California Again....

megasat16

Here we go....for better or worse....

http://news.yahoo.com/51st-state-small-step-forward-long-shot-south-233234624.html

exalted512

that's all we need...TWO californias:biggrin:
-Cody

stuwee

I say we give the southern half to Mexico! And Minnesota to Canada!!

exalted512

Let's give it all to China and call it even on our debt
-Cody

megasat16

Yeah, I am very afraid. I think the new halve will belong to Mexico and the old halve will belong to China.

Damn law makers and legislature. Don't they have better things to do?

Ron-P

Hey, use Californian's need lots of attention, why else do you think we come up with this sheet?

stuwee

Ron-P wrote: »

Hey, use Californian's need lots of attention, why else do you think we come up with this sheet?

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Arnie for President!!!!!!




























































of Planned Parenthood

SDA1C

IIRC they tried this about 20 years ago with the northern half of California and a about the southern 30 or 40 miles of Oregon to have the State of Jefferson. It didn't go anywhere then either. If southern Cali was split it would be the New/NewMexico and there would be absolutely no controlling the southern border at that point. Don't take me wrong...I have absolutely no problem with Mexicans and have not 1 racist bone in my body. But we cant afford any more illegals no matter where they are from and this would do nothing more than open the door. It is my view that this is yet another gross waste of tax dollars while some pinheaded politician attempts to make a name for himself.

1C

FTGV

stuwee wrote: »

And Minnesota to Canada!!

Gladly but only if you promise to take Quebec in exchange.

nooshinjohn

exalted512 wrote: »

that's all we need...TWO californias:biggrin:
-Cody

I am all for it... in twenty-five years they will be as different from one another as North and South Korea.

tonyb

It will never happen. Just some pissed off people blowing off steam is all.

dorourke07

No way, you can keep Quebec!

stuwee

FTGV wrote: »

Gladly but only if you promise to take Quebec in exchange.

Non, absolument pas :eek:

zingo

Washington state has discussed the same thing before since the East and West halves are completely different, politically and geographically. However, and the same will be true with California, one half of the state also financially drives the other.

cheddar

SDA1C wrote: »

If southern Cali was split it would be the New/NewMexico and there would be absolutely no controlling the southern border at that point. Don't take me wrong...I have absolutely no problem with Mexicans and have not 1 racist bone in my body. But we cant afford any more illegals no matter where they are from and this would do nothing more than open the door. It is my view that this is yet another gross waste of tax dollars while some pinheaded politician attempts to make a name for himself.

1C

I don't think anyone honestly believes California could actually split. Even the people involved seem to be using it as an excuse to drive "useful discussions" about raiding local governments to fund Sacramento politics. However, the southern half of the state would be almost completely conservative (Republican) in its base. So this argument doesn't make much sense. Since it will be more like creating a New Arizona or Texas than an out of control immigration southern state.

And lets just see any other state of the union try and put up with having Sacramento rule your state for a year and not have armed revolt cross your minds after all the craziness starts to seep out...

cnh

You could divide almost any state in this way for 'political expedience'! But let's get real, we live in a United States not some childrens' playground where kids who don't get their way want to take their ball home and refuse to play with their peers.

Pretty much sums up the current 'silliness' in congress at the moment. A country of children in need of adult supervision. And the news media gives all this 'foolishness' coverage as though it's serious or means something! lol

Time to grow up and start 'talking' to each other instead of "No, I don't want to do that" and stomping your foot on the ground a few times till you Mom picks you up!

God help us all.

cnh

megasat16

FTGV wrote: »

Gladly but only if you promise to take Quebec in exchange.

Ok! I'll take it. I think Quebec needs a King and I need a country. What can I say? :biggrin:

cheddar

cnh wrote: »

You could divide almost any state in this way for 'political expedience'! But let's get real, we live in a United States not some childrens' playground where kids who don't get their way want to take their ball home and refuse to play with their peers.

Pretty much sums up the current 'silliness' in congress at the moment. A country of children in need of adult supervision. And the news media gives all this 'foolishness' coverage as though it's serious or means something! lol

Time to grow up and start 'talking' to each other instead of "No, I don't want to do that" and stomping your foot on the ground a few times till you Mom picks you up!

God help us all.

cnh

Um, no. While I understand the sentiment on the national level, this also does not apply to California. A Democrat governor and legislature had no trouble at all passing the latest budget without any input or compromise whatsoever with Republicans because they are completely in control of Sacramento.

California won statehood at a time when it was a backwater sparsely populated state where the population and levers of control were firmly entrenched along the San Francisco-Sacramento area because of the gold rush. Chinese were actually threatening to become the dominant population when the Chinese exclusion act (ironically one of the toughest and one sided national anti-immigrant laws the country ever passed) limited Chinese immigration to just 100 a year when thousands of Europeans were landing in New York.

Now California is the most populated state in the union with a huge population in Southern California that was just tumble weeds when the state first joined. So there is a very sizable population that is denied meaningful participation in the state government at the moment because a very far away government in Sacramento writes the rules with the support of law makers who for all intents and purposes do live in another state centered around the San Francisco bay area. It's a legitimate gripe even if the proposed solution doesn't have any real chance of seeing the light of day.

Danny Tse

cheddar wrote: »

Um, no. While I understand the sentiment on the national level, this also does not apply to California. A Democrat governor and legislature had no trouble at all passing the latest budget without any input or compromise whatsoever with Republicans because they are completely in control of Sacramento.

California won statehood at a time when it was a backwater sparsely populated state where the population and levers of control were firmly entrenched along the San Francisco-Sacramento area because of the gold rush. Chinese were actually threatening to become the dominant population when the Chinese exclusion act (ironically one of the toughest and one sided national anti-immigrant laws the country ever passed) limited Chinese immigration to just 100 a year when thousands of Europeans were landing in New York.

Now California is the most populated state in the union with a huge population in Southern California that was just tumble weeds when the state first joined. So there is a very sizable population that is denied meaningful participation in the state government at the moment because a very far away government in Sacramento writes the rules with the support of law makers who for all intents and purposes do live in another state centered around the San Francisco bay area. It's a legitimate gripe even if the proposed solution doesn't have any real chance of seeing the light of day.

You forget to mentioned that a simple majority can now pass the budget, instead of having 2/3 supermajority. This change was voted in by voters of CA.

cheddar

Danny Tse wrote: »

You forget to mentioned that a simple majority can now pass the budget, instead of having 2/3 supermajority. This change was voted in by voters of CA.

Irrelevant to the original point, which was that Jerry Brown, the new Democrat governor and the solidly Democrat California legislature can basically do as they please without "talking like grown-ups" with the other side...Southern California is much more evenly split in Liberal vs. Conservative representatives than Northern California. And it's no coincidence that both Jerry Brown and Nancy Pelosi hail from the same San Francisco bay area where much of the Democrat power base if from. Conservative Southern Californians are rightfully annoyed that they don't have enough say in the current state government.

...You also forget to mention that they sold the bill as a punishment to lawmakers requiring they withold legislature pay if they don't enact a balanced budget on time...not as a referendum on repealing 2/3 supermajority which was piggybacked on...

tonyb

cheddar wrote: »

And it's no coincidence that both Jerry Brown and Nancy Pelosi hail from the same San Francisco bay area where much of the Democrat power base if from.

...thats why you had to pass the state budget, so you could see what was in it.:biggrin:

cheddar

tonyb wrote: »

...thats why you had to pass the state budget, so you could see what was in it.:biggrin:

Unicorns and pixie dust...that's as real as the last budget projections will be when reality hits and we're back in the same mess next year... They actually had to temporarily suspend law maker pay checks because even the Democrat controller couldn't let the first budget through as balanced because of all the fantasy in it...

steveinaz

The "South" better hang on to the North as tight as possible, it'll be their only saving grace. What would they call the new state?

Mexifornia
Los Amigos (or maybe Lost Amigos?)
San Angeles
Calico

??

SDA1C

cheddar wrote: »

Unicorns and pixie dust...that's as real as the last budget projections will be when reality hits and we're back in the same mess next year... They actually had to temporarily suspend law maker pay checks because even the Democrat controller couldn't let the first budget through as balanced because of all the fantasy in it...

First let me say I'm no where close to as knowledgeable about politics as you obviously are so I would never try to contend what I don't know for fact. However, It seems to me the answer to all of this is to start by "actually suspending lawmakers paychecks" That might "actually" lol get their attention. It would seem California is on the leading edge of too many stinking laws to begin with! Also, isn't it a comptroller instead of a controller?

San Angelos? Wasn't that on Demolition Man? ...San Angelos Metroplex?

steveinaz

Absolutely, goldfish and circumcision issues should probably be re-prioritized IMO. Especially considering they are BROKE.

SDA1C

Didnt they legalize Pot and forget to collect taxes? Hmmmmm.....

cnh

cheddar wrote: »

I don't think anyone honestly believes California could actually split. Even the people involved seem to be using it as an excuse to drive "useful discussions" about raiding local governments to fund Sacramento politics. However, the southern half of the state would be almost completely conservative (Republican) in its base. So this argument doesn't make much sense. Since it will be more like creating a New Arizona or Texas than an out of control immigration southern state.

And lets just see any other state of the union try and put up with having Sacramento rule your state for a year and not have armed revolt cross your minds after all the craziness starts to seep out...

I see your point in terms of the 'current' situation. As far as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, I lectured on that history in great detail while I was in China 2009/2010 and am very well acquainted with that scourge in our history.

Since I'm probably older than you...I seem to remember another Republican Governor, the 'ever' popular and GOP godhead--Ronald Reagan. California does have a significant percentage of affluent white Republicans in many areas--they might not be the majority but they do like to be heard. I remember Ron very very well. Because it was during his rule that the NYC that I was studying in started to 'decline' (homelessness increased, rent control housing was gouged by greedy landlords who ousted elderly tenants, and gentrification and yuppies ruined much of the 'culture' of the city) but that is another story--best witnessed personally.

All of this is not to disagree. Since any political discussion is bound to go 'nowhere' as our positions are probably irreconcilable just like they are at the national level. And we could take up a discussion of a number of other states where Gov'ts have been swept up by narrower state senate majorities. They're in the news almost every day. I still believe that this is an example of the larger problems we have in this country. For every California there are is an equivalent anti-Ca., no wait, probably two to one? lol

Now back to our regularly scheduled program of Cali-bashing. Really, I'm on the other coast so I can't say much about the 'love' we have for that side, what does John call it, the ROC (Republic of California)....but wait, that's the Republic of China and they're our ally! lol

cnh

cheddar

SDA1C wrote: »

However, It seems to me the answer to all of this is to start by "actually suspending lawmakers paychecks" That might "actually" lol get their attention. It would seem California is on the leading edge of too many stinking laws to begin with! Also, isn't it a comptroller instead of a controller?

San Angelos? Wasn't that on Demolition Man? ...San Angelos Metroplex?

I have no problem with suspending law maker paychecks if they can't pass an on-time balanced budget. I'm all for it. I just think that making it harder (2/3rds majority needed) rather than easier (simple majority) would force the legislature to make the hard decisions to keep getting their paychecks. As it is now, one side controls everything, passes a laughable budget (that not even their own party man in the California State Controller's office could in good conscience sign off on) and it's monkey business as usual in Sacramento after they figured out how to write another laughable budget that would pass the Controller's review. Yes, we have a State Controller.

cheddar

steveinaz wrote: »

The "South" better hang on to the North as tight as possible, it'll be their only saving grace. What would they call the new state?

Mexifornia
Los Amigos (or maybe Lost Amigos?)
San Angeles
Calico

??

Because Baja is already taken...

cheddar

cnh wrote: »

All of this is not to disagree. Since any political discussion is bound to go 'nowhere' as our positions are probably irreconcilable just like they are at the national level. And we could take up a discussion of a number of other states where Gov'ts have been swept up by narrower state senate majorities. They're in the news almost every day. I still believe that this is an example of the larger problems we have in this country. For every California there are is an equivalent anti-Ca., no wait, probably two to one? lol

Now back to our regularly scheduled program of Cali-bashing. Really, I'm on the other coast so I can't say much about the 'love' we have for that side, what does John call it, the ROC (Republic of California)....but wait, that's the Republic of China and they're our ally! lol

cnh

I don't think we really disagree that politicians can act like children. I'm certainly not defending the current government of California in any way being superior to the one we have nationally...

My only point is that few states are as large and populated as California is. In densely populated areas of the country like the east and midwest, states were long ago broken up into smaller political boundaries when formed because they had populations and geographic differences that needed it.

California was carved out as the huge state it was because very few people compared to the east coast lived here. Now that we've become densly populated and regionally diverse, all I'm saying is that there is a point to the complaint that rule from Sacramento often is disconnected from the local needs of geographically or politically distant regions. Imagine if the people of Columbus, Ohio had to answer to the government in Albany, New York and you might start to see what I mean.

SDA1C

You know I never really thought about in terms of population density vs. the east coast. In that light it makes perfect sense to split that sucker into about about 13 pieces. It could be called the "13 financially challenged colonies". hehe But seriously you have a very valid point as far as the density and need for localized representation.