas would take the Old Confederacy with it.

        California? Not so much.

        map

        October 14, 2017 at EST pm

      • “Every source says that California pays more in federal taxes than it receives in spending”

        Whether this is true or not depends on treatment of federal corporate taxes. Are federal taxes paid by corporations headquartered in California treated, by those making the “pays more than it gets” claim, as being generated there? I don’t know the answer to that question, but if the answer is yes, then California is collecting more taxes, not paying/generating them.

        J1

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

      • “ On the right, the “neoconfederates” are impotent blowhards following a backwards strategy: If they are too weak to take power at the national level they are too weak to secede.”

        By establishing the legitimacy and possibility of secession, secession proponents undermine the perception of authority that the power centralized like to project and that facilitates their efforts in that direction. This is why centralizers need to maintain a common front in the promotion of fake civil war history.

        Curle

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

      • northern california has more than enough water for the rest of the state.

        ron burgundy

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

      • TUJ: Where are you getting these numbers from?

        Keep telling us how brilliant you are:

        http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-first-fiscal-analysis-of-single-payer-1495475434-htmlstory.html

        The analysis found that the proposal would require:

        * A total cost of $400 billion per year to cover all healthcare and administrative costs.
        * Of that, $200 billion of existing federal, state and local funds could be repurposed to go toward the single-payer system.
        * The additional $200 billion would need to be raised from new taxes.

        The analysis proposes one scenario in which a new payroll tax on employers — with a rate of 15% of earned income — could supply the new revenue. But the measure itself does not contain a specific tax proposal, and therefore would not, at this point, need a two-thirds vote to approve a new tax.

        The write-up also notes that a universal healthcare proposal would likely reduce spending by employers and employees statewide, which currently ranges between $100 billion and $150 billion annually. Therefore, the total new spending under the bill would be between $50 billion and $100 billion each year.

        Under the bill, the state would cover medical care for every resident in California, including those without legal immigration status. Enrollees would not have to pay premiums, co-payments or deductibles.

        The analysis cautions that the single-payer bill, SB 562 by Sens. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), would required “unprecedented changes to a mature healthcare system.”

        “Therefore, there is tremendous uncertainty in how such a system would be developed, how the transition to the new system would occur, and how participants in the new system would behave,” it notes.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

      • Whether this is true or not depends on treatment of federal corporate taxes.

        It’s hard to tell which states are net takers or net payers because the Federal budget and tax code are so large, complex, and appropriated across many, many projects.

        Even if California is a net payer there would be new costs associated with independence that would easily dwarf whatever amount they, net-net, send to DC.

        From the article, $200 billion of California’s proposed $400 billion single payer system would be repurposed Medicaid and Medicare dollars. Those dollars would be lost if the state went independent and would have to be made up for from California’s native tax base.

        No way they ever leave.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

      • By establishing the legitimacy and possibility of secession,

        A perception that only exists in the neoconfederate echo chamber. Out in the real world advocates of secession are illegitimate, incompetent, and powerless.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

      • TUJ: The $400 billion I know where you got from. Like I said that’s about the national average so it’s a pathetic product of a dysfunctional political culture.

        As for California’s tax federal revenues and spending, remember that the country as a whole is a net receiver of tax revenue since there is so much borrowing. So to actually be a net giver like California is that much more impressive.

        Magnavox

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

    • For a while, California thought it could actually afford a single payer system

      Single payer is cheaper. You know nothing about healthcare if you think the US system is cost effective. California lacks a healthy enough political culture to pull it off, not money.

      Magnavox

      October 14, 2017 at EST pm

      • I wasn’t arguing that our current system was great, but that California’s plan was ridiculously unaffordable. You can argue all you want about how cheap you think single payer is, but it’s not cheap enough for states that really want it to pay for it.

        Mike Street Station

        October 14, 2017 at EST pm

      • but it is. the cost isn’t the hurdle. the hurdle is corruption.

        ron burgundy

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

      • SIngle payer is only cheaper when you have a government with the political will to restrict access to high-cost treatment, and the US doesn’t have that.

        J1

        October 16, 2017 at EST pm

  11. We need to pay post 1965 immigrants an average of 50k to leave. 250k for descendents of blacks.

    Magnavox

    October 13, 2017 at EST pm

    • East Asians will probably leave voluntary, once Calexit takes place. Native White Californians never appreciated their presence, but it was tolerated. Take a multipluralistic state and make it part of a smaller nation, and its non-connected citizens feel the space is tighter and resources scarcer.

      JS

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • This is to avoid calexit. White people need to stop giving up all the best real estate.

        Magnavox

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

    • @ Magnavox

      Hispanics, Asians, and Europeans presumably have somewhere to go. But why would any African or African American go to Africa? 250k isn’t enough when your descendents will still have to live on the dark continent. 1 million probably isn’t enough.

      Lowe

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • It’s not enough to make the move economically rational but that’s part of the point: to get rid of the stupidest members of each group.

        Magnavox

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • its not like theyd have to stay in africa, give any man a million bux and theyd be more than willing to pop over to senegal for a few weeks befroe moving somewhere else.

        james n.s.w

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • In reality, exodus is a good exit strategy, when there is a need for it.

        The real fools are proles. SWPLs are wealthy enough to leave their mansions, once the SHTF in their nook of town. Proles are stuck with all the crap without a passport and money.

        JS

        October 14, 2017 at EST am

      • We shouldn’t ask them to go to Africa. We should order them to go to Africa.

        Jack

        October 14, 2017 at EST pm

    • Cut off welfare and their numbers will reduce naturally.

      chris

      October 14, 2017 at EST am

      • This is why people call the conservatives the stupid party. Because of stupid people like you.

        Magnavox

        October 14, 2017 at EST pm

      • How would that not naturally reduce the numbers?

        chris

        October 15, 2017 at EST am

      • Does it with animals? And even if it does it’s needlessly cruel. Just attach a birth control requirement to welfare.

        Magnavox

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

      • “Does it with animals?”

        Yes. It is called the carrying capacity of the environment. When it is exceeded, the number of animals reduce naturally.

        “Just attach a birth control requirement to welfare.”

        That would also work. But I was making suggestions that would be just as effective as your above statement,

        “We need to pay post 1965 immigrants an average of 50k to leave. 250k for descendents of blacks.”

        but which would be more likely to be politically feasible. Which, cutting welfare across the board rather than enacting policies that target specific races to leave the country, would be.

        chris

        October 17, 2017 at EST am

  12. Otis the Sweaty

    October 13, 2017 at EST pm

    • @ Otis

      Does that article seriously address the popular opposition to immigration? I made it only halfway or so, before stopping in disgust.

      The examples they offer sound less like failures of democracy, and more like the Republican party kicking the shit out of the Democrats, who apparently don’t know how to win anymore. So sour grapes from some do-nothings at Harvard.

      Lowe

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • Does that article seriously address the popular opposition to immigration?

        Of course not. Still less does it address the fact that immigration causes the problems they lament:

        “The scholars pointed to breakdowns in social cohesion (meaning citizens are more fragmented than ever), the rise of tribalism, the erosion of democratic norms such as a commitment to rule of law, and a loss of faith in the electoral and economic systems as clear signs of democratic erosion.”

        These geniuses would never, never, never admit that ALL these problems are the product of importing hordes of Third World primitives who are too stupid to understand “democratic norms” and “the rule of law” and wouldn’t believe in them even if they were carefully explained.

        Tarl

        October 14, 2017 at EST pm

      • the people have always opposed immigration, but the US has always been a business run country. short term profits are worth destroying the country.

        ron burgundy

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

      • right. “tribalism” is only a bad thing in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-whatever society. that is, it is only a bad thing because there is a never stated assumption that such a society should continue to exist. the US suffers from these multi-perversions and the US is a superpower. because the US is rich and powerful it foists its problems on the rest of the world. if it weren’t for american influence the fn and afd would have won.

        ron burgundy

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

    • There is no such thing as a good Vox article.

      The whole site is full of misinterpreted data and logical fallacy. With hyperlinks to other poor articles added as “proof” under the concept that if you finally pile up enough sophistry you get validity.

      This article was no different.

      Lion o' the Turambar

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

  13. Trump won the nationwide popular vote if you omit California’s contribution.

    Mark Caplan

    October 13, 2017 at EST pm

  14. You lose one election and you want to leave the country? WTF? Or perhaps this was thing before Trump ran. Beats me.

    ken

    October 13, 2017 at EST pm

  15. This probably wouldn’t happen because the divided states would be too weak geopolitically and would become proxies for other states. The Upper Midwest might become a proxy for Canada, the Northeast for Canada or the UK or the EU, the West for China or some other Pacific power, etc.

    A confederation that maintained some unified state functions while allowing greater autonomy to regions or states might be possible.

    Tom

    October 13, 2017 at EST pm

    • The West Coast of America, let’s call it Pacific Bumvilla, similar to Liberaloonia of the Northeast, except its wealthy residents are more open to a progressive experience with a nonchalant attitude, sometimes bordering to a bohemianism, unlike the stuffy Northeastern liberals.

      JS

      October 14, 2017 at EST am

  16. Russian and Chinese military bases will be on North American soil in 5 minutes if Calexit ever happens. California has no right to succeed anyway. The left says that matter was settled by Lincoln.

    NotWesley

    October 13, 2017 at EST pm

  17. Has it reached this point?

    “If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once, as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation. But in the meanwhile, the States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights; to denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation.”

    Thomas Jefferson to Wm Giles, Dec. 26, 1825

    Curle

    October 13, 2017 at EST pm

  18. “I’m all in favor of this. By ditching California, we get rid of 55 electoral votes for Democrats.”

    If CA leaves, the underlying problem is still there (non-white immigration), and it just buys more time. All the trends we have now won’t be replaced. It’s hard for me to see the benefit without CA, looking at the long-term.

    Return of Shawn

    October 13, 2017 at EST pm

  19. Ridiculous idea that would never happen. Corporate power would come out 100% against it and there are not enough political zealots that actually want this.

    Alex

    October 13, 2017 at EST pm

    • Right. It just honest as me that people don’t want to admit that we no longer live in a republic. We live in a corporate Empire.

      Some Professor named Allan Lichtman was on TV today talking about how to impeach Trump. It was all based on the Constitution. I had to laugh. Who gives a s*** about the Constitution?

      gothamette

      October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • Well liberals only give a s*** about the Constitution if it means they can impeach Trump, but the line in the Constitution that says “right to bear arms” is just old gibberish, nothing to see there.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 13, 2017 at EST pm

      • No one cares about the Constitution, Lion. It’s like the Bible. It means whatever you want it to mean.

        gothamette

        October 14, 2017 at EST pm

      • …Right. It just astonishes me…

        ron burgundy

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

      • the 2d amendment became meaningless before it was ratified. the US had already established a standing army. the right to bear arms…should include the right to bear nuclear arms and other wmd.

        guns for hunting animals you eat. everything else is bullshit.

        ron burgundy

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

      • Thanks, Ron. I should proofread more carefully before I post. That was a dictation error.

        gothamette

        October 15, 2017 at EST pm

  20. Good article on how Stephen Miller is using guile to advance the destruction of the Immigrant community: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-stephen-miller-single-handedly-got-the-us-to-accept-fewer-refugees

    The media could be trying to drive a wedge between Miller and Trump by talking Miller up, but I don’t think it will work. Bannon was seen as some larger than life manipulator whereas Miller is a nobody without Trump and only has about 1/10th of Bannon’s public profile. Also Miller is friendly with Kushner, whereas Bannon and Kushner were at war.

    Otis the Sweaty

    October 13, 2017 at EST pm

    • That’s what we need, guile. There is no law. It’s just the corporate world. Every man for himself.

      As Harvey Weinstein said, I’m the f****** sheriff in this Lawless town.

      gothamette

      October 14, 2017 at EST pm

  21. A big beautiful wall would have to be built.

    mapman

    October 14, 2017 at EST am

  22. OT but did you notice the crazy North American couple who have just been rescued in Afghanistan had three children in captivity?

    Perhaps the solution to the white birthrate is for whites to be held in captivity by Muslims? If so, maybe Merkel/EU is actually onto something.

    prolier than thou

    October 14, 2017 at EST am

  23. The conservativr country should put its capitol in Montgomery, Alabama and call itself the Confederate States of America.

    Two in the Bush

    October 14, 2017 at EST am

  24. a joke.

    native oregonians HATE californians.

    HATE!

    ron burgundy

    October 14, 2017 at EST pm

  25. It’s a nice thought but:

    1. The US would never agree to the national security threat incurred by giving up the Western coastline to a foreign power (California), both as a matter of military consideration and economics.

    2. The US power structure would gain nothing through this, and thus it would never be allowed to occur.

    Jon

    October 17, 2017 at EST pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: