For all of the reasons given, secession from the United States is a bad idea. But I’m going to keep banging this drum: The metropolises need to secede from their states, while staying part of the United States. Heck, Los Angeles County alone has more people than 40 of the states. It’s about time that they got fair representation.
Honestly at this point I feel the US would do great by splitting and becoming a confederation (think EU styles autonomy).
I think the differences are just too big to have a functioning state.
I also understand that the push towards these movements is often done by Russian propaganda, who want to do anything to split up the US and NATO.
Can we coordinate with Oregon and Washington to join Canada?
That aside, California leads the US in many ways, but we have a tendency to go too far and do really dumb things. We’re pretty good at self congratulations even when other states stare, slack-jawed at our blunders. It’s nice to have perspective.
Can we get hawaii too for our corrupt politician’s vacation homes
CASCADIA NOW!!!
i freaking love the idea of Cascadia becoming autonomous and independent. I’d love it if New England did that too.
It’s an interesting idea, but it can’t possibly happen. The federal government has too much military infrastructure in different parts of the US, especially nuclear material. They’d never let anyone secede with it.
We also have the top two ports in the US. And if we took the PNW with us nearly all trade from Asia would pass through this theoretical new country before reaching the US.
Edit; also there’s a lot of division between the urban and rural areas of all west coast states. It’s fun to think about, but I don’t see it happening without a major conflict
please call it the “New California Republic”
Remember how the federal government treated the south when they tried to secede. And people still celebrate it, not without good reason. But they didn’t just go to war to stop it, they burned the south to the ground.
Well, there are two big differences.
The ethical one, the South wanted to secede to keep their slaves, and to clarify because the term slavery has been run ragged by propaganda, they wanted to keep their forced labour/death camps where they could kill, maim, rape, buy and sell people, also children, and have them do backbreaking, crippling work to enrich themselves.
On the other hand, California is contemplating this because the South, after losing their war, did a 200 year psyop to get a rapist and a bona-fide sieg heiling Nazi in power to force California to drop initiatives that would keep the Earth inhabitable and let their citizens live in peace.
The pragmatic one is that while the South was what it was, California is still an economic powerhouse accounting for 20% of the US economy. If they would secede, and bring a few like-minded states with them, it’s not the least bit implausible that the South would be doing the burning again.
All that said, the Russians and the Chinese are salivating at this idea I’m sure.
But they didn’t just go to war to stop it, they burned the south to the ground.
Do that to CA and you’re shooting yourself in the foot as the US
Destroying your most important ports and where more than 50% of your agriculture nationwide comes from is not a good idea
Which is exactly why they would burn it to the ground. The federal government would never let California, let alone any state, secede peacfully. They can’t risk losing those resources and would destroy them before allowing them to be competition.
CA is already burning due to mismanagement. So…
TIL wind=mismanagement
Question: what things were done in the 80’s to prep for wildfires? Do they do any of those things today?
So you don’t actually know what you’re talking about and yet you commented anyway?
I was alive in the 80s, I definitely know what I’m talking about. If you can’t answer the question though, then you obviously do not.
Removed by mod
Fuck off you empty headed dumb fucking sea lion sack of shit.
No.
deleted by creator
We honestly never really finished the last one. Reconstruction got the rug pulled out from underneath it.
We have a history of being soft on treason
In part because we only exist due to treason.
At least the American revolution wasn’t about keeping slavery
No, but the second was, and at this rate the third one probably will be.
Okay, but then California becomes a smaller country bordering a much larger fascist neighbor with the largest military in the world.
In what world is that a good outcome?
They’d become a pretty large country with one of the world’s largest economies holding major port access to their neighbor. A few allies and things aren’t quite so clear cut. Not to mention they’d potentially have significant military resources.
That economy is tightly integrated with the rest of the country.
In a secession, those ties would be severed, likely tanking the economy of both California and the US.
Weber said proponents must gather 546,651 signatures from registered voters, which is 5% of total votes cast for governor in the 2022 election. Proponents face a deadline of July 22.
I wish they could knock on my door, but the building is secured from visitors. I’ll sign if I see someone posted at a table on the sidewalk. I’m done with this shit country.
If this movement has any ground game, they may send a volunteer to your home at a time of your choosing to collect your signatures. Let’s say you had a small gathering of like minded friends? They would be there before the Domino’s guy.
Serious petition movements have a volunteer system set up where they mobilize passionate people with flexible schedules (i.e. usually adorable old ladies or the funemployed). They have to have a website with contact info.
I think it would be a very interesting national debate if this got traction, perhaps even a productive one.
Yes, please. As a Californian who is already looking to move abroad, it would be a dream come true for my state to do it for me.
It will be the death of many reasonable people in red states though.
My heart goes out to the rational minority in the red states. My advice to them is to leave while they can, however they can. This very well could be a matter of life and death.
Your heart goes out to us, how sweet, I’ll think of your heart when me and my friends who cannot leave are rounded up and sent to camps.
“Cannot leave?” My brother in Christ. If I honestly thought that my life was genuinely in danger of a violent end, should I remain where I am, I’d leave without hesitation. It costs nothing to get in your car and drive until you are across state lines RIGHT NOW, this very instant. I wouldn’t worry about selling my house, closing escrow (or trying to communicate or formalize anything with a landlord, were I renting), “getting my affairs in order”, or whatever else. I would first load up my car and then GTFO right goddamn NOW while I still draw breath. Yes, it’d be a hassle having to deal with those loose ends later, but my first priority would be my own self-preservation.
Except, you know, the cost of the car and the gas and the food and shelter when you do get across state lines. All famously very cheap and affordable things.
Are you really waiting to be spoon fed? I never said everything would be gravy. I said if I was honestly certain I was going to die by staying in my state, I’d fucking leave NOW without waiting for jack shit. Everyone is going to have their own support and ways of surviving, and that’s something to think about only AFTER I’m in a safe location. This is still going to be difficult, and you’ll still have to actually think for yourself. But at least you won’t be actively hunted anymore.
Spoon-fed? What? States are HUGE. If you don’t ALREADY have a car you own, you gotta have fare for a bus or a train. If you don’t? You have to walk, and that’s not a realistic option for most people, particularly those who live in conservative areas spanning multiple states. God forbid you live in southern Texas. Cars are expensive, and fare for transportation out of state is also pretty damn expensive, especially since these dangerous areas tend to neglect their affordable public transport options. It’s great that YOU have the money upfront to even start getting out. Not everyone has the privilege.
To be clear, I’m not arguing against getting out. I’m taking umbridge with your statement that “It costs nothing to get in your car…” etc. GETTING a car is a cost.
Something that might work out better and would be a lot easier to do (thought still not very easy), would be to split into 3 (or 4?) states.
California has almost 12% of the US population concentrated in that one state! By far most of the states contain about 2% or less of the US population each.
By splitting, the population would be better represented in the Senate with 6 senators between them instead of only 2, and there might be a net gain in some other benefits that are given on the state level.
edit: I see that someone had already brought this idea up, but IMO it’s a good idea that they should seriously consider!
The right wing has wanted this for years because California is very conservative outside of its cities. Splitting the state up would guarantee a Republican Senate.
Careful. Texas has some long forgotten provision where they could easily do the same thing, into 5 states. and they’d all be red.
If they split California into 3, the northern state might be red (or swing) but the other two would definitely be blue because of SR and LA. Look at a map of election results by county.
With Texas, at least a couple of them would have to be blue because some would contain the blue urban areas. Same with FL, at least one new state would be blue. if CA, TX, and FL all did it. If they divided into 5 states it might even out. Of course there would have to be negotiations to get enough people and the parties to agree to the boundaries, which should prevent too much of an advantage to one side or the other, especially if people don’t want their cities be split between two states.
But regardless of the results for the Senate, the point is that the people in most populous states of this country are not getting their fair representation in our federal government and that needs to change.
Then of course as long as we’re altering our makeup of states, we have to give the citizens DC representation and make that a state. And Puerto Rico should be able to decide if it wants to become a state as well.
German here, so excuse my ignorance, but wouldn’t it be easier to change the voting system to one that counts each vote as equal on a state level and get rid of the voting people stuff? Last time I checked you’re no longer riding horses to Washington…
but wouldn’t it be easier to change the voting system to one that counts each vote as equal on a state level and get rid of the voting people stuff
Country wide that requires a constitutional amendment, which requires 2/3 of all states to agree. It’s been tried, the cuckservatives rage and bitch like the children they are because it would mean they’d never win again, so it never goes through
There’s an effort to make it so that individual states will ignore the EC called NAPOVOINTERCO that would basically force the US to use a popular vote system, but it’s not got enough individual states signed on yet to activate itself
When it comes to the US, this is a simple rule to follow: federal change is nearly impossible because of the babies in the GOP, while states are easier but can change a whole lot less overall
