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.

Not really sure what I'm supposed to say about the subject.

California is blue Texas. People threaten and pander out some Calexit idea every time the Reds win, and someone proposes the "split California 3-ways" plan around since the state was formed cause way back when there still were too many brown people owning land and voting for the tastes of rich white folks which is all the split it three ways plan is ultimately about.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, I think Texas v. White (rather than the Civil War itself, set a precedent that no state can secede unilaterally.

Which leaves the question about the ability of states to request permission to secede with the permission of the other states, and then the process by which such permission would be given. Would it be an act of congress as a representative of the states, or would a majority of states have to individually ratify an approval?

I'd be ok with that. I'm not ok with them bombarding a Federal military base, while saying "dueces".

To be fair it's kind of a catch-22 idea.

No one secedes while maintaining a great respect for the legal authority ruling them, so a ruling that secession is unconstitutional is really only valid as casus belli to force the seceding part back into the fold and provides a legal basis for how to reintegrate them at the end of hostilities should the legal authority in question be the victor (and really a part of your territory being in open rebellion is already casus belli).

And a political environment so cordial as to make it feasible to negotiate secession of a part from the whole absent conflict is one where I doubt anyone would want to secede in the first place. Secession happens because relations are not cordial. The only successful non-violent secessions I can think of all hinged on the governing authority fearing foreign armed intervention, or the governing authority collapsing and being unable to enforce its interests. Neither of these seem likely anytime soon when it comes to the US.

Norway unilaterally broke from its personal union with Sweden in 1905. The Swedish government very much considered military intervention to maintain the union but in the end chose to let Norway go peacefully. Technically not secession, but close.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Norway unilaterally broke from its personal union with Sweden in 1905. The Swedish government very much considered military intervention to maintain the union but in the end chose to let Norway go peacefully. Technically not secession, but close.

Definitely not a true secession which is why I don't include it. As I understand it Norway and Sweden still had basically separate government structures (each having their own parliament and constitution) and the union in the first place nominally hinged that the King would serve Norwegian interests as well which inherently admits that Norwegian interests were separate from Swedish interests. It was more a case of Imperial control on Sweden's part that it allowed to dissolve and not a secession, at least not in the sense we're discussing here.

 LordofHats wrote:
Not really sure what I'm supposed to say about the subject.

California is blue Texas. People threaten and pander out some Calexit idea every time the Reds win, and someone proposes the "split California 3-ways" plan around since the state was formed cause way back when there still were too many brown people owning land and voting for the tastes of rich white folks which is all the split it three ways plan is ultimately about.

Sorry... didn't mean to call you out. I figured you'd have something to say.

Nah I just can't think of much to say about it. Nothing will come of it you know? It's another one of those silly nontopics that tends to come up on slow newsweeks or when someone wants to pan handle some outrage. Realistically the US would probably benefit from splitting some of the larger states, namely California and Texas, but it'll never happen because people only talk about splitting them when it's politically convenient and not as a matter of actually keeping our political sub-divisions manageable and accountable to constituents. And I also am just sour about it, because especially in Cali it really does come down to "damn those city folks caring about issues that I don't have a reason to care about." It's a democracy. People are going to fight for and get things that don't mean anything to you that's just kind of a byproduct of how it works. I'm horribly unsympathetic to people selectively bitching about policy outcomes as if their a structural issue when they're really a "stop being a selfish prick" issue.

Pretty much 75% of my problems with US politics boil down to it in my eye.

Looks like one less O7/8/9 in Trumps cabinet. I’m guessing the VA nomination will be a no-go.

Who knew that just being a medic doesn't mean you're qualified to run a massive medical system.

I'm sure he'll conjure up another swamp monster to replace him. Perhaps Mike Flynn, fresh on his unearned rehabilitation tour.

I see Rand Paul got enough headlines and coverage to satisfy himself for now, so Pompeo should get confirmed.

 LordofHats wrote:
It's a democracy. People are going to fight for and get things that don't mean anything to you that's just kind of a byproduct of how it works. I'm horribly unsympathetic to people selectively bitching about policy outcomes as if their a structural issue when they're really a "stop being a selfish prick" issue.

Pretty much 75% of my problems with US politics boil down to it in my eye.

To be honest it causes about 75% of the problems in the whole Western Hemisphere! My Dad always says that democracy doesn’t mean you get what you want. It’s amazing how many people don’t understand that at a fundamental level.

Yep. Democracy only nominally presumes that your voice will be heard. In an idealistic way it also presumes that your voice is equal to everyone elses, but I think the world now has learned a little cynicism on that front.

Perhaps Mike Flynn, fresh on his unearned rehabilitation tour.

I've mentioned it before in passing, but I know Mike Flynn. I doubt he'd remember me, but he and my dad still talk (Flynn was under his command in the 82nd about 10 years ago), and I don't think he's guilty. Oh I think he did what he's accused of doing sure, but I know they guy enough to know that he's not stupid and he doesn't do anything without someone above him okaying it. As an acquaintance I think Mike Flynn was thrown under the bus to cover someone's ass.

 whembly wrote:
Someone needs a refresher on the Civil War:
The 'Calexit' plan to split California from the US gets a second chance, while others are looking to break up the state

Does mention other plans for "CAL 3" and even the rural 51st state plan.

Frankly, I'm intrigued by the "CAL 3" plan, even though it'll net the democratic party 2 more almost "gimmies" senators.... any plan whereby the government can be more responsive and aligned to their constituents ought to be a net gain as a whole, no matter how one would look at it.

I was looking at some of the "split CA three ways" plans. From what I was reading, Democrats would maintain the two senators from the current California, possibly pick up two from one new state (although that state could be purple and flip-floppy), and the republicans would gain two senators from a conservative state.

Wouldn’t the net gain effectively be 0 then? Seems like a wasted effort.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Wouldn’t the net gain effectively be 0 then? Seems like a wasted effort.

That depends on the house and EC votes. It certainly would benefit Republicans more if the number of house seats and EC votes of Cali would just be redristributed over the three new ones.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I could halfway see a GOP congress approving a Calexit plan just to get rid of all those dang liberals and then dividing up their seats between some more red states

Heh... I get there's a thread of folks who'd:

...and actively cheer for stuff like this.

But, the Civil War kinda prohibit this...doesn't it?

Where's Dakka's own historian? LORDY?

I have dead relatives who say the Union would frown on any secession movement. States can break up though.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Wouldn’t the net gain effectively be 0 then? Seems like a wasted effort.

That depends on the house and EC votes. It certainly would benefit Republicans more if the number of house seats and EC votes of Cali would just be redristributed over the three new ones.

Unless Congress changes the current apportionment laws/limits the 3 new California states would just redistribute the existing House representatives so it really wouldn't help the representation ratio. The EC would increase by a total of 4 votes, one for each of the senators from the 2 new states. The northern "conservative" new state likely wouldn't have enough seats in the House to matter much electorally. Sure every little bit helps in an election but that state would likely have single digit EC votes.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Wouldn’t the net gain effectively be 0 then? Seems like a wasted effort.

That depends on the house and EC votes. It certainly would benefit Republicans more if the number of house seats and EC votes of Cali would just be redristributed over the three new ones.

Unless Congress changes the current apportionment laws/limits the 3 new California states would just redistribute the existing House representatives so it really wouldn't help the representation ratio. The EC would increase by a total of 4 votes, one for each of the senators from the 2 new states. The northern "conservative" new state likely wouldn't have enough seats in the House to matter much electorally. Sure every little bit helps in an election but that state would likely have single digit EC votes.

Yes, it would benefit the Republicans more as they gain some while the Democrats lose some when it comes to the EC. Even though that would almost never come into play, its still to their benefit.

Crap... what is happening? Kanye and Chance the Rapper just broke twittah and social media.

o.O

 whembly wrote:
Crap... what is happening? Kanye and Chance the Rapper just broke twittah and social media.

o.O

Maybe they read some Thomas Sowell.

Kanye and Trump have the same personality (attention seeking and narcissistic) and both know about the same about policy so it's a good fit. I can't wait for the inevitable "Trump can't be racist, Kanye West likes him!" from the same groups that spew racism and dog-whistles constantly.

 skyth wrote:
It is absolutely an anti-Semitic dog whistle. It's part of the Nazi 'how to spot a Jew' that is also used by modern neo-nazi's. And it is applied towards a Jew. My friends that are Jewish are up in arms about this.

Fair enough. I don't know my anti-semitism that well. Thanks for the explanation.

Bwahahaha!

2024

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) April 25, 2018

when we become president we have to change the name of the plane from Air Force one to Yeezy force one ☝️

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) April 25, 2018

Harvey Levin of TMZ your hearing from your future president. Let's be friends. Please never use the word erratic to describe a person who is economically and psychologically empowered

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) April 25, 2018

Thank you Kanye, very cool! https://t.co/vRIC87M21X

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 25, 2018

we got love pic.twitter.com/Edk0WGscp6

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) April 25, 2018

...is there any possibility that he's trolling?

 d-usa wrote:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/24/605205437/ronny-jacksons-va-nomination-hearing-in-jeopardy-amid-serious-allegations

Turns out appointing a guy because you liked how he looks at a press conference isn't a good move.

The thing about Ronny Jackson is that he had absolutely no qualifications for the role before this stuff broke. Now it turns out Trump and his team underwent absolutely no vetting of Jackson before nominating him.

In the wake of this, after Jackson withdraws his nomination, the story will be that a Trump nomination backfired and after a couple of days of coverage that doesn't move outside the circle of political junkies, the story will disappear. But there is a real and important story here, because Jackson is not unusual for a Trump nomination - he picks people with no regard to their qualifications or experience, and then his office does no vetting before putting them forward for senate approval. He puts less thought in to who he appoints to administer departments with $100 billion budgets than I put what sandwich I was going to make for lunch today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
To be fair... that's like the most Canadian thing tho.

 whembly wrote:
Bwahahaha!

...is there any possibility that he's trolling?

Nah, Kanye personally met with #45 very early after winning. I think its genuine.

#orangeisthenewblack

Although there may be an element of trolling involved. What got this ball rolling was Kanye tweeting support to a prominent, young, female black conservative speaker (Candace Owens). He was attacked for that and these most recent tweets seem like he’s doubling down.

 whembly wrote:
...any plan whereby the government can be more responsive and aligned to their constituents ought to be a net gain as a whole, no matter how one would look at it.

The problem, to me, is the lack of representation felt by rural California is nowhere out of the ordinary in modern US politics. It's just another instance of the city/rural split. In this case the city strongly dominates the rural so conservatives happen to be hyper-sensitive to it, but is it really any different to Austin (and also sort Houston) being dominated by the rest of Texas?

If it's sufficient to split up California, then how can the same logic not be used to split most blue cities from the red rural counties that surround them?

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
...any plan whereby the government can be more responsive and aligned to their constituents ought to be a net gain as a whole, no matter how one would look at it.

The problem, to me, is the lack of representation felt by rural California is nowhere out of the ordinary in modern US politics. It's just another instance of the city/rural split. In this case the city strongly dominates the rural so conservatives happen to be hyper-sensitive to it, but is it really any different to Austin (and also sort Houston) being dominated by the rest of Texas?

If it's sufficient to split up California, then how can the same logic not be used to split most blue cities from the red rural counties that surround them?

Texas actually has an even stronger case to be split into smaller states:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/more-150-years-texas-has-had-power-secede-itself-180962354/

 cuda1179 wrote:
I was looking at some of the "split CA three ways" plans. From what I was reading, Democrats would maintain the two senators from the current California, possibly pick up two from one new state (although that state could be purple and flip-floppy), and the republicans would gain two senators from a conservative state.

Having pushed the gerrymander of the House as far as they can, Republicans are trying to find ways to gerrymander the Senate. Incredible.

Anyway, it's beyond absurd that US citizens living in DC and Puerto Rico have no representation in Congress, but people will spend time trying to break up California in to multiple states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Wouldn’t the net gain effectively be 0 then? Seems like a wasted effort.

It would go from 2 Dems, 0 Reps, to averaging 3 Dems & 3 Reps. So Reps would gain 2 seats on net.

And then there's the electoral college advantages, as already mentioned.

 sebster wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I was looking at some of the "split CA three ways" plans. From what I was reading, Democrats would maintain the two senators from the current California, possibly pick up two from one new state (although that state could be purple and flip-floppy), and the republicans would gain two senators from a conservative state.

Having pushed the gerrymander of the House as far as they can, Republicans are trying to find ways to gerrymander the Senate. Incredible.

Anyway, it's beyond absurd that US citizens living in DC and Puerto Rico have no representation in Congress, but people will spend time trying to break up California in to multiple states.

Well... tough gak regarding DC. That's actually a specific carve-out and special status in the US Constitution.

...as for Puerto Rico, I've been banging on that drum for awhile to admit them into the union (as well as US V.I.).

 whembly wrote:
Crap... what is happening? Kanye and Chance the Rapper just broke twittah and social media.

An ego driven narcissist has an affinity for another ego driven narcissist. In terms of substance and meaning there's really nothing of any interest here at all.

There's maybe a meta-commentary to be had on how eagerly the twitterati will latch on to meaningless nonsense and ignore the actual important issues of the day, but I think we all already knew that.