Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
There's no point. The rest of the country won't allow CA to leave.

I wouldn't be so sure.

People forget that the Union only exists because the States allow it to. There is nothing 'illegal' about secession.

A single state seceding is probably a bad idea. But when that state isn't under a federal tax burden I could see the financial situation actually going in their favor.

 SickSix wrote:

 whembly wrote:
There's no point. The rest of the country won't allow CA to leave.

I wouldn't be so sure.

People forget that the Union only exists because the States allow it to. There is nothing 'illegal' about secession.

A single state seceding is probably a bad idea. But when that state isn't under a federal tax burden I could see the financial situation actually going in their favor.

um...Gettysburg ring a bell?

 SickSix wrote:

 whembly wrote:
There's no point. The rest of the country won't allow CA to leave.

I wouldn't be so sure.

People forget that the Union only exists because the States allow it to. There is nothing 'illegal' about secession.

A single state seceding is probably a bad idea. But when that state isn't under a federal tax burden I could see the financial situation actually going in their favor.

Albeit American history hasn't ever been big interest point for me but didn't some states try to leave union about 150 years ago? Didn't that end up less than peacefully?

 kronk wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
I think the San Andreas fault will force California to secede at some point.

It's just moving North, not West towards the Pacific ocean.

So the whole state is moving to Canada?!

Very slowly...yes

 Frazzled wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 whembly wrote:
There's no point. The rest of the country won't allow CA to leave.

I wouldn't be so sure.

People forget that the Union only exists because the States allow it to. There is nothing 'illegal' about secession.

A single state seceding is probably a bad idea. But when that state isn't under a federal tax burden I could see the financial situation actually going in their favor.

um...Gettysburg ring a bell?

Lincoln had no authority to start that war. But it happened and victors set the terms.

 Frazzled wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I forgot about electricity. Lots of wind and solar out in the desert areas, but enough to cover the state? Do I recall there being rolling black outs in the early 2000s?

California is an energy importer in a big way. Cut off the fertilizer and they are a massive food importer as well.

or if they just claimed all the military bases, the could easily invade and take arizona, nevada, and oregon

As noted, the US troops on those bases might disagree. I seem to remember some time where rebels fired on a US base before...

the water could be it's only issue, but they'd have the money to buy it, and the US would be in a recession from cali leaving they'd gladly sell it.

Why would the US sell it? In history regions rebelling usually don't have very good relations with the former nation.


EDIT: I should note I argue with Texas secess all the time, lets play. Next I remind you that you owe the US trillions. Please pay up.

It wouldn't be a rebellion, they just want some and just some time to think things over. Maybe they just move next door for a while and see how things work out with mexico

the could easily start exporting oil, or pull a trump, sue us if you want it.

they only import 25% electricity, that's hardly a big way, and easily solved by refurbishing the san onofre station.

As for energy:
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=ca

Excluding federal offshore areas, California ranked third in the nation in crude oil production in 2015, despite an overall decline in production since the mid-1980s.
California ranked third in the nation in oil refining capacity as of January 2016, with a combined capacity of almost 2 million barrels per calendar day from the state's 18 operable refineries.
In 2014, California’s per capita energy consumption ranked 49th in the nation; the state's low use of energy was due in part to its mild climate and its energy efficiency programs.
In 2015, California ranked fourth in the nation in conventional hydroelectric generation, second in net electricity generation from all other renewable energy resources, and first as a producer of electricity from biomass, geothermal, and solar energy.
In 2015, California ranked 15th in net electricity generation from nuclear power after one of the state's two nuclear plants, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, permanently ceased operations in June 2013.
Average site electricity consumption in California homes is among the lowest in the nation (6.9 megawatthours per year), according to EIA's Residential Energy Consumption Survey.

Will it ever happen, of course not, but if they could, they'd hardly be in the dire straights you and others predict.

 SickSix wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 whembly wrote:
There's no point. The rest of the country won't allow CA to leave.

I wouldn't be so sure.

People forget that the Union only exists because the States allow it to. There is nothing 'illegal' about secession.

A single state seceding is probably a bad idea. But when that state isn't under a federal tax burden I could see the financial situation actually going in their favor.

um...Gettysburg ring a bell?

Lincoln had no authority to start that war. But it happened and victors set the terms.

It wasn't Lincoln who initiated hostilities, a federal military facility was attacked and seized by Southern secessionists acting under state authority.

I see it more likely (not by much) that the state could "split up" into smaller states.

 whembly wrote:
I see it more likely (not by much) that the state could "split up" into smaller states.

this would be much more likely. Not hugely probable, but far more possible.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I see it more likely (not by much) that the state could "split up" into smaller states.

this would be much more likely. Not hugely probable, but far more possible.

If you broke up California into 3 smaller states, you'd have more electoral votes as each state would have their current representatives plus 2. A net +4 points for the West coasters.

 kronk wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I see it more likely (not by much) that the state could "split up" into smaller states.

this would be much more likely. Not hugely probable, but far more possible.

If you broke up California into 3 smaller states, you'd have more electoral votes as each state would have their current representatives plus 2. A net +4 points for the West coasters.

Aye... there were talks of Texas splitting too.

I guess Austinites wanted their own state.

 kronk wrote:

No. They are not self sufficient with their current spending.

Heh, neither is the entire US!


CA could function on it's own but it still benefits tremendously from being part of the US. There's no real reason to leave.

 SickSix wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 whembly wrote:
There's no point. The rest of the country won't allow CA to leave.

I wouldn't be so sure.

People forget that the Union only exists because the States allow it to. There is nothing 'illegal' about secession.

A single state seceding is probably a bad idea. But when that state isn't under a federal tax burden I could see the financial situation actually going in their favor.

um...Gettysburg ring a bell?

Lincoln had no authority to start that war. But it happened and victors set the terms.

Yes thats what the Texas Secesh said. DO I need to point out the graves of those who believed that as well?

 kronk wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I see it more likely (not by much) that the state could "split up" into smaller states.

this would be much more likely. Not hugely probable, but far more possible.

If you broke up California into 3 smaller states, you'd have more electoral votes as each state would have their current representatives plus 2. A net +4 points for the West coasters.

Yeah but their college football teams will still play lousy defense.

Well, yeah. Obviously!

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I forgot about electricity. Lots of wind and solar out in the desert areas, but enough to cover the state? Do I recall there being rolling black outs in the early 2000s?

California is an energy importer in a big way. Cut off the fertilizer and they are a massive food importer as well.

or if they just claimed all the military bases, the could easily invade and take arizona, nevada, and oregon

As noted, the US troops on those bases might disagree. I seem to remember some time where rebels fired on a US base before...

the water could be it's only issue, but they'd have the money to buy it, and the US would be in a recession from cali leaving they'd gladly sell it.

Why would the US sell it? In history regions rebelling usually don't have very good relations with the former nation.


EDIT: I should note I argue with Texas secess all the time, lets play. Next I remind you that you owe the US trillions. Please pay up.

It wouldn't be a rebellion, they just want some and just some time to think things over. Maybe they just move next door for a while and see how things work out with mexico

the could easily start exporting oil, or pull a trump, sue us if you want it.

they only import 25% electricity, that's hardly a big way, and easily solved by refurbishing the san onofre station.

As for energy:
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=ca

Excluding federal offshore areas, California ranked third in the nation in crude oil production in 2015, despite an overall decline in production since the mid-1980s.
California ranked third in the nation in oil refining capacity as of January 2016, with a combined capacity of almost 2 million barrels per calendar day from the state's 18 operable refineries.
In 2014, California’s per capita energy consumption ranked 49th in the nation; the state's low use of energy was due in part to its mild climate and its energy efficiency programs.
In 2015, California ranked fourth in the nation in conventional hydroelectric generation, second in net electricity generation from all other renewable energy resources, and first as a producer of electricity from biomass, geothermal, and solar energy.
In 2015, California ranked 15th in net electricity generation from nuclear power after one of the state's two nuclear plants, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, permanently ceased operations in June 2013.
Average site electricity consumption in California homes is among the lowest in the nation (6.9 megawatthours per year), according to EIA's Residential Energy Consumption Survey.

Will it ever happen, of course not, but if they could, they'd hardly be in the dire straights you and others predict.

Note the key phrase "including FEDERAL offshore areas" guess what you don't get if you leave...
You can rank all you want but you are an electric importer in a big way from the neighboring states and even Canada.

Thats ok. We are a union. We joined for mutual growth and protection.

 Frazzled wrote:


Note the key phrase "including FEDERAL offshore areas" guess what you don't get if you leave...
You can rank all you want but you are an electric importer in a big way from the neighboring states and even Canada.

Thats ok. We are a union. We joined for mutual growth and protection.

those federal offshore areas would belong to california. the waters belong to the coast they boarder out to 3 miles or so.

I still don't get how 25% is importing in a big way.

But it has been entertaining and a fun thought experiment.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Note the key phrase "including FEDERAL offshore areas" guess what you don't get if you leave...
You can rank all you want but you are an electric importer in a big way from the neighboring states and even Canada.

Thats ok. We are a union. We joined for mutual growth and protection.

those federal offshore areas would belong to california. the waters belong to the coast they boarder out to 3 miles or so.

Why would the fed give it up? What are you going to do about it?

I still don't get how 25% is importing in a big way.

Shut off 25% and watch the rolling brownouts.

But it has been entertaining and a fun thought experiment.

Oh yea. Usually these things are very hostile because the prosecesh types typically are what you might call"slack jawed militia revolutionary wannabe confederates" who can't get over that civil war thing. Much more pleasant

You should define a few things first.
Is it a peaceful breakup? Why?

If so, you should not assume you get anything from the fed unless you take the related federal debt.

If not, well thats a whole different ballgame.

I answer there Calexit the same way I would answer a Texit (Texas Exit). I would send in Federal troops and arrest the ringleaders for Treason.

I hate secessionists.

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Note the key phrase "including FEDERAL offshore areas" guess what you don't get if you leave...
You can rank all you want but you are an electric importer in a big way from the neighboring states and even Canada.

Thats ok. We are a union. We joined for mutual growth and protection.

those federal offshore areas would belong to california. the waters belong to the coast they boarder out to 3 miles or so.

Why would the fed give it up? What are you going to do about it?

I still don't get how 25% is importing in a big way.

Shut off 25% and watch the rolling brownouts.

But it has been entertaining and a fun thought experiment.

Oh yea. Usually these things are very hostile because the prosecesh types typically are what you might call"slack jawed militia revolutionary wannabe confederates" who can't get over that civil war thing. Much more pleasant

You should define a few things first.
Is it a peaceful breakup? Why?

If so, you should not assume you get anything from the fed unless you take the related federal debt.

If not, well thats a whole different ballgame.

it's international law, so in the end cali would get those waters.

It would have to be peaceful, They'd definitely have to plan for the departure, doing in reaction to the election would leave it in a mess. There's treaties to plan, the UN to join, and some power plants and desalinization plants to be built.

The military bases would become the center issue I'm sure, as the military seems to be 1/3 cali, 1/3 texas, and 1/3 new yorkers, the people on the base could go either way. Let's say the locals aided with the texans (because they love a good rebellion and always wanted to secede themselves) took over the bases, once the bullets start flying cali couldn't stand up to the other 49. Especially as a reactionary tactic, like you said the water & power would be cut off quickly. so the only way cali could leave would be peacefully.

They could take the dept, as it's the 6th's strongest economy, without being burdened by the obligations to the states, the nation dept is what 20 trillion, so cali's share would only be 400 billion, so they'd agree to take that on along with a water treaty. They're already in the black budget wise, they could be dept free in 100 years.

While cali could easily handle the debt, the loss of federal revenue to the states would surely plunge the other 49 into a deep recession, that it might not ever recover from. Which is why they'd never allow it.

so it looks like cali will just have to suffer through a trump presidency, and try to pass the 61st amendment in the mean time

Isn't the group that's advocating for this "Calexit" just some Silicon Valley types? I really would want to see what the rest of the state thinks rather then one of the most privileged area's within the state.

it could be the bases for a fun board game, cali leaves, and arizona follows, and they join with mexico. That would grant them a large fighting force to take on the states.

diplomacy deal for texas or other states to join.
naval battle along the west coast as hawaii & washington try to barracade the area. blow up the panama canal to confine the second fleet to the gulf.
and the always enjoyable bombing runs. while the troops move across the states.

if you take this idea and make the game, send me a free copy

sirlynchmob wrote:
it could be the bases for a fun board game, cali leaves, and arizona follows, and they join with mexico. That would grant them a large fighting force to take on the states.

diplomacy deal for texas or other states to join.
naval battle along the west coast as hawaii & washington try to barracade the area. blow up the panama canal to confine the second fleet to the gulf.
and the always enjoyable bombing runs. while the troops move across the states.

if you take this idea and make the game, send me a free copy

Texas wouldn't join with Mexico. Texas might conquer Mexico just out of force of habit.

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
it could be the bases for a fun board game, cali leaves, and arizona follows, and they join with mexico. That would grant them a large fighting force to take on the states.

diplomacy deal for texas or other states to join.
naval battle along the west coast as hawaii & washington try to barracade the area. blow up the panama canal to confine the second fleet to the gulf.
and the always enjoyable bombing runs. while the troops move across the states.

if you take this idea and make the game, send me a free copy

Texas wouldn't join with Mexico. Texas might conquer Mexico just out of force of habit.

Texas would only do that to *protect* the queso & tequila reserves... for their own good of course.

It would never happen. After the civil war the USA made it pretty clear that nobody gets to leave no matter how badly they want to. Throw in a Republican dominated government right now, and I'd imagine anything that would make Californians happy would be heavily voted down.

Even if they did, most of their water comes from neighboring states, and they rely on support from the rest of the country for a variety of things, like wildland firefighting crews, because Californians couldn't ration water if their lives depended on it. If they thoroughly ticked off the USA (for example, by leaving) they'd be in a rougher spot than they think.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
because Californians couldn't ration water if their lives depended on it.

LA uses roughly the same amount of water now as they did in the 90s. We can ration water just fine, the issue is that we have more people than all the neighboring states combined so it's no surprise we still need more than we have.

Its also not individuals that are the issues with water conservation in California barring the obnoxious exceptions in Rancho Santa Fe type places. Its agriculture followed by campus (business and educational) landscaping.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 whembly wrote:
There's no point. The rest of the country won't allow CA to leave.

I wouldn't be so sure.

People forget that the Union only exists because the States allow it to. There is nothing 'illegal' about secession.

A single state seceding is probably a bad idea. But when that state isn't under a federal tax burden I could see the financial situation actually going in their favor.

um...Gettysburg ring a bell?

Lincoln had no authority to start that war. But it happened and victors set the terms.

It wasn't Lincoln who initiated hostilities, a federal military facility was attacked and seized by Southern secessionists acting under state authority.

Nah we all know what really happened.

Love it. California is a happy part of the USA, and has been a long time. The people think of themselves as Americans and don't have a strong alternate identity. Yet now bcause you have Trump heading towards the White house some people think it all has to die. Riots in Oakland etc. Calexit is just another extension of the farce, it can be ignored except for the object lesson it provides.

To paraphrase a saying about SJWs "your political union ends where my feelings begin".

Who do these boneheads think they are. They remind me of the 30k or so people in Northern England who tried to petition for Northunberland to become part of Scotland because Cameron won the election in 2015. Northumberland has been part of England uince we were throwing spears and found the longbow and chainmail to be neat new ideas. Yet to some heartbroken lefties the idea of a Tory government was too much to bear they thought it would be better if a whole region of the country which isnt the least bit Scottish became so to salve their achy hearts.
However what the Brits do a little the Yanks manage to do a lot. Yes, Trump is not the preferred candidate for many, but isnt this always the case in elections? Yes many don't like his policies or his rhetoric, but like it or not he won fair and square. If there is a silver lining to a Trump presidency it is that there is now an opportunity to educate the over-entitled that America stands for: one citizen - one vote, not: one SJW - one vote. And if the citizenry elect a candidate that SJW's dont like then the SJW's can show the societal tolerance they so love, because the people have spoken.

If these rabble rousers were as interested in the plight of ordinary disenfranchised voters who lost their jobs due to the crash of 2008 and never able to recover as they were about 'hurt feelings', then perhaps that multitude which Trump exploited would have been elevated and steered to vote against him, but that would require these false progressives to actually care about genuine social advancement, which they largely don't just as the DNC doesn't.