That’s a more reasonable statement, but still not accurate. There was a distinct change in voting pattern. Mainly, Democrats didn’t turn out to vote, or, if they did, voted third party. If there was one expression I heard over and over during the night of 8-9 November, it was “Clinton underperformed in …” . If Clinton had gotten Democratic votes the way Obama did in 2012, the outcome would have been different. Trump’s victory hinged on a total of about 80,000 votes spread over three states. If you read the article you linked to, you will see that it wasn’t a matter of the Republicans gaining votes as much as it was Democrats failing to vote or voting third party.
This data suggests that if the Democratic Party wants to win the Rust Belt, it should not go chasing after the white working-class men who voted for Trump. The party should spend its energy figuring out why Democrats lost millions of voters to some other candidate or to abstention.
Taking up arms against the United States of America is the very definition of TREASON.
The constitution contains NO vehicle for a State to secede and never has so the very act of “separation” (succession) is an act of war against the USA and therefore TREASON.
There is good evidence that California’s economy is substantial enough to survive, perhaps even thrive, without the Union
Bullshit.
California’s businesses depend utterly on tariff-free access to the world’s second largest economy: the U.S. We benefit from the Constitutional protections of interstate commerce. Our water comes from Wyoming, Arizona, and Oregon. Here’s what will happen:
Amicable secession with treaty. Federal gov’t is surprisingly co-operative
Immediately after signing, U.S. imposes steep import and export tariffs on all trade with California
U.S. then makes a compelling offer to all major California companies (apple, google, facebook, twitter, wells fargo, chevron, ebay, paypal, …) to move to the U.S. – with a wonderful five-year tax holiday to all who do so within six months. Initially, they resist but soon one company sees the writing on the wall and agrees; the rest follow
California is now struggling economically, having lost its major sources of wealth. In this weakened state, China begins making overtures to California
U.S. declares that California has become a hostile nation, sends a military presence to subdue it
U.S. conquers it’s enemy California, occupying it and seizing it as a trust territory. California becomes the new Puerto Rico – a trust territory of the U.S., without state rights and without federal representation
Realizing that California has no future prospects, her young people immigrate to the U.S., a mass exodus and brain drain
Desperate for income of any sort, California agrees to become the chemical dumping grounds of the U.S.
If that future appeals to you, then by all means, vote for Calexit.
Check out the actual discussions around this issue. The Civil War only seemed to settle the issue, but the actual legitimacy of separation has never been clearly established. Also, any war never makes anything final. If the people want to revisit this issue they may and no amount of past bloodshed really makes any difference. Also it was only by agreement and compromise that the original Union was created, not by war. The issue is not as closed as you imagine.
I know what the discussion around this issue are and I know what the legitimacy of separation is = there isn’t any.
I don’t care what you say - that’s what the Civil War settled and it’s been settled since that time in the SCOTUS. If it had not been then federal law would not prevail over state law in the states but it does.
Why the attitude? I made a statement about what many people in CA believe. I did not advocate for such an action. I am aware Calexit has dubious ties to Russia, but thank you for your kind reminder. Going to leave it at that.
Yeah, but we’ve already got Nigel Farage raising money to split the state in two. I say the hell with two states. Let the central valley remain 1 of 50 states, and the coastal cities can become their own country. (Of course, we’re keeping Yosemite and Tahoe.)
Any of the other states that give more than they get – and believe in a strong public education system and science – are welcome to join us!
No law is so sacred that it cannot be changed by the will of the people. No war settles any issue, only actual laws settle issues and even then can be changed. This is not an either/or and so the possibility remains. My point is that the legitimacy of sepreation has never been actually settled, but then again, nothing is necessarily settled in law, but is ALWAYS subject to change, In these United States this can occur by the will of people. I know somewhat ideal, but this is one of the basic concepts of not only the United States Constitution, but I believe of every constitution of every state.
Wow indeed. That’s of course only one of the ways this might unfold but bottom line is that all roads through Calexit lead to California becoming an occupied territory of the U.S., stripped of state rights, without sovereignty, and impoverished.
The U.S. defense of the Pacific is based in California and Hawaii. U.S. will not let that disappear. U.S. declared war on Spain for the purpose of obtaining territories in the Atlantic for naval defense. That’s how we came to own (the now impoverished) Puerto Rico. There is zero possibility of an independent California avoiding a similar outcome. And we’re talking now about a U.S. in which the red massively outweighs the blue. Just think how much enthusiasm there would be in a superpower made up of Breitbart readers for brutally invading and occupying California.
By the way, the Farage thing is sort of curious. There was and continues to be a Calexit effort based ont the idea of separating from the US, Now Farage and his fellows have confused the issue with a move, that they give the same name to, to split the state, not separate from the Union. Please suspect what you will.
I would guess that more than half of my extended ruminations here, including one I was just working up in another thread on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, wind up under the “Yes, abandon” button. I come here to be better informed, which usually means I can’t add value unless attempted humor counts. Thanks for understanding.
I suggest that you now have a good outline for a dysphorian novel that will sell well in middle america. I won’t batter each point, since most are only imaginative, and seem to have little to do with reality. One major flaw is the idea of an intelligent and purposeful US govt, when we have just seen it unable to focus enough to make any clear action. Smaller and less endowed counties have survived really well in several places in the world. It is even more possible that an independent California could not only survive, but succeed. I grant the likelihood may be slight that any of this will happen, but the single minded belief that it can’t, is, well, perhaps ill informed, and certainly poorly researched.
US govt [is]…unable to focus enough to make any clear action
Right. That must be why we never decided to invade Iraq nor to aggressively deport people of Hispanic descent
The problem is that you are ignoring every important fact and making invalid assumptions when you assert California’s economy exists (and would continue to exist) independently of it being part of the U.S.
You are ignoring that California businesses’ depend on access to U.S. markets
You are assuming the U.S. will gladly allow major revenue sources to slip away with no effort to compete for them
You are ignoring that the U.S. defense of the Pacific is substantially based in California
You are assuming the U.S. will simply let go of its major military bases
You are ignoring that California’s water comes mostly from out of state
You are ignoring that without California, the U.S. (world’s only superpower) House, Senate, and Electoral College will be massively dominated by states that aggressively bear ill will toward California and the people who live here
IOW, you are ignoring every important fact and relying on obviously invalid assumptions when you assert that California will continue to enjoy the economic and civil-rights benefits it now has as part of the U.S. while also obtaining full sovereignty.
