No seriously, I don't even know where is good to eat or what there is to do.
Bay area? Here's a start
Touristy shit not all of which is worth doing, really, but there's almost an expectation that you do:
Golden gate bridge and various vista points
Golden state park
Fisherman's Wharf/Pier 33
Baker Beach :winky: (But seriously, as you get closer to the bridge this is an understood nude beach, be aware)
Sutro Baths
Alcatraz
Napa/Sonoma
Yosemite (not bay, but you need to do it again)
Yosemite again because one weekend JUST AIN'T ENOUGH
Big Sur
Point Reyes/Mount Tamalpais/Muir Woods
More local than me can probably give better advice on food, but I'd recommend hitting up as many different types of asian places/food festivals as you can because there's lots of good stuff.
I've liked Burma Superstar/B*Star every time I've gone, so that's an option. I've gone to SF enough that I can call out places I've liked, but I don't live there to know if it's the ones locals would recommend.
Also you've got a ton of live sports options, so probably worth taking advantage.
I've done most of that over the years as a tourist. But I do appreciate the thought.
Although Sonoma Napa this year is probably going to be depressing.
Might be a good year to hit up some of the other wine regions. Sierra foothills (Amador County), etc actually have a decent amount of wineries. And tastings cost a lot less.
Also, Folsom has sake tasting, too, and is nearby.
....maybe we should make a general California/California politics thread and split that off of this thread, though.
we're rated around 48th or 50th from a business climate and standpoint in California
And they're at the bottom of the top 10 global economies. It's a real commercial wasteland, don't know how they'll ever recover.
Like I said...economic anxiety.
But then, they're chucklefucks. I don't think anybody has yet to adequately explain how a mostly agrarian CSA survives, let alone a newly crated Republican parasite (sucking up all the land and natural resources, of course).
[By the way, 'parasite' should be 'paradise', but auto-correct had a better idea.]
Hey man I'm a Bay Area native and I refuse to get put in the basket with the crazies.
it may shock you to learn that the southern half of the state ALSO has rural crazy people
And orange county.
This just became my favorite thread of the day.
@Henroid did you seriously not know that Orange County and East San Diego County is where we keep most of our white supremacists? There's a fair few in the North that are bleedover from Oregon and when the Hell's Angels kicked them out of the Bay Area, but the North is also the half that's been getting gradually more liberal.
Eh, I lived in California for most of my life and I have never felt like the north-south distinction is nearly as dramatic as the east-west distinction.
The climate is very different between northern and southern california. But politically and economically? Los Angeles has far more in common with San Francisco than it does with Needles; or than San Francisco has with Truckee.
The basic division is the same as it is everywhere else in the US: urban vs rural. If you go down the entire US Pacific coast from Seattle to San Diego, regions west of the Pacific mountain system are consistently far more urbanized than the regions east of the mountains.
But even politically speaking, the rural coastal areas tend to be more liberal and, frankly, more hippie than rural inland areas. Eureka to Santa Barbara is far less culture shock than Eureka to Modoc.
Yeah, there are some inland pockets of urbanization like Sacramento, but there's also huge cross-pollination between Sacramento and San Francisco due largely to the geography of the Sacramento delta and the northeast SF bay. There's a reason the Amtrak Capitol Corridor runs through Vallejo and offers commuter passes.
I recognize that all of this is academic and that California isn't splitting up any time soon.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
"New California" is the red / rural counties right? Because while they may have the agriculture part of the economy, they don't have the rest. Plus, Jesus have they forgotten about the whole drought issue?
I've been in favor of a California exit, as a whole, from the USA. But splitting California is dumb as fuck.
Here is a quick guide:
Is someone in the US talking about seceding? If so, they are red/rural counties.
I'd be inclined to say fuck it and let them leave, but they'd just drop taxes to zero and siphon money away from us, anyway.
No, they'd talk about how the water is all theirs and try to charge a ridiculous amount of money for it.
Nestle owns all the water so they've been beaten to the punch. Capitalism strikes again.
I've seen that Bond movie.
Every time QoS comes up I'm like "No, people, this is literally the most realistic Bond villain plot ever written. I'm not even sure it's exaggerated.".
Eh, I lived in California for most of my life and I have never felt like the north-south distinction is nearly as dramatic as the east-west distinction.
The climate is very different between northern and southern california. But politically and economically? Los Angeles has far more in common with San Francisco than it does with Needles; or than San Francisco has with Truckee.
The basic division is the same as it is everywhere else in the US: urban vs rural. If you go down the entire US Pacific coast from Seattle to San Diego, regions west of the Pacific mountain system are consistently far more urbanized than the regions east of the mountains.
But even politically speaking, the rural coastal areas tend to be more liberal and, frankly, more hippie than rural inland areas. Eureka to Santa Barbara is far less culture shock than Eureka to Modoc.
Yeah, there are some inland pockets of urbanization like Sacramento, but there's also huge cross-pollination between Sacramento and San Francisco due largely to the geography of the Sacramento delta and the northeast SF bay. There's a reason the Amtrak Capitol Corridor runs through Vallejo and offers commuter passes.
I recognize that all of this is academic and that California isn't splitting up any time soon.
Are you from the north or south part of the state?
"Well, it's been ungovernable for a long time. High taxes, education, you name it, and we're rated around 48th or 50th from a business climate and standpoint in California," said founder Robert Paul Preston.
That sounds like governance, just governance he doesn't like. I mean, California can be ungovernable thanks to your crazy Constitution and proposition system, but a lot of that got fixed with Governor Brown and the supermajority, I thought.
Anyway, how does Nеw Цалифорниа plan on getting the support of Sacramento?
Man, I think maybe every solidly blue state has to deal with this kind of nonsense? We still have our separatists over here in Washington even after Spokane Valley shot itself in the dick by splitting off from Spokane as an example of things to come.
This OP is not a general California politics OP, and this isn't a general California thread.
If OP wants to open this up to CA state politics then go for it via OP edit and thread title change, otherwise stick to the topic.
I think it best to keep this to the attempt at separation. Provided they keep up their strategy, this will likely become a thing within the next two years. So I think it best to keep it to just that unless something wildly changes and if it does (renewed real world secession talk?), then maybe a change in direction (more likely just a new thread).
Something I kind of wonder about might be what happens to people born in areas that would become the new state. Would my birth certificate remain valid or would I have to get a new one?
This OP is not a general California politics OP, and this isn't a general California thread.
If OP wants to open this up to CA state politics then go for it via OP edit and thread title change, otherwise stick to the topic.
I think it best to keep this to the attempt at separation. Provided they keep up their strategy, this will likely become a thing within the next two years. So I think it best to keep it to just that unless something wildly changes and if it does (renewed real world secession talk?), then maybe a change in direction (more likely just a new thread).
So, New California.
Having dug around the few articles I've found about it I'm not sure what exactly their strategy is
Essentially they reference the founding of West Virginia as precedent. But from what I can tell that requires the state and federal legislature to agree to let them form a new state, which, uh, lol?
They also reference many "certified" counties with more waiting to be certified, but I don't see what being certified means. It doesn't help that on mobile at least a bunch of hyperlinks are blended together on the webpage with no punctuation so it's difficult to tell what you're even supposed to click on.
Essentially I don't know what sort of authority they're trying to claim when they "certify" or how they're planning to demonstrate that a majority of people anywhere are in favor of this (a San Diego UT article cited "dozens of calls in support" over 24 hours)
Unfortunately their FAQ section is hilariously light on details.
Other than some dudes getting together in Marysville I'm not sure what they've actually done
I suspect it's basically the same as any other similar movement in the last decade or so. They're running it up the flagpole and seeing who salutes and probably counting on enough Us v Them silliness to garner the support to try the West Virginia thing. Which basically only happened because during the war, being able to claim that they split Virginia in half meant something to the Union and anyway there wasn't really any southern opposition in congress. Lots of 'vacant' seats.
I can imagine that, should the counties actually vote to separate, the current congress would possibly vote to allow it in an effort to gain more senators. House members may not change, I suppose. California probably loses it's general heft in the EC, but that would largely depend on how it would shake out politically.
What I think, however, is that the make-up of congress will be a bit different in 2020. Probably not enough to pass anything approving it. And that also just presumes that there would be enough votes statewide to allow it to get that far.
I do think that this attempt is an effort to take advantage of the less than predictable political climate we find ourselves in. That perhaps they might finally sneak this one through.
This OP is not a general California politics OP, and this isn't a general California thread.
If OP wants to open this up to CA state politics then go for it via OP edit and thread title change, otherwise stick to the topic.
I think it best to keep this to the attempt at separation. Provided they keep up their strategy, this will likely become a thing within the next two years. So I think it best to keep it to just that unless something wildly changes and if it does (renewed real world secession talk?), then maybe a change in direction (more likely just a new thread).
So, New California.
Having dug around the few articles I've found about it I'm not sure what exactly their strategy is
Essentially they reference the founding of West Virginia as precedent. But from what I can tell that requires the state and federal legislature to agree to let them form a new state, which, uh, lol?
They also reference many "certified" counties with more waiting to be certified, but I don't see what being certified means. It doesn't help that on mobile at least a bunch of hyperlinks are blended together on the webpage with no punctuation so it's difficult to tell what you're even supposed to click on.
Essentially I don't know what sort of authority they're trying to claim when they "certify" or how they're planning to demonstrate that a majority of people anywhere are in favor of this (a San Diego UT article cited "dozens of calls in support" over 24 hours)
Unfortunately their FAQ section is hilariously light on details.
Other than some dudes getting together in Marysville I'm not sure what they've actually done
Splitting a state requires state and federal approval per the constitution. I guess the theory is the CA referendum madness satisfies the first and then a GOP congress happily rubber stamps it to gain Senate seats. I suspect the wording may actually require the legislature to pass a bill normally though, in which case lol no not happening.
This OP is not a general California politics OP, and this isn't a general California thread.
If OP wants to open this up to CA state politics then go for it via OP edit and thread title change, otherwise stick to the topic.
I think it best to keep this to the attempt at separation. Provided they keep up their strategy, this will likely become a thing within the next two years. So I think it best to keep it to just that unless something wildly changes and if it does (renewed real world secession talk?), then maybe a change in direction (more likely just a new thread).
So, New California.
Having dug around the few articles I've found about it I'm not sure what exactly their strategy is
Essentially they reference the founding of West Virginia as precedent. But from what I can tell that requires the state and federal legislature to agree to let them form a new state, which, uh, lol?
They also reference many "certified" counties with more waiting to be certified, but I don't see what being certified means. It doesn't help that on mobile at least a bunch of hyperlinks are blended together on the webpage with no punctuation so it's difficult to tell what you're even supposed to click on.
Essentially I don't know what sort of authority they're trying to claim when they "certify" or how they're planning to demonstrate that a majority of people anywhere are in favor of this (a San Diego UT article cited "dozens of calls in support" over 24 hours)
Unfortunately their FAQ section is hilariously light on details.
Other than some dudes getting together in Marysville I'm not sure what they've actually done
Splitting a state requires state and federal approval per the constitution. I guess the theory is the CA referendum madness satisfies the first and then a GOP congress happily rubber stamps it to gain Senate seats. I suspect the wording may actually require the legislature to pass a bill normally though, in which case lol no not happening.
It's been a while since I've worked as a Legislative analyst, so I don't know the current makeup (sane R's vs. Teapers/Crazy R's), but this. The California legislature, at least from how I remember it, would kill this full stop.
Alright, yeah. It's doomed. Article 4 Section 3: "...without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
IANAL, but that seems to rule out any chance of referendum counting.
It just means that whatever the counties say now won't mean much until a statewide vote takes place. Which is not likely without a massive Prop8-style confusion campaign.
Alright, yeah. It's doomed. Article 4 Section 3: "...without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
IANAL, but that seems to rule out any chance of referendum counting.
It just means that whatever the counties say now won't mean much until a statewide vote takes place. Which is not likely without a massive Prop8-style confusion campaign.
"New California" is the red / rural counties right? Because while they may have the agriculture part of the economy, they don't have the rest. Plus, Jesus have they forgotten about the whole drought issue?
I've been in favor of a California exit, as a whole, from the USA. But splitting California is dumb as fuck.
Here is a quick guide:
Is someone in the US talking about seceding? If so, they are red/rural counties.
I'd be inclined to say fuck it and let them leave, but they'd just drop taxes to zero and siphon money away from us, anyway.
Yeah. In the imaginary world where this actually goes through, New California just becomes an example of anti-tax ideals not working, and it becomes a state that needs constant federal aid. Regular California would have a better financial portfolio but it would still spend a lot of that money subsidizing portions of the country as it does now anyway.
An exit of California as a whole state would result in a California taking care of itself but Christ the USA would hurt for it. Those red states you mentioned being the ones to feel it the most. For as many problems as California has with its budget, it still manages to do its part carrying the USA, and if it was able to sever those connections it would rebound like a motherfucker.
Cali can't even generate enough electricity to be independent. It would flounder and fail.
I just can't imagine, on the nil chance that this sort of thing passes, that other states won't have a free for all at it. What's stopping the urban area of any red state from just forming New Insert State Here?
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
"New California" is the red / rural counties right? Because while they may have the agriculture part of the economy, they don't have the rest. Plus, Jesus have they forgotten about the whole drought issue?
I've been in favor of a California exit, as a whole, from the USA. But splitting California is dumb as fuck.
Here is a quick guide:
Is someone in the US talking about seceding? If so, they are red/rural counties.
I'd be inclined to say fuck it and let them leave, but they'd just drop taxes to zero and siphon money away from us, anyway.
Yeah. In the imaginary world where this actually goes through, New California just becomes an example of anti-tax ideals not working, and it becomes a state that needs constant federal aid. Regular California would have a better financial portfolio but it would still spend a lot of that money subsidizing portions of the country as it does now anyway.
An exit of California as a whole state would result in a California taking care of itself but Christ the USA would hurt for it. Those red states you mentioned being the ones to feel it the most. For as many problems as California has with its budget, it still manages to do its part carrying the USA, and if it was able to sever those connections it would rebound like a motherfucker.
Cali can't even generate enough electricity to be independent. It would flounder and fail.
Eh, California imports about 25% of its electricity. I'm sure it could cut a deal with Washington state. We have plenty of tidal power and it's cheap.
What is interesting though is that the western electricity interchanges don't fall exactly on state lines. The "California" electricity interchange includes part of western Nevada, but excludes part of northern California.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
"New California" is the red / rural counties right? Because while they may have the agriculture part of the economy, they don't have the rest. Plus, Jesus have they forgotten about the whole drought issue?
I've been in favor of a California exit, as a whole, from the USA. But splitting California is dumb as fuck.
Here is a quick guide:
Is someone in the US talking about seceding? If so, they are red/rural counties.
I'd be inclined to say fuck it and let them leave, but they'd just drop taxes to zero and siphon money away from us, anyway.
Yeah. In the imaginary world where this actually goes through, New California just becomes an example of anti-tax ideals not working, and it becomes a state that needs constant federal aid. Regular California would have a better financial portfolio but it would still spend a lot of that money subsidizing portions of the country as it does now anyway.
An exit of California as a whole state would result in a California taking care of itself but Christ the USA would hurt for it. Those red states you mentioned being the ones to feel it the most. For as many problems as California has with its budget, it still manages to do its part carrying the USA, and if it was able to sever those connections it would rebound like a motherfucker.
Cali can't even generate enough electricity to be independent. It would flounder and fail.
Eh, California imports about 25% of its electricity. I'm sure it could cut a deal with Washington state. We have plenty of tidal power and it's cheap.
What is interesting though is that the western electricity interchanges don't fall exactly on state lines. The "California" electricity interchange includes part of western Nevada, but excludes part of northern California.
A new nation could not enter into an agreement of that sort with Washington State on it's own. They'd need a treaty with the USA, a thing I for one would oppose fiercely. Maybe they can just use 25% less power or something, or try and horn into NAFTA somehow despite it not being in the US interest to allow rebels and traitors to do so.
That seems like a much more representative way of breaking up the country than our current state lines. Excluding what's going on in west Dakota and north of Tennessee.
It's dead and I wish people would stop giving this stuff air. No fucking way California's legislature backs this. I'm not even sure every Republican in Congress would be willing to back the can of worms this would open. It's not like batshit crazy yokel conservatives in buttfuck nowhere are the only ones that could run with this stunt. Do it to CA and several progressives in blue bastions within red states might push to split off their share into a new blue state and enough of the GOP base is short sighted enough to let it happen because then they don't have to have them liberals in there state legislatures. This in turn fucks their base long term as they pretty much let a fair chunk of their economic centers go. Also has the potential of creating a real clusterfuck where neither Congress or Senate are able to agree on anything.
I suspect shit like this gets a significant push from assholes looking to use the piss poor idea behind the Senate to make an attempt at fixing the Senate in their favor. There is also likely a healthy dose of "wah, my side didn't win because we didn't have the votes, this government is illegitimate and I should have my own state!"
"New California" is the red / rural counties right? Because while they may have the agriculture part of the economy, they don't have the rest. Plus, Jesus have they forgotten about the whole drought issue?
I've been in favor of a California exit, as a whole, from the USA. But splitting California is dumb as fuck.
Here is a quick guide:
Is someone in the US talking about seceding? If so, they are red/rural counties.
I'd be inclined to say fuck it and let them leave, but they'd just drop taxes to zero and siphon money away from us, anyway.
Yeah. In the imaginary world where this actually goes through, New California just becomes an example of anti-tax ideals not working, and it becomes a state that needs constant federal aid. Regular California would have a better financial portfolio but it would still spend a lot of that money subsidizing portions of the country as it does now anyway.
An exit of California as a whole state would result in a California taking care of itself but Christ the USA would hurt for it. Those red states you mentioned being the ones to feel it the most. For as many problems as California has with its budget, it still manages to do its part carrying the USA, and if it was able to sever those connections it would rebound like a motherfucker.
Cali can't even generate enough electricity to be independent. It would flounder and fail.
Eh, California imports about 25% of its electricity. I'm sure it could cut a deal with Washington state. We have plenty of tidal power and it's cheap.
What is interesting though is that the western electricity interchanges don't fall exactly on state lines. The "California" electricity interchange includes part of western Nevada, but excludes part of northern California.
A new nation could not enter into an agreement of that sort with Washington State on it's own. They'd need a treaty with the USA, a thing I for one would oppose fiercely. Maybe they can just use 25% less power or something, or try and horn into NAFTA somehow despite it not being in the US interest to allow rebels and traitors to do so.
They want to be another state, like West Virginia, not a new nation
at any rate I think arguments about "X region has to import Y resource, they could never split off" need to be analyzed from another angle
is region X importing resource Y because they can't make enough of that resource or because it's cheaper to import?
that's the benefit of living in a federation with pretty wide open trade! you get accesses to all the most easily exploitable resources even if they're not within your borders
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
"New California" is the red / rural counties right? Because while they may have the agriculture part of the economy, they don't have the rest. Plus, Jesus have they forgotten about the whole drought issue?
I've been in favor of a California exit, as a whole, from the USA. But splitting California is dumb as fuck.
Here is a quick guide:
Is someone in the US talking about seceding? If so, they are red/rural counties.
I'd be inclined to say fuck it and let them leave, but they'd just drop taxes to zero and siphon money away from us, anyway.
Yeah. In the imaginary world where this actually goes through, New California just becomes an example of anti-tax ideals not working, and it becomes a state that needs constant federal aid. Regular California would have a better financial portfolio but it would still spend a lot of that money subsidizing portions of the country as it does now anyway.
An exit of California as a whole state would result in a California taking care of itself but Christ the USA would hurt for it. Those red states you mentioned being the ones to feel it the most. For as many problems as California has with its budget, it still manages to do its part carrying the USA, and if it was able to sever those connections it would rebound like a motherfucker.
Cali can't even generate enough electricity to be independent. It would flounder and fail.
Eh, California imports about 25% of its electricity. I'm sure it could cut a deal with Washington state. We have plenty of tidal power and it's cheap.
What is interesting though is that the western electricity interchanges don't fall exactly on state lines. The "California" electricity interchange includes part of western Nevada, but excludes part of northern California.
A new nation could not enter into an agreement of that sort with Washington State on it's own. They'd need a treaty with the USA, a thing I for one would oppose fiercely. Maybe they can just use 25% less power or something, or try and horn into NAFTA somehow despite it not being in the US interest to allow rebels and traitors to do so.
A political environment that sees California try to break away is going to include western Washington in all likelihood.
+4
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Just as a sidenote regarding the state's economic power / overall status, nothing more. The state remaining whole actually ensures economic viability, whereas splitting it is a short-sighted kicking-feet-in-the-sand over partisan politics.
Posts
Bay area? Here's a start
Touristy shit not all of which is worth doing, really, but there's almost an expectation that you do:
More local than me can probably give better advice on food, but I'd recommend hitting up as many different types of asian places/food festivals as you can because there's lots of good stuff.
I've liked Burma Superstar/B*Star every time I've gone, so that's an option. I've gone to SF enough that I can call out places I've liked, but I don't live there to know if it's the ones locals would recommend.
Also you've got a ton of live sports options, so probably worth taking advantage.
Although Sonoma Napa this year is probably going to be depressing.
Might be a good year to hit up some of the other wine regions. Sierra foothills (Amador County), etc actually have a decent amount of wineries. And tastings cost a lot less.
Also, Folsom has sake tasting, too, and is nearby.
....maybe we should make a general California/California politics thread and split that off of this thread, though.
And they're at the bottom of the top 10 global economies. It's a real commercial wasteland, don't know how they'll ever recover.
SD County has gone D 4 of the last 5 elections, including a 20+ D spread in 2016
Socially liberal/fiscally conservative used to work for Rs there but enough silly shit seems to have broken that
Issa won by 1600 votes last time and is pretty much dead in the water this year
Issa knows this too, and is looking at running in one of the neighboring, much more R districts.
Edit: aw, fuck!
Like I said...economic anxiety.
But then, they're chucklefucks. I don't think anybody has yet to adequately explain how a mostly agrarian CSA survives, let alone a newly crated Republican parasite (sucking up all the land and natural resources, of course).
[By the way, 'parasite' should be 'paradise', but auto-correct had a better idea.]
@Henroid did you seriously not know that Orange County and East San Diego County is where we keep most of our white supremacists? There's a fair few in the North that are bleedover from Oregon and when the Hell's Angels kicked them out of the Bay Area, but the North is also the half that's been getting gradually more liberal.
The climate is very different between northern and southern california. But politically and economically? Los Angeles has far more in common with San Francisco than it does with Needles; or than San Francisco has with Truckee.
The basic division is the same as it is everywhere else in the US: urban vs rural. If you go down the entire US Pacific coast from Seattle to San Diego, regions west of the Pacific mountain system are consistently far more urbanized than the regions east of the mountains.
But even politically speaking, the rural coastal areas tend to be more liberal and, frankly, more hippie than rural inland areas. Eureka to Santa Barbara is far less culture shock than Eureka to Modoc.
Yeah, there are some inland pockets of urbanization like Sacramento, but there's also huge cross-pollination between Sacramento and San Francisco due largely to the geography of the Sacramento delta and the northeast SF bay. There's a reason the Amtrak Capitol Corridor runs through Vallejo and offers commuter passes.
I recognize that all of this is academic and that California isn't splitting up any time soon.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Every time QoS comes up I'm like "No, people, this is literally the most realistic Bond villain plot ever written. I'm not even sure it's exaggerated.".
Are you from the north or south part of the state?
That sounds like governance, just governance he doesn't like. I mean, California can be ungovernable thanks to your crazy Constitution and proposition system, but a lot of that got fixed with Governor Brown and the supermajority, I thought.
Anyway, how does Nеw Цалифорниа plan on getting the support of Sacramento?
If OP wants to open this up to CA state politics then go for it via OP edit and thread title change, otherwise stick to the topic.
I think it best to keep this to the attempt at separation. Provided they keep up their strategy, this will likely become a thing within the next two years. So I think it best to keep it to just that unless something wildly changes and if it does (renewed real world secession talk?), then maybe a change in direction (more likely just a new thread).
So, New California.
Having dug around the few articles I've found about it I'm not sure what exactly their strategy is
Essentially they reference the founding of West Virginia as precedent. But from what I can tell that requires the state and federal legislature to agree to let them form a new state, which, uh, lol?
They also reference many "certified" counties with more waiting to be certified, but I don't see what being certified means. It doesn't help that on mobile at least a bunch of hyperlinks are blended together on the webpage with no punctuation so it's difficult to tell what you're even supposed to click on.
Essentially I don't know what sort of authority they're trying to claim when they "certify" or how they're planning to demonstrate that a majority of people anywhere are in favor of this (a San Diego UT article cited "dozens of calls in support" over 24 hours)
Unfortunately their FAQ section is hilariously light on details.
Other than some dudes getting together in Marysville I'm not sure what they've actually done
I can imagine that, should the counties actually vote to separate, the current congress would possibly vote to allow it in an effort to gain more senators. House members may not change, I suppose. California probably loses it's general heft in the EC, but that would largely depend on how it would shake out politically.
What I think, however, is that the make-up of congress will be a bit different in 2020. Probably not enough to pass anything approving it. And that also just presumes that there would be enough votes statewide to allow it to get that far.
I do think that this attempt is an effort to take advantage of the less than predictable political climate we find ourselves in. That perhaps they might finally sneak this one through.
Splitting a state requires state and federal approval per the constitution. I guess the theory is the CA referendum madness satisfies the first and then a GOP congress happily rubber stamps it to gain Senate seats. I suspect the wording may actually require the legislature to pass a bill normally though, in which case lol no not happening.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
It's been a while since I've worked as a Legislative analyst, so I don't know the current makeup (sane R's vs. Teapers/Crazy R's), but this. The California legislature, at least from how I remember it, would kill this full stop.
IANAL, but that seems to rule out any chance of referendum counting.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
It just means that whatever the counties say now won't mean much until a statewide vote takes place. Which is not likely without a massive Prop8-style confusion campaign.
Oh Christ don't remind me
We're so gd stupid about Propositions
Cali can't even generate enough electricity to be independent. It would flounder and fail.
Eh, California imports about 25% of its electricity. I'm sure it could cut a deal with Washington state. We have plenty of tidal power and it's cheap.
What is interesting though is that the western electricity interchanges don't fall exactly on state lines. The "California" electricity interchange includes part of western Nevada, but excludes part of northern California.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I couldn't find a good image so I just took a screenshot of https://www.eia.gov/realtime_grid/#/summary/demand?end=20180117&start=20171217®ions=g
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
A new nation could not enter into an agreement of that sort with Washington State on it's own. They'd need a treaty with the USA, a thing I for one would oppose fiercely. Maybe they can just use 25% less power or something, or try and horn into NAFTA somehow despite it not being in the US interest to allow rebels and traitors to do so.
That seems like a much more representative way of breaking up the country than our current state lines. Excluding what's going on in west Dakota and north of Tennessee.
I suspect shit like this gets a significant push from assholes looking to use the piss poor idea behind the Senate to make an attempt at fixing the Senate in their favor. There is also likely a healthy dose of "wah, my side didn't win because we didn't have the votes, this government is illegitimate and I should have my own state!"
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
They want to be another state, like West Virginia, not a new nation
is region X importing resource Y because they can't make enough of that resource or because it's cheaper to import?
that's the benefit of living in a federation with pretty wide open trade! you get accesses to all the most easily exploitable resources even if they're not within your borders
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
A political environment that sees California try to break away is going to include western Washington in all likelihood.