Is California Really Going to Secede?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

If they do leave could we build a wall on the Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon borders to keep them out?

Oregon, as well as Washington, would join CA to form the new country.

Why would you wish to keep CA from Oregon anyway?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Really?  Who are they kidding?  Only themselves, apparently.   California would never survive as a separate entity.  They're too dependent upon that government teat.  They're anti-oil drilling.  The only thing they produce is .... well...produce like citrus, and their own idiotic liberal regulations and rules have all but made that industry unprofitable.  It would be really fun to watch them try to survive after secession, though.  I vote YES!  lol

Kern County near Bakersfield has three of the top ten oilfields in the US, has more wells producing than any other county in the nation, and is the top producing county in the lower 48.

California has a LOT of oil, but, like you said, if they chose to produce it.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

If they went... and were not invaded by US military forces, I'd expect to see Oregon and Washington go as well.

With the west coast gone, I doubt the Democrats in the northeast would tolerate their reduced political leverage, considering just how much more of a percentage their tax contributions to the US government would be.  (States in the northeast tend to pay more into the US government than they receive)

Which would likely mean that everything from Maryland north would go as well.

And that'd leave the majority of the US land mass to carry on, but with no tax base to support current spending.  In which case, it'd collapse pretty quickly when inflation hits due to the government printing money to pay Social Security/Medicare.

what 'tax base' are you referring to?

Are you insinuating that outside the west and east coast that there is not enough to sustain the remaining states?

Or are you somehow thinking that none of the debt or fiscal responsibilities will be absorbed by the departed states?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The federal government would never allow it.

There is also the problem of how much of our food is produced in California. I've long advocated for diversifying a sizable portion of our food production away from California. Pretty much every state in the country can be a major producer of at least a half dozen crops if they must.

The federal government allow it?

Do you realize that the states of this country have the final say as to what is 'allowed'?

38 states can do anything, including removing Congress, firing the President and dissolving the Supreme Court.

So what would the 'federal government' have to say when this happens?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Their is a reason we are a Union of 50 states.  One way or another each needs the other.  The Federal Government needs all 50 to survive.  Therein is the problem...but for another discussion.

Californication is going nowhere.

So how did we survive for the 170 odd years prior to having 50 states?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Pretty sure this was solved in 1865.

Not really, just put a bigggg burr under the saddle that still rubs raw ever since.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

They don't have the water for urban growth. Desalination may be the answer.

way too expensive to be practical.

Only places where there are desalination plants are either where there are local situations that dictate or very, very cheap energy like the ME

[bigheadfred]

So how did we survive for the 170 odd years prior to having 50 states?

Wellll, back then it was subsitence, but now it is subsidized. Way far better deal.

[bigheadfred]

way too expensive to be practical.

Only places where there are desalination plants are either where there are local situations that dictate or very, very cheap energy like the ME

I was thinking about the Colorado River. How much does Cali depend on that water?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I was thinking about the Colorado River. How much does Cali depend on that water?

When I lived in CA, they had massive canals to duct water from the mountains to primarily the arid Southern part of the state.

Not sure of the Colorado

[bigheadfred]

When I lived in CA, they had massive canals to duct water from the mountains to primarily the arid Southern part of the state.

Not sure of the Colorado

Not much, I guess.  ^-^

I found this article from 2 years ago. A year without the Colorado.

California’s seven southern counties led the states in estimated losses, with some $657 billion in economic activity dependent on the river’s water.

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2015/01/20/a-year-without-the-colorado-river-as-seen-by-economists/

Cali secedes the Colorado recedes.

[goatprairie]

They stand a very remote though far better chance of breaking up into multiple states. Every state with any size or geopolitical division has a perpetual secessionist movement simmering somewhere.

Here in Michigan there is a long lived upper peninsula break away movement but it won't happen. Primarily they don't have enough people for a single congressional district. The 1st district covers the entire upper peninsula and northern 3rd of the lower peninsula.

In my opinion breaking up into multiple states is foolish as well. We've got all the senators and representatives we need in DC.

yes, we had a bunch of nuts here in Wisconsin some decades ago who called themselves the "posse comitatus" and thought they had some sort of constitutional right to do whatever they felt like.....in short, they didn't.

[Oceander]

The federal government allow it?

Do you realize that the states of this country have the final say as to what is 'allowed'?

38 states can do anything, including removing Congress, firing the President and dissolving the Supreme Court.

So what would the 'federal government' have to say when this happens?

Ri-i-i-i-ght

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Not really, just put a bigggg burr under the saddle that still rubs raw ever since.

Really? You don't hear about the South wanting to secede much anymore. Just Texas and California and the Texas session movement usually doesn't poll well.

[Oceander]

Y'know, I did a quick check on a particular number, and I just don't think California is going to go anywhere - not unless its biggest single landowner says it's ok.  Guess who the biggest landowner in California is:  the U.S. federal government, which owns approximately 45% of all of the land in California.

Source:  https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state

I personally don't think that the U.S. federal government is going to allow that much valuable territory to simply up and walk away.  Either it keeps its land, or else it monetizes it by getting bought out.  The first means the U.S. federal government still controls California - if California is out of the union, that means it becomes a territory of the federal government.  The second means California goes bankrupt and ends up making Greece look like a paragon of financial modesty and prudence.

Bottom line:  ain't never gonna happen.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Exactly.  And unless you are going to tolerate much higher taxes to pay for a military to then invade them, you will find yourself SOL.

Whereas they'll be able to pay for a military... and enter into alliances with other nations.  In the case of the west coast, I'd expect them to invite China in to set up garrisons to 'protect' their investments.

And why would the separate nations take on US debt?  The US would still be there, you know.  Just look at the breakup of the Soviet Union.  Russian assumed the debt, but the other nations did not.

Not following you as I gave you an either or and the word "exactly" means nothing in that.

Am guessing your "Exactly" means they leave without any of the debt encumbered by this nation.

If that is what you mean, that cannot happen.  The other states would not allow it and would extract their fair amount in some manner.

Is that what you intended?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Really? You don't hear about the South wanting to secede much anymore. Just Texas and California and the Texas session movement usually doesn't poll well.

I'd say a lot more Texans would be in favor than against.  If Clinton had won, it would have been a virtual certainty

[Smokin Joe]

Really?  Who are they kidding?  Only themselves, apparently.   California would never survive as a separate entity.  They're too dependent upon that government teat.  They're anti-oil drilling.  The only thing they produce is .... well...produce like citrus, and their own idiotic liberal regulations and rules have all but made that industry unprofitable.  It would be really fun to watch them try to survive after secession, though.  I vote YES!  lol

Despite the vocal folks being anti-oil drilling, California is the third largest producer of crude oil among the states, behind Texas and North Dakota. The State has tremendous natural resources, even if it has a vocal group against developing them.

I wonder what we would gain by having to build a much longer wall?
IKf the GOP and Trump handle this administration well, most folks will see that and some improvement. That doesn't mean they won't get poleaxed stupid again and elect another liberal someday, just that there is a chance that some of the last administration's crap could be reversed and safeguards put in place to keep it that way.

[Smokin Joe]

They stand a very remote though far better chance of breaking up into multiple states. Every state with any size or geopolitical division has a perpetual secessionist movement simmering somewhere.

Here in Michigan there is a long lived upper peninsula break away movement but it won't happen. Primarily they don't have enough people for a single congressional district. The 1st district covers the entire upper peninsula and northern 3rd of the lower peninsula.

In my opinion breaking up into multiple states is foolish as well. We've got all the senators and representatives we need in DC.

Neither North Dakota nor Wyoming had enough people to merit a second Representative in the House.  Every State, no matter how few, gets one.

[Smokin Joe]

However likely it is today, the country is equally and diametrically divided and only hardening in opposition to each other culturally, politically, morally and by any measurable metric.

Personally I think people should consider objectively WHY America must remain as it is. "America' is based on the Constitution. Clearly we see 50ish% of the population opposed to the Constitution and constitutional government. So we should go on our merry way. Divide the land accordingly. We are still America. The left can be whatever their country chooses to be.

I have an extremely hard time believing that this is a bad idea considering the alternative is escalating tensions and eventual civil war being the very foreseeable alternative. Like it or not folks, one way or another, we are going to divide eventually.

Forty years ago I joked about taking everything from The Bay of Campeche to Hudson's Bay, from the Western Continental Divide to the Eastern one, calling it America, and letting the rest find a new name.

It isn't as funny as it used to be.

[Hondo69]

There are lots of options really.




If you know what Rocky Mountain oysters are then you can come in.  Otherwise, adios MF.

If you know the difference between a hissie fit and a conniption fit then mi casa su casa.

If you think an Ivy League degree is a big deal then you deserve what you get - and keep an eye on your mailbox for your next government check.

If you assume that the car in front of you with the flashing turn signal is actually going to make a turn then we'll give you a free a map with directions to California.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

One thing about these secessionist movement types: do their promoters ever recognize the right of subareas in these states have their own right to secede?


Do "blue" areas of Texas have the right to secede the state? Do the interior red parts of California have the right to secede the state?


Same arguments could be made for both, I would say.

[Cripplecreek]

One thing about these secessionist movement types: do their promoters ever recognize the right of subareas in these states have their own right to secede?


Do "blue" areas of Texas have the right to secede the state? Do the interior red parts of California have the right to secede the state?


Same arguments could be made for both, I would say.

Secessionist movements tend to lead to secessionist movements from within. There were multiple small rebellions in remote areas of the south during the civil war. Some wanted to go with the north, some wanted to go their own way and sime wanted to be left alone.

Plenty of strife in the north at the same time. The Draft riots in NY were some of the deadliest rioting this country has ever seen. There was strife within families as well. My great grandmother's 2 uncles joined the union army together but one later deserted and joined the Confederates.

In any case, secession never really solves anything. I suspect that if the south had won the civil war we would have ended up with 2 more oppressive states. After all, both were trying to squash dissent from within during the war.

[goatprairie]

One thing about these secessionist movement types: do their promoters ever recognize the right of subareas in these states have their own right to secede?


Do "blue" areas of Texas have the right to secede the state? Do the interior red parts of California have the right to secede the state?


Same arguments could be made for both, I would say.

I don't believe the proponents of secession ever truly think out the ramifications of secession.
Okay, it's ten years from now, and it has been established by an act of congress and a change in the constitution that states are sovereign entities and can leave any time they like.
So some states get a majority or whatever number of adults to effect secession, and they leave the union.
They have to come up with their own  laws, regulations, trade agreements, currency, etc.
But what if, down the road, a majority in the separated state decides they don't like being an independent country and want back in? Should the U.S. let them back in?  Some pro-secessionist people, like the late conservative pundit Joseph Sobran, thought that would be an excellent idea. States could leave and come back in whenever they felt like it.
Actually, it's sheer lunacy.  Why should the U.S. adopt a system where states decide at various points in time to leave or re-enter the union? Lunacy.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I don't believe the proponents of secession ever truly think out the ramifications of secession.
Okay, it's ten years from now, and it has been established by an act of congress and a change in the constitution that states are sovereign entities and can leave any time they like.
So some states get a majority or whatever number of adults to effect secession, and they leave the union.
They have to come up with their own  laws, regulations, trade agreements, currency, etc.
But what if, down the road, a majority in the separated state decides they don't like being an independent country and want back in? Should the U.S. let them back in?  Some pro-secessionist people, like the late conservative pundit Joseph Sobran, thought that would be an excellent idea. States could leave and come back in whenever they felt like it.
Actually, it's sheer lunacy.  Why should the U.S. adopt a system where states decide at various points in time to leave or re-enter the union? Lunacy.

Why not individuals, why can't I declare my property as independent from the US?