South California

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:34 pm

Caught this in the Red Star this morning.

"If you want to live in a Republican state with very conservative right-wing laws, then there's a place called Arizona," Brown spokesman Gil Duran said.

Not bad smack, but I think Duran misses the point. Stone is tired of living in a Democrat state with very liberal left-wing laws, and sees secession as the only means of changing things.

Interesting stuff. Two demographically similar states with divergent political philosophies. No longer will Sacramento be reigned by meddling right-wingers looking to defund its entitlement programs or harangued by their unenlightened social propositions.

Conversely, a new South California would most likely do away with the high taxes and regulatory restrictions signatory of Sacramento’s statist legislators that they see as crippling the region’s economy.

Hmmm. Wonder which state would be the first to emerge from the economic doldrums that plague that region? And given the animosity of folks as to what this country should really be, could this be a precursor of a Red States of America/Blue States of America two-state solution?

Calis, your thoughts?

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:43 pm

1-aye

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:05 pm

I'm not going to hold my breath or anything but I certainly wouldn't be too broken up to say goodbye to the pathetic clown show in Suckramento.

Jeff in SD · Post by **Jeff in SD** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:51 pm

Too be honest this is long overdue. The states budget is too big for any party to handle. However the only problem I see is that LA county is somehow going to get its way into South California and fuck it all up.However it would be nice not to have Boxer as a senator.

Carson · Post by **Carson** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:11 am

Where would the 51st star go on the flag?

Florida is the same way, totally different state south of Gainesville.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:13 am

Carson wrote:Where would the 51st star go on the flag?

It wouldn't exactly be the first time we've had an odd number of states before. I think we can deal with that.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:37 am

Every once in a while one hears similar shit around here (dry side wants to secede from the wet side). Seems to die down as soon as someone reminds the dry-siders that they'd be responsible for raising money to run their side instead of sucking off King County's tax base.

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:05 am

Diego in Seattle wrote:Every once in a while one hears similar shit around here (dry side wants to secede from the wet side). Seems to die down as soon as someone reminds the dry-siders that they'd be responsible for raising money to run their side instead of sucking off King County's tax base.

Where's the "dry side"? East of the mountains? Miserable there. Rain shadows on Olympic peninsula?

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:59 am

Carson wrote:Where would the 51st star go on the flag?

DC has dibs on 51st state, asshole.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:00 am

Screw_Michigan wrote:
Carson wrote:Where would the 51st star go on the flag?
DC has dibs on 51st state, asshole.

DC is a shithole not a state.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:02 am

The District is a beautiful place to live. Why do hate 625,000 Americans? Just because they disagree with your fucked up beliefs? Fuck you. Cunt.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:14 am

Screw_Michigan wrote:The District is a beautiful place to live.

Sure, if you tour it in an armored car and don't take any wrong turns.

Why do hate 625,000 Americans?

Oh, I hate a good deal more than a mere 625,000 useless eaters such as yourself gorging themselves at the taxpayers' expense.

Just look in the mirror. You claim to be a "journalist" and yet you're only semi-literate. Seriously, you're lucky if you can complete a grammatically correct sentence in English let alone any other language.

DC is nothing more than that stubborn little speck of shit clinging to the bowl just above the waterline.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:28 am

mvscal wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:The District is a beautiful place to live.
Sure, if you tour it in an armored car and don't take any wrong turns.

Why do hate 625,000 Americans?
Oh, I hate a good deal more than a mere 625,000 useless eaters such as yourself gorging themselves at the taxpayers' expense.

Just look in the mirror. You claim to be a "journalist" and yet you're only semi-literate. Seriously, you're lucky if you can complete a grammatically correct sentence in English let alone any other language.

DC is nothing more than that stubborn little speck of shit clinging to the bowl just above the waterline.

And? Why should 225k registered voters in the District not have Congressional representation?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:19 am

Screw_Michigan wrote:And? Why should 225k registered voters in the District not have Congressional representation?

The short answer is that the District of Columbia isn't a state. End of story.

But, in reality, DC has three votes in the electoral college and has a representative in Congress who is able to vote on procedural matters. That is far more than any other non-state territory does. Of course I'm sure you didn't know any of that because you are a clueless, spoonfed dumbfuck.

Carson · Post by **Carson** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:02 pm

Whoa, timeout...

Screwey lives in DC?

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:39 pm

Any new state ultimately requires the approval of the other states under the Constitution (not sure of the exact vote required without looking it up, but common sense would dictate that it's at least a simple majority). What, pray tell, do you think the odds are of the rest of the country voting California two extra seats in the Senate?

Fwiw, there has been talk of splitting New York as well. I'm not about to hold my breath on that one either, for the same reason.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:00 pm

The Seer wrote:Where's the "dry side"? East of the mountains? Miserable there.

If you like arid climates and endless rolling hills covered with sagebrush, and don't mind 0.0% humidity with howling 100-degree winds, it's not so bad.

Oregon's Dryside at least has some mountains.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:03 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Any new state ultimately requires the approval of the other states under the Constitution (not sure of the exact vote required without looking it up, but common sense would dictate that it's at least a simple majority).

WRONG

All that is needed is the consent of Congress and the state legislature.

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:00 pm

mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Any new state ultimately requires the approval of the other states under the Constitution (not sure of the exact vote required without looking it up, but common sense would dictate that it's at least a simple majority).
WRONG

All that is needed is the consent of Congress and the state legislature.

As I said, I hadn't looked it up first. The exact text:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

In any event, what do you think the odds are that a majority of the 98 Senators and 382 Representatives who don't represent California would pass this? Not very good, I'm guessing. Puerto Rico, maybe even Guam or the U.S. Virgin Islands, might have a better chance at statehood than South California.

Y2K · Post by **Y2K** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:34 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
The Seer wrote:Where's the "dry side"? East of the mountains? Miserable there.

If you like arid climates and endless rolling hills covered with sagebrush, and don't mind 0.0% humidity with howling 100-degree winds, it's not so bad.

Oregon's Dryside at least has some mountains.

Dins,

You need to get outta the U&L a little more. That map encompasses Yosemite, Sequoia, and Kings Canyon Nat. parks as well as Mt Whitney and some of the most beautiful mountains in the whole Sierra Nevada range. (A hell of a lot of water as well) It has a huge chunk of the most productive Ag land in the US, the revenues lost from those Imperial Valley and Central Valley counties as well as a thriving LoCal economy would destroy any chance of the shit eating welfare based cities and counties not painted in blue on that map to even survive. Hell those LoCal beaches on that map are the freak'n shit, I'd have no problem with making Laguna, Carlsbad or even San Diego a state capitol. Sure there's a chunk of desert on that map (including Death Valley) but most of that isn't sucking up section 8 housing money like shitholes like LA and Oakland do.
Fat chance it would ever happen but it sure as hell would get my vote, to much revenue from those Blue counties so it's never gonna happen.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:34 pm

http://www.jeffersonstate.com

Looks like heaven has a new address. Can't you people place nice together out there?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:43 pm

Jefferson has been at it for a looooong time.

Filing their paperwork for statehood on 12/6/1941 didn't work out so well for them.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:44 pm

Truman wrote:Can't you people place nice together out there?

When certain parties adopt a "what's yours is mine" attitude, it makes it tough.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:54 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:In any event, what do you think the odds are that a majority of the 98 Senators and 382 Representatives who don't represent California would pass this?

If the California State Assembly signs off on it, I'd say Congress would be hard pressed to deny the petition. To do so would place them in the position of denying the self-determination of some 15 million people.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:00 am

the main roadblock to this is the senate's structure.

personally, i think that structure is bullshit and should be done away with. congressional representation should be decided solely by population. you could still have a lower and upper house, but, proportioning should be decided solely by population. alaska having the same number of senators as california means alaskans have greater representation/per capita. the fact that large states tend to be populated by dumbfukks makes me want to reconsider, but, i still think it's the way to go.

this will never fly as it would result in splits all over as folks realized that doing so could increase their representation.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 2:39 am

Riverside? San Bernardino? Imperial? Tulare? Fresno?

Fuck no, I'll fight to the death to keep San Diego out of the hands of the meth lab entrepreneurs and wannabe cowboys.

This about says it...

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:23 am

Mikey wrote:Riverside? San Bernardino? Imperial? Tulare? Fresno?

Fuck no, I'll fight to the death to keep San Diego out of the hands of the meth lab entrepreneurs and wannabe cowboys.

Plus Orange and San Diego. It's a good mix of urban-commericial and rural-agricultural. I'd say a fair split.

Y2K · Post by **Y2K** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:28 am

Fresno County is the most productive agricultural county in
the Nation. In each of the last five years the total crop value has
exceeded $5 billion.

Hell you wouldn't want that...not counting Tulare Kern and Kings counties...

Typical big city leftist drivel.........

You assholes own the state and you wonder why it's so fucked up?.......

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:52 am

You guys may feed the rest of the country, but we've got plenty of agriculture right here at home.

Don't need to buy mass produced, picked unripe, ethylene ripened cardboard when I can get all the "agriculture" I need at the local farmers market.

Y2K · Post by **Y2K** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:29 am

Mikey wrote:You guys may feed the rest of the country, but we've got plenty of agriculture right here at home.

Don't need to buy mass produced, picked unripe, ethylene ripened cardboard when I can get all the "agriculture" I need at the local farmers market.

Support mass Ag...it pays the bills in Sacramento... or at least it used to.

BTW---If you ever are up this way, try the farmers market here. I am spoiled rotten, we get all the good over the top products the farmers save just for us valley Peeps... really cheap as well... fancy that.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:17 pm

smackaholic wrote:the main roadblock to this is the senate's structure.

personally, i think that structure is bullshit and should be done away with. congressional representation should be decided solely by population. you could still have a lower and upper house, but, proportioning should be decided solely by population. alaska having the same number of senators as california means alaskans have greater representation/per capita. the fact that large states tend to be populated by dumbfukks makes me want to reconsider, but, i still think it's the way to go.

The smaller northeastern states also appear to be populated by dumbfukks.

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:43 pm

mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:In any event, what do you think the odds are that a majority of the 98 Senators and 382 Representatives who don't represent California would pass this?
If the California State Assembly signs off on it, I'd say Congress would be hard pressed to deny the petition. To do so would place them in the position of denying the self-determination of some 15 million people.

At the expense of the other 285 million people who live in this country? I think they'd feel justified under those circumstances.

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:45 pm

smackaholic wrote:the main roadblock to this is the senate's structure.

personally, i think that structure is bullshit and should be done away with. congressional representation should be decided solely by population. you could still have a lower and upper house, but, proportioning should be decided solely by population. alaska having the same number of senators as california means alaskans have greater representation/per capita. the fact that large states tend to be populated by dumbfukks makes me want to reconsider, but, i still think it's the way to go.

I would think that someone who got a perfect score on the civics test would understand why the Senate is structured the way it is.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:11 am

smackaholic wrote:the main roadblock to this is the senate's structure.

personally, i think that structure is bullshit and should be done away with. congressional representation should be decided solely by population. you could still have a lower and upper house, but, proportioning should be decided solely by population. alaska having the same number of senators as california means alaskans have greater representation/per capita. the fact that large states tend to be populated by dumbfukks makes me want to reconsider, but, i still think it's the way to go.

this will never fly as it would result in splits all over as folks realized that doing so could increase their representation.

No other explanation. Your civics score HAS to be an anomaly.

I’m of the mind to consider it provident that the Founders failed to consult the wisdom of a certain grammatically-challenged, retired E-4 asshat from the Nutbag State when they sat down to write the Perfect Document.

Jesus-fucking-Christ-in –a –Waffle-House.

WHERE to start with this...

Congressional representation already IS apportioned by population, you fucking illiterate dumbass. It’s called the House of Representatives.

The Founders delegated two Senators per state PRECISELY to prevent the scenario you jock: To keep the LARGE population states from dominating the SMALL population states, and to give ALL states a say in the way we’re governed.

By your way of “thinking”, California, Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois should collectively hold 36 Senate seats, as 36% of our country’s population currently resides in those states. Add Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and New Jersey to that mix, and all of a sudden the Senate representation for those 10 states shoots up to 53. So who’s gonna stop ‘em from voting to turn Connecticut into the East Coast’s landfill? Your lone designated voice in the Senate?

BTW, your “idea” would never fly because it would take THREE-QUARTERS of the states legislatures or THREE QUARTERS of the state’s constitutional conventions to change the fucking Constitution.

Idiot, fucking, dumbass. You couldn’t have picked a better avatard.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:18 am

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:In any event, what do you think the odds are that a majority of the 98 Senators and 382 Representatives who don't represent California would pass this?
If the California State Assembly signs off on it, I'd say Congress would be hard pressed to deny the petition. To do so would place them in the position of denying the self-determination of some 15 million people.
At the expense of the other 285 million people who live in this country?

Please explain how California separating into two equal halves would be "at the expense of the other 285 million people who live in the country." Be specific in your exposition and avoid any vague, army wavy generalities or, alternatively, you could simply go fuck yourself.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:26 am

Truman wrote:The Founders delegated two Senators per state PRECISELY to prevent the scenario you jock: To keep the LARGE population states from dominating the SMALL population states, and to give ALL states a say in the way we’re governed.

Actually the Founders delegated two senators per state in order that they represent the interests of each state with all states being equal. The 17th amendment has largely voided that particular rationale. You could easily give each state +2 representatives, disband the Senate and move to a unicameral legislature without any discernible difference in policy making.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:57 am

mvscal wrote:
Truman wrote:The Founders delegated two Senators per state PRECISELY to prevent the scenario you jock: To keep the LARGE population states from dominating the SMALL population states, and to give ALL states a say in the way we’re governed.
Actually the Founders delegated two senators per state in order that they represent the interests of each state with all states being equal.

Which is what I intended when I suggested that the Founders wanted ALL the states to have a say in the way we're governed.

The 17th amendment has largely voided that particular rationale. You could easily give each state +2 representatives, disband the Senate and move to a unicameral legislature without any discernible difference in policy making.

True. But TWO houses of Congress stems the asshattery devised by a single body, most specifically, the House of Representatives. Madison had a great take in Federalist 62 ascribing the demeanor of a Senator and his role as a member of that legislative body i.e. to keep the hotheads in the House in check.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:14 am

Of course Madison's take was predicated on senators being appointed by the various state legislatures and not by popular election.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:37 pm

Truman wrote:
smackaholic wrote:the main roadblock to this is the senate's structure.

personally, i think that structure is bullshit and should be done away with. congressional representation should be decided solely by population. you could still have a lower and upper house, but, proportioning should be decided solely by population. alaska having the same number of senators as california means alaskans have greater representation/per capita. the fact that large states tend to be populated by dumbfukks makes me want to reconsider, but, i still think it's the way to go.

this will never fly as it would result in splits all over as folks realized that doing so could increase their representation.
No other explanation. Your civics score HAS to be ~~an anomaly~~ flat out bullshit.

FTFY.

Terry in Crapchester · Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:21 pm

Truman wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Truman wrote:The Founders delegated two Senators per state PRECISELY to prevent the scenario you jock: To keep the LARGE population states from dominating the SMALL population states, and to give ALL states a say in the way we’re governed.
Actually the Founders delegated two senators per state in order that they represent the interests of each state with all states being equal.
Which is what I intended when I suggested that the Founders wanted ALL the states to have a say in the way we're governed.

The 17th amendment has largely voided that particular rationale. You could easily give each state +2 representatives, disband the Senate and move to a unicameral legislature without any discernible difference in policy making.
True. But TWO houses of Congress stems the asshattery devised by a single body, most specifically, the House of Representatives. Madison had a great take in Federalist 62 ascribing the demeanor of a Senator and his role as a member of that legislative body i.e. to keep the hotheads in the House in check.

Actually, Congress resulted from a compromise between the larger states, who wanted proportional representation, and the smaller states, who wanted each state to have equal representation.

The result was a bicameral legislature, with the upper body (Senate) being represented equally, and the lower body (House of Representatives) being represented in proportion to population.