If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   The REAL problem with breaking up California   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 117
    More: Followup, San Jose State University, University of San Francisco, Sandy Springs, Peter Thiel, Larry Gerston  
•       •       •

4435 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Mar 2014 at 9:52 AM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



117 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-08 07:54:16 AM
We still can't build a fence to keep the smug in?
 
2014-03-08 08:23:27 AM
You mean, other than the fact that it will never happen? Because I feel like all other problems should really be listed AFTER that one.
 
2014-03-08 09:22:19 AM
It's hard to do?
 
2014-03-08 09:59:27 AM

whistleridge: You mean, other than the fact that it will never happen? Because I feel like all other problems should really be listed AFTER that one.


Aaaaaaaand we're done.  Might as well be talking about Texas secession.
 
2014-03-08 09:59:43 AM

whistleridge: You mean, other than the fact that it will never happen? Because I feel like all other problems should really be listed AFTER that one.


That's what I was thinking. Even if they find enough scared poor white guys to sign the petition and get it on the ballot... does any one of those deluded farks think the majority of California voters will support it?

Attention whores are attention whoring.
 
2014-03-08 10:02:01 AM
It's always some whiny GOPers who talk about secession and breaking up states because they can't stand to think that their views aren't the majority any longer.
 
2014-03-08 10:03:34 AM

Infernalist: It's always some whiny GOPers who talk about secession and breaking up states because they can't stand to think that their views aren't the majority any longer.


Unpossible.
 
2014-03-08 10:03:55 AM

Infernalist: It's always some whiny GOPers who talk about secession and breaking up states because they can't stand to think that their views aren't the majority any longer.


In fairness, liberals have similar pipe dreams of fracturing Texas
 
2014-03-08 10:05:15 AM
The morons proposing this can't even come up with reasonable boundaries that actually reflect something other than, "Dude, wouldn't it be cool if there were  6 Californias?!" You could do an okay map with splitting California in three, though there's no particular reason to do it, but this map is just absurd.
 
2014-03-08 10:07:04 AM

Lost Thought 00: Infernalist: It's always some whiny GOPers who talk about secession and breaking up states because they can't stand to think that their views aren't the majority any longer.

In fairness, liberals have similar pipe dreams of fracturing Texas


The only ones I've ever seen wanting to split up Texas was the old 'Republic of Texas' libertarian group out in West Texas.
 
2014-03-08 10:08:07 AM

Lost Thought 00: In fairness, liberals have similar pipe dreams of fracturing Texas


In fairness, Texas can break into 5 states any time it wants to, but California would have to get Congress to let them.
 
2014-03-08 10:09:16 AM

BMFPitt: Lost Thought 00: In fairness, liberals have similar pipe dreams of fracturing Texas

In fairness, Texas can break into 5 states any time it wants to, but California would have to get Congress to let them.


No, that's not true. Texas still needs Congressional approval
 
2014-03-08 10:10:31 AM

BMFPitt: Lost Thought 00: In fairness, liberals have similar pipe dreams of fracturing Texas

In fairness, Texas can break into 5 states any time it wants to, but California would have to get Congress to let them.


Personally I'd rather keep the derp concentrated into one big, stupid state.  (Sorry Austin.)
 
2014-03-08 10:11:46 AM

BMFPitt: Lost Thought 00: In fairness, liberals have similar pipe dreams of fracturing Texas

In fairness, Texas can break into 5 states any time it wants to, but California would have to get Congress to let them.


Why wouldn't Texas be subject to the Constitutional requirements governing the creation of new states out of existing states?
 
2014-03-08 10:13:37 AM
Is it that the fault lines will get jealous?


DNRTFA
 
2014-03-08 10:15:43 AM

qorkfiend: BMFPitt: Lost Thought 00: In fairness, liberals have similar pipe dreams of fracturing Texas

In fairness, Texas can break into 5 states any time it wants to, but California would have to get Congress to let them.

Why wouldn't Texas be subject to the Constitutional requirements governing the creation of new states out of existing states?


Long story made very short, part of the original annexation agreement with the US in 1848(I think it was 1848) was that if the state legislature so chose, Texas would have the right to split up into differing states along pre-determined boundaries.

This clause was rendered invalid and void after the Civil War concluded, unsurprisingly.
 
2014-03-08 10:17:41 AM

qorkfiend: BMFPitt: Lost Thought 00: In fairness, liberals have similar pipe dreams of fracturing Texas

In fairness, Texas can break into 5 states any time it wants to, but California would have to get Congress to let them.

Why wouldn't Texas be subject to the Constitutional requirements governing the creation of new states out of existing states?


There seems to be this legend out there that Texas entersd the Union under special terms since they were the Republic of Texas first, which is nonsense.  Their being a "Republic" gets them no more special treatment than Virginia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, or Pennsylvania being "Commonwealths" does.

I mean, you saw a lot of this derp when the nonsense about Texas seceding sprung up a while back.  "Texas is allowed to secede under the terms of them entering the US!"  Uh, no.  In fact, the case that established that secession was illegal was Texas v. White, and had to do with the government of Texas after the Civil War refusing to pay debts incurred by the Confederate state government, because that government was illegal.

/almost completed by GED in law
 
2014-03-08 10:19:50 AM

Lost Thought 00: Infernalist: It's always some whiny GOPers who talk about secession and breaking up states because they can't stand to think that their views aren't the majority any longer.

In fairness, liberals have similar pipe dreams of fracturing Texas


In fairness, not really since liberals just have to wait and Texas will slowly turn blue as Texas' demographics come to their final conclusion
 
2014-03-08 10:21:16 AM

qorkfiend: Why wouldn't Texas be subject to the Constitutional requirements governing the creation of new states out of existing states?


It was part of the annexation treaty.
 
2014-03-08 10:22:35 AM

BMFPitt: qorkfiend: Why wouldn't Texas be subject to the Constitutional requirements governing the creation of new states out of existing states?

It was part of the annexation treaty.


Why does this supercede the Constitutional requirements?
 
2014-03-08 10:23:16 AM
This guy does realize that the two richest segments made from this breakup (West California and Silicon Valley) would also be the most liberal, right?  And the poorest (Central California and "Jefferson") would be the most conservative?  Just like with every other state in the union?

It's that simple, really: The more money, the more progressive.  Which may be Draper's point, but I'm not sure he's gonna be moving his money (and thus, his power) to "Jefferson"...
 
2014-03-08 10:23:44 AM

Summoner101: In fairness, not really since liberals just have to wait and Texas will slowly turn blue as Texas' demographics come to their final conclusion


Potentially they could gain an advantage of 6 Senators by doing it, at the cost of some electoral votes.
 
2014-03-08 10:25:47 AM
No, what you do is take Western Washington, Western Oregon, and Northern California and turn that into Cascadia. Eastern Washington and Eastern Oregon can become part of Idaho or whatever. Southern California can remain California, but that won't solve the problem of there being a California to begin with.
 
2014-03-08 10:26:16 AM
qorkfiend:Why does this supercede the Constitutional requirements?

It doesn't.  It satisfies them, since Congress approved the treaty.
 
2014-03-08 10:28:12 AM

whistleridge: You mean, other than the fact that it will never happen? Because I feel like all other problems should really be listed AFTER that one.


This. Draper has gotten so much ridicule and blowback he isn't even trying to get it passed.

Verrai: The morons proposing this can't even come up with reasonable boundaries that actually reflect something other than, "Dude, wouldn't it be cool if there were  6 Californias?!" You could do an okay map with splitting California in three, though there's no particular reason to do it, but this map is just absurd.


Yeah, but Draper thinks his clever plan would dilute California's "Blue Block". Oh, and that nobody would see through this ruse.
 
2014-03-08 10:28:34 AM

clkeagle: whistleridge: You mean, other than the fact that it will never happen? Because I feel like all other problems should really be listed AFTER that one.

That's what I was thinking. Even if they find enough scared poor white guys to sign the petition and get it on the ballot... does any one of those deluded farks think the majority of California voters will support it?

Attention whores are attention whoring.


And even if the majority of Californians buy into it wouldn't the democrat controlled state government simply set boarders to ensure all the new states are democrat; a sort of permanent gerrymandering?  Is that really what the poor repressed conservatives want?
 
2014-03-08 10:29:04 AM

Summoner101: Lost Thought 00: Infernalist: It's always some whiny GOPers who talk about secession and breaking up states because they can't stand to think that their views aren't the majority any longer.

In fairness, liberals have similar pipe dreams of fracturing Texas

In fairness, not really since liberals just have to wait and Texas will slowly turn blue as Texas' demographics come to their final conclusion


In fairness, this isn't just Texas. It WAS California 30 years ago, and now it's Texas, Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and anywhere else anyone but older white people go to live.

The GOP has lost the youth vote, the women's vote, the Latino vote, the black vote, the Asian vote, the Indian vote, the gay vote, and the environmental vote. Their core demographic is 'the rich' and 'aging white gun nuts', and their outreach to all other groups consists of 'you're wrong, and we're right. be more like us and you'll be better. but we'll still never invite you to dinner because you're not rich or white enough'. 

With that kind of mentality, it's only a matter of time until their base dwindles to something approach zero.
 
2014-03-08 10:31:03 AM

Muta: clkeagle: whistleridge: You mean, other than the fact that it will never happen? Because I feel like all other problems should really be listed AFTER that one.

That's what I was thinking. Even if they find enough scared poor white guys to sign the petition and get it on the ballot... does any one of those deluded farks think the majority of California voters will support it?

Attention whores are attention whoring.

And even if the majority of Californians buy into it wouldn't the democrat controlled state government simply set boarders to ensure all the new states are democrat; a sort of permanent gerrymandering?  Is that really what the poor repressed conservatives want?


It's something that will allow them to play the victim card indefinitely...
 
2014-03-08 10:33:58 AM

BMFPitt: qorkfiend:Why does this supercede the Constitutional requirements?

It doesn't.  It satisfies them, since Congress approved the treaty.


The argument being that the passage of the resolution by Congress satisfies the "Consent ... of the Congress" requirement, and also counts as Congress pre-admitting whatever states might be created?
 
2014-03-08 10:34:03 AM

whistleridge: Summoner101: Lost Thought 00: Infernalist: It's always some whiny GOPers who talk about secession and breaking up states because they can't stand to think that their views aren't the majority any longer.

In fairness, liberals have similar pipe dreams of fracturing Texas

In fairness, not really since liberals just have to wait and Texas will slowly turn blue as Texas' demographics come to their final conclusion

In fairness, this isn't just Texas. It WAS California 30 years ago, and now it's Texas, Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and anywhere else anyone but older white people go to live.

The GOP has lost the youth vote, the women's vote, the Latino vote, the black vote, the Asian vote, the Indian vote, the gay vote, and the environmental vote. Their core demographic is 'the rich' and 'aging white gun nuts', and their outreach to all other groups consists of 'you're wrong, and we're right. be more like us and you'll be better. but we'll still never invite you to dinner because you're not rich or white enough'. 

With that kind of mentality, it's only a matter of time until their base dwindles to something approach zero.


And the most glorious part about it is that if they do anything to sincerely try and reach out to minorities and groups that they've maligned for decades, their existing old scared white voting block will abandon them in droves.

So, it's a slow dwindling death forestalled only by focusing on disenfranchising other groups that won't vote for them and gerrymandering the shiat out of what districts remain within reach...

or a quick death and a remote possibility of being reborn as a party devoid of religious zealots, racists, homophobes and xenophobes, focusing on business-related interests and financial conservatism with a chance of returning to power in 20-40 years.

Frying pan or the fire.
 
2014-03-08 10:34:27 AM

IlGreven: This guy does realize that the two richest segments made from this breakup (West California and Silicon Valley) would also be the most liberal, right?  And the poorest (Central California and "Jefferson") would be the most conservative?  Just like with every other state in the union?

It's that simple, really: The more money, the more progressive.  Which may be Draper's point, but I'm not sure he's gonna be moving his money (and thus, his power) to "Jefferson"...


With the exption of Humboldt County.

www.ppic.org

/.........don't criticize it!
 
2014-03-08 10:35:35 AM
Wakenbake!
 
2014-03-08 10:38:32 AM

whistleridge: You mean, other than the fact that it will never happen? Because I feel like all other problems should really be listed AFTER that one.


Came for this.

It's like worrying about what problems might arise if the Sun doesn't come up tomorrow morning.
 
2014-03-08 10:39:09 AM

whistleridge: In fairness, this isn't just Texas. It WAS California 30 years ago, and now it's Texas, Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and anywhere else anyone but older white people go to live.

The GOP has lost the youth vote, the women's vote, the Latino vote, the black vote, the Asian vote, the Indian vote, the gay vote, and the environmental vote. Their core demographic is 'the rich' and 'aging white gun nuts', and their outreach to all other groups consists of 'you're wrong, and we're right. be more like us and you'll be better. but we'll still never invite you to dinner because you're not rich or white enough'. 

With that kind of mentality, it's only a matter of time until their base dwindles to something approach zero.


That's the reasons behind the recent push against abortion, birth control, and sex education. They know they've already lost the cities... but these programs will ensure uneducated rural teen girls keep giving birth to incredibly poor white kids. Since those kids are never going to see a college classroom or hold down a job that doesn't require a nametag, it prolongs their base for another generation.
 
2014-03-08 10:43:21 AM

qorkfiend: The argument being that the passage of the resolution by Congress satisfies the "Consent ... of the Congress" requirement, and also counts as Congress pre-admitting whatever states might be created?


I don't see another way of interpreting it.

Of course if it ever happened, it would go to the Supreme Court and they would decide whatever.  But Texas likes being Texas too much to ever do it, anyway.
 
2014-03-08 10:44:47 AM
Texas would be pretty cool if broken up, I'd just go with 4 states N, S, E, W. East and North would be typical Texas with north getting Dallas, East gets Houston, South would be Austin and San Antonio and representative of the liberal base currently overshadowed by the rest of the state. West kind of gets the shaft, but they would have El Paso and a whole lot of land, and likely be more representative of its Mexican immigrant base.
 
2014-03-08 10:45:06 AM

Your Hind Brain: With the exception of Humboldt County.

[www.ppic.org image 498x575]

/.........don't criticize it!


A better map might be this:

www.ppic.org

Or this:

upload.wikimedia.org

Or this:

www.cdc.gov

Most of those counties that are so big on the physical map are pretty small on the population maps. And they're lacking heavily in the demographics that are growing and turning more and more blue. 

Kind of like the red states.
 
2014-03-08 10:46:50 AM
The map is kinda right. Except that Jefferson would continue to make a lot of unreported income from its huge-by-large marijuana cash crops, and Central California would become rich by charing the other states for all the water it is currently sending to them for free.
 
2014-03-08 10:51:28 AM
whistleridge:
www.cdc.gov

Most of those counties that are so big on the physical map are pretty small on the population maps. And they're lacking heavily in the demographics that are growing and turning more and more blue.

Kind of like the red states.


Let's update that map from 2000 to 2010. Oh NOZE...they're stealing our jerbs!

www.raconline.org
 
2014-03-08 10:52:06 AM

Muta: And even if the majority of Californians buy into it wouldn't the democrat controlled state government simply set boarders to ensure all the new states are democrat; a sort of permanent gerrymandering?  Is that really what the poor repressed conservatives want?


You mean, like move Democratic voters into houses with rooms to let in predominantly Republican areas? I could see them doing something that devious. Probably get away with it through tax credits to landlords or something.
 
2014-03-08 10:52:37 AM

jake_lex: There seems to be this legend out there that Texas entersd the Union under special terms since they were the Republic of Texas first, which is nonsense. Their being a "Republic" gets them no more special treatment than Virginia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, or Pennsylvania being "Commonwealths" does.



Furthermore, they were only a republic because the US refused to grant them immediate entry due to the slaverydebate, and not wanting to absorb the debt Texas had incured from its war with Mexico.

The whole "Texes fought for its independence" thing is a total bullshiat myth. They fought  to break away from Mexico to join the US plain and simple.  That was always the plan.  They hust happened to end up in purgatory and had to form their own interim governmnet.
 
2014-03-08 10:54:14 AM

Conservative Humor: You mean, like move Democratic voters into houses with rooms to let in predominantly Republican areas? I could see them doing something that devious. Probably get away with it through tax credits to landlords or something.


Third Amendment.
 
2014-03-08 10:55:46 AM

BMFPitt: Of course if it ever happened, it would go to the Supreme Court and they would decide whatever.  But Texas likes being Texas too much to ever do it, anyway.


You make a good point. I grew up in Texas, and the state pride there is ridiculous. It goes far beyond loyalty to the state university that you see in other Southern states, and makes it so that many people will "dress the part" and even ham it up a bit when they're visiting other areas, just to show that they're from Texas.

You can even see it in their slogans such as the anti-litter campaign "Don't Mess With Texas". It's just a bit stronger pride than you see in other states.
 
2014-03-08 10:57:14 AM

BMFPitt: Conservative Humor: You mean, like move Democratic voters into houses with rooms to let in predominantly Republican areas? I could see them doing something that devious. Probably get away with it through tax credits to landlords or something.

Third Amendment.


Hah! Everyone knows military folk are all Republicans! Third Amendment only refers to soldiers.
 
2014-03-08 10:58:48 AM

whistleridge: Your Hind Brain: With the exception of Humboldt County.

[www.ppic.org image 498x575]

/.........don't criticize it!

A better map might be this:

[www.ppic.org image 498x507]

Or this:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 280x280]

Or this:

[www.cdc.gov image 547x409]

Most of those counties that are so big on the physical map are pretty small on the population maps. And they're lacking heavily in the demographics that are growing and turning more and more blue. 

Kind of like the red states.


I only made reference to "Jefferson".
 
2014-03-08 10:59:38 AM

BMFPitt: qorkfiend: Why wouldn't Texas be subject to the Constitutional requirements governing the creation of new states out of existing states?

It was part of the annexation treaty.


You do realize that the wording says the new states would be formed according to Federal satute with the consent of Texas? In other words, the US could create the new states, so long as Texas agreed. It in no way states or implies a unilateral decision.
 
2014-03-08 11:03:21 AM

BMFPitt: qorkfiend:Why does this supercede the Constitutional requirements?

It doesn't.  It satisfies them, since Congress approved the treaty.


There is a strong probability that the original annexation treaty went legally null and void the minute Texas left the Union and joined the Confederacy.  When the Civil War ended, Texas had to request to rejoin said Union, and it did so under the same conditions as the other former CSA states.  Had Texas never left the Union, the old Annexation treaty would still be in effect and the 'break-up-into-five-states" clause would still be an interesting Constitutional what-if, but if somebody actually did try it today it would probably be slapped down pretty hard on the grounds that it was no longer relevant.
 
2014-03-08 11:03:37 AM

blastoh: jake_lex: There seems to be this legend out there that Texas entersd the Union under special terms since they were the Republic of Texas first, which is nonsense. Their being a "Republic" gets them no more special treatment than Virginia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, or Pennsylvania being "Commonwealths" does.


Furthermore, they were only a republic because the US refused to grant them immediate entry due to the slaverydebate, and not wanting to absorb the debt Texas had incured from its war with Mexico.

The whole "Texes fought for its independence" thing is a total bullshiat myth. They fought  to break away from Mexico to join the US plain and simple.  That was always the plan.  They hust happened to end up in purgatory and had to form their own interim governmnet.


They don't like to talk about that stuff.  Especially about how they broke away from Mexico just so that they could have the right to own slaves.  See, Mexico had outlawed slavery and all new immigrants into Mexican territory had to abide by those laws.

In the end, Sam Houston, father of the Texas Revolution, cursed the Texas Congress as traitors when they voted to join the Confederacy and resigned as governor rather than serve in that new government.
 
2014-03-08 11:05:12 AM

Mike_1962: BMFPitt: qorkfiend: Why wouldn't Texas be subject to the Constitutional requirements governing the creation of new states out of existing states?

It was part of the annexation treaty.

You do realize that the wording says the new states would be formed according to Federal satute with the consent of Texas? In other words, the US could create the new states, so long as Texas agreed. It in no way states or implies a unilateral decision.


Yes, but if you have ever been to Texas, you would know that there is negative infinity chance of those idiots ever agreeing to break up their steaming shiatpile of a state. Even the bluest libby Wendy Davis lovin gun hatin Obamacare wantin Texans get a hard-on when you mention the Republic of Texas and the Alamo, etc. That clause is as good as saying 'Texas will be broken up into smaller states'.
 
2014-03-08 11:06:20 AM

AtlanticCoast63: BMFPitt: qorkfiend:Why does this supercede the Constitutional requirements?

It doesn't.  It satisfies them, since Congress approved the treaty.

There is a strong probability that the original annexation treaty went legally null and void the minute Texas left the Union and joined the Confederacy.  When the Civil War ended, Texas had to request to rejoin said Union, and it did so under the same conditions as the other former CSA states.  Had Texas never left the Union, the old Annexation treaty would still be in effect and the 'break-up-into-five-states" clause would still be an interesting Constitutional what-if, but if somebody actually did try it today it would probably be slapped down pretty hard on the grounds that it was no longer relevant.


That's...a really good point. I approve.
 
Displayed 50 of 117 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report