(05-28-2015 01:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 01:03 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 12:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  [quote='GoodOwl' pid='12088604' dateline='1432833473']

This is a false argument. The rest of America wouldn't "lose" California's agricultural riches, to cite you quoted information, we'd just be importing them, same as we do fruits and vegetables from other countries today like Chile, Mexico, China, etc... No problem there.

I posted the article mostly because of the statistics at the beginning. Technically, there are two different arguments. The argument of the thread is what would happen if California left the Union. This article is considering what woudl happen if the United States no longer had California.

Both arguments are valid.

Quote:

Quote:Well, okay, the article is then making a completely different point. Would not California, even as a separate nation, still reasonably be likely to partner in trade with the remaining USA?

No.

If California seceeded from the Union, we would not continue to trade with them nor them with us. There would be bad blood at the very least and war at the very most.

Wow. I find your viewpoint on this hard to believe.

Why wouldn't there be good blood from Californians for leaving the union? They'd get to pursue all their agendas without the rest of us mucking it up for them, right? Isn't the prevailing theme that "California leads the nation in progressivism?" Well, they'd be free to pursue it faster and more completely, unencumbered by the rest of us.

Why wouldn't the Californians, especially all the progressive liberals view that as a positive? Perhaps because deep in their hearts they know its kinda BS? Like the above cited article on Taxifornia makes about the Six Points? Either you really believe all that BS about progressivism or you don;t. Which is it?

(05-28-2015 01:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  If California left, Oregon, Wahington, and Hawai'i would want to go with them...form a 'Nordic-Light' style liberal nation...between the National Guard, who would become their military, all their coast line, and natural resources...they would be stronger, and more wealthy than Mexico.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

(05-28-2015 01:31 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 01:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  If California left, Oregon, Wahington, and Hawai'i would want to go with them...form a 'Nordic-Light' style liberal nation...between the National Guard, who would become their military, all their coast line, and natural resources...they would be stronger, and more wealthy than Mexico.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

That they could join NAFTA, like Mexico...that would be huge for them.

I'm just here to post this gif

Why would California leave? They're in the majority in general elections.

(05-28-2015 01:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Why would California leave? They're in the majority in general elections.

They wouldn't...but Okla just loved his southern succession 'what ifs'

so I kinda like this "what if the liberals got fed up and left?"

(05-28-2015 01:47 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 01:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Why would California leave? They're in the majority in general elections.

They wouldn't...but Okla just loved his southern succession 'what ifs'

so I kinda like this "what if the liberals got fed up and left?"

Interesting perspective from ya'll's posts here.

My contention is California needs the rest of the USA a whole lot more than the rest of the USA needs California. I not sure I would say the same about Texas. I'd be willing to part with Florida as well. Oklahoma? Who cares.

(05-28-2015 01:51 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 01:47 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 01:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Why would California leave? They're in the majority in general elections.

They wouldn't...but Okla just loved his southern succession 'what ifs'

so I kinda like this "what if the liberals got fed up and left?"

Interesting perspective from ya'll's posts here.

My contention is California needs the rest of the USA a whole lot more than the rest of the USA needs California. I not sure I would say the same about Texas. I'd be willing to part with Florida as well. Oklahoma? Who cares.

That is true of every state.

(05-28-2015 01:51 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 01:47 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 01:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Why would California leave? They're in the majority in general elections.

They wouldn't...but Okla just loved his southern succession 'what ifs'

so I kinda like this "what if the liberals got fed up and left?"

Interesting perspective from ya'll's posts here.

My contention is California needs the rest of the USA a whole lot more than the rest of the USA needs California. I not sure I would say the same about Texas. I'd be willing to part with Florida as well. Oklahoma? Who cares.

But as I said, most likely, Oregon and Washington would go with them...just those three states would make a powerful economy, with lots of coast line and resources...offer Hawai'i a little autonomy, and they would come too.

Then you have a powerful, 4 state, liberal nation...

(05-28-2015 02:00 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  But as I said, most likely, Oregon and Washington would go with them...just those three states would make a powerful economy, with lots of coast line and resources...offer Hawai'i a little autonomy, and they would come too.

Then you have a powerful, 4 state, liberal nation...

Not for long...:

http://csnbbs.com/thread-738729-post-120...id12088812



This actually looks like a book worth reading, thanks for posting that link, blunderbuss.

Some highlights from the article summary "Six reasons why the entire state of California is in danger of becoming the next Detroit":

1. Union dominance and “doing it for the kids”

2. As a result of union power, unsustainable pensions/mass municipal bankruptcies
So what’s happening in California is that the purpose of government is shifting – government is no longer primarily organized to provide police, fire and public safety services. What it’s primarily organized for right now – the direction that it’s going in — is to provide pensions to past employees. And that’s a real problem.

3. First in the nation…in taxation

4. Arrested energy development

5. Environmentalism on steroids

6. The “Gubernator” terminated his own agenda

(05-28-2015 01:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  If California left, Oregon, Wahington, and Hawai'i would want to go with them...form a 'Nordic-Light' style liberal nation...between the National Guard, who would become their military, all their coast line, and natural resources...they would be stronger, and more wealthy than Mexico.

Why the would the national guard become their military? The Nat'l guard does not belong to individual states. That "new nation" would end up like Greece relatively quickly IMO. They'd need to come up with their own currency and military.

Please expand on all these natural resources that they have. Other than the Pacific Northwest forest I can't think of many. Yeah, they've got SOME oil but they've also got a bunch of Enviro-whackos to go along with it.

What a great country it would be.

most national guard are full time local residents with other jobs...they would naturally form the early militia style military of this new nation...good luck getting them to give up the equipment that's already there...planes, tanks, humvees, etc.

(05-28-2015 03:41 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  most national guard are full time local residents with other jobs...they would naturally form the early militia style military of this new nation...good luck getting them to give up the equipment that's already there...planes, tanks, humvees, etc.

(05-28-2015 03:44 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 03:41 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  most national guard are full time local residents with other jobs...they would naturally form the early militia style military of this new nation...good luck getting them to give up the equipment that's already there...planes, tanks, humvees, etc.

Nations have started with less...

They've also got most of the countries major tech companies. There's a lot of wealth there.

BTW, yall are ******* crazy.

(05-28-2015 01:28 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 01:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 01:03 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 12:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  [quote='GoodOwl' pid='12088604' dateline='1432833473']

This is a false argument. The rest of America wouldn't "lose" California's agricultural riches, to cite you quoted information, we'd just be importing them, same as we do fruits and vegetables from other countries today like Chile, Mexico, China, etc... No problem there.

I posted the article mostly because of the statistics at the beginning. Technically, there are two different arguments. The argument of the thread is what would happen if California left the Union. This article is considering what woudl happen if the United States no longer had California.

Both arguments are valid.

Quote:

Quote:Well, okay, the article is then making a completely different point. Would not California, even as a separate nation, still reasonably be likely to partner in trade with the remaining USA?

No.

If California seceeded from the Union, we would not continue to trade with them nor them with us. There would be bad blood at the very least and war at the very most.

Wow. I find your viewpoint on this hard to believe.

Why wouldn't there be good blood from Californians for leaving the union? They'd get to pursue all their agendas without the rest of us mucking it up for them, right? Isn't the prevailing theme that "California leads the nation in progressivism?" Well, they'd be free to pursue it faster and more completely, unencumbered by the rest of us.

Why wouldn't the Californians, especially all the progressive liberals view that as a positive? Perhaps because deep in their hearts they know its kinda BS? Like the above cited article on Taxifornia makes about the Six Points? Either you really believe all that BS about progressivism or you don;t. Which is it?

You misunderstand what I am saying. Californians would feel good that they left the nation but in order for that to happen, there would have to have been a rift between the United States and California. That rift would likely mean that there would be no immediate trade deals between the two.

(05-28-2015 02:00 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  But as I said, most likely, Oregon and Washington would go with them...just those three states would make a powerful economy, with lots of coast line and resources...offer Hawai'i a little autonomy, and they would come too.

Then you have a powerful, 4 state, liberal nation...

Question...Have you ever lived in any of the 4 states you mention?

Let me fill you in on something....Oregonians and Washingtonians despise California. I mean they DESPISE California and want nothing to do with it.

Hawaiians hate all of America. Move to Hawaii and see how the locals treat you.

I can't see any of those states deciding to toss their lot in with California. In fact, I think the two other mainland states would love to see Cali leave the Union to suddenly feel better about themselves.

(05-28-2015 03:34 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 01:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  If California left, Oregon, Wahington, and Hawai'i would want to go with them...form a 'Nordic-Light' style liberal nation...between the National Guard, who would become their military, all their coast line, and natural resources...they would be stronger, and more wealthy than Mexico.

Why the would the national guard become their military? The Nat'l guard does not belong to individual states. That "new nation" would end up like Greece relatively quickly IMO. They'd need to come up with their own currency and military.

Please expand on all these natural resources that they have. Other than the Pacific Northwest forest I can't think of many. Yeah, they've got SOME oil but they've also got a bunch of Enviro-whackos to go along with it.

No they wouldn't. Everyone knows that having a military, especially a strong one that can defend your country from outside aggressors, is an evil thing. A Nation of California would be smart enough not to waste any money on any military or weapons. They'd save the tax money for government pensions and a strong Department of the Environment instead.

(05-28-2015 03:45 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 03:44 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 03:41 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  most national guard are full time local residents with other jobs...they would naturally form the early militia style military of this new nation...good luck getting them to give up the equipment that's already there...planes, tanks, humvees, etc.

Nations have started with less...

True, but the Left coast is inhabited by a bunch of Gamma males.