New California?

Originally posted by @sh76
No need.

Alaska is clearly governable (even by Sarah Palin).

NY is close to as dysfunctional as California, but not quite as bad... yet.

Who gets to decide if a State is ungovernable? According to this proposal, the majority of the state population is intended to be removed from most of the state. Why not split into north and south, or east and west? Why separate the people from the land? Why give the entire border to the Republicans? This is not for the benefit of the people of California. This is pure partisan politics.

Originally posted by @shavixmir
Just got back from California.

I don’t know what this whole new-Cal debate is about, but someone needs to get those bloody motorways repaved. It’s like driving around downtown bloody Damascus.

They just taxed motorists (by decree, gas taxes and auto registration for road repair) Cigs. 2 bucks a pack ( for healthcare.) And then stole most the $$$ and put it in the the general fund to loot. Jerry Brown and his pack of thieves. These dumb dems take it up the butt over and over. Edit to add: then you have to pay tax on the tax

Originally posted by @sh76
No need.

Alaska is clearly governable (even by Sarah Palin).

NY is close to as dysfunctional as California, but not quite as bad... yet.

If you could point the finger of blame as to why that may be so, what would your first target be?

Mine would be huge disparity of wealth, that gives rise to s$%&hole personality types like DJTrump, which can't be good for any city.

Originally posted by @kmax87
If you could point the finger of blame as to why that may be so, what would your first target be?

Mine would be huge disparity of wealth, that gives rise to s$%&hole personality types like DJTrump, which can't be good for any city.

Blame? Hardly. This is not an issue of right or wrong, but a practical issue of reality.

Extreme divergence of interests, I'd say, is the reason.

Originally posted by @sh76
Blame? Hardly. This is not an issue of right or wrong, but a practical issue of reality.

Extreme divergence of interests, I'd say, is the reason.

Maybe if Nancy Pelosi resigns they will back down.

Originally posted by @shavixmir
Just got back from California.

I don’t know what this whole new-Cal debate is about, but someone needs to get those bloody motorways repaved. It’s like driving around downtown bloody Damascus.

They just need to raise their taxes is all.

That way the state can repair them.

Originally posted by @sh76
There's something to the idea that California is too big to be governed as a state. It's country-sized in land area, population and economy. It also has some wild constitutional rules that require a referendum for many types of tax hikes and an unmanageable proposition process, which has led, ironically, to many hyper-conservative propositions passing (includi ...[text shortened]... into a bunch of medium-sized states would make sense for everyone in the state in the long run.

I think a strong argument can be made that breaking up California into a bunch of medium-sized states would make sense for everyone in the state in the long run.


Possibly, but if we go down that path the same case could be made for New York. 🙂
We could break it up into New Jack, New Hack, and New Quack. 😀

Originally posted by @mchill
I think a strong argument can be made that breaking up California into a bunch of medium-sized states would make sense for everyone in the state in the long run.


Possibly, but if we go down that path the same case could be made for New York. 🙂
We could break it up into New Jack, New Hack, and New Quack. 😀

A strong argument could certainly be made for breaking up New York. But, so far, there doesn't seem to be much political will to do it. For several decades, Republicans have usually controlled the State Senate while Dems have a permanent choke hold on the Assembly and will probably elect the lion's share of governors, the George Pataki exception notwithstanding. This forces major state government decisions to be made on a bipartisan basis.

If the Dems every take firm control of the Senate, Assembly and Governor's Mansion and sustain it for a decade or so, you'll probably see some secession rumblings upstate.

Originally posted by @sh76
There's something to the idea that California is too big to be governed as a state. It's country-sized in land area, population and economy. It also has some wild constitutional rules that require a referendum for many types of tax hikes and an unmanageable proposition process, which has led, ironically, to many hyper-conservative propositions passing (includi ...[text shortened]... into a bunch of medium-sized states would make sense for everyone in the state in the long run.

Most of what you say here could be applied to the U.S. Empire as a whole, and you could make a case for breaking up the Empire at long last. Thank God almighty, the left coast could finally be rid of Alabamastan, Oklahomastan, and all the rest of Jesus Land!

Originally posted by @soothfast
Most of what you say here could be applied to the U.S. Empire as a whole, and you could make a case for breaking up the Empire at long last. Thank God almighty, the left coast could finally be rid of Alabamastan, Oklahomastan, and all the rest of Jesus Land!

It's to the advantage of all states to marshal their resources so as to draw more water as a whole (economically, culturally and politically) than any region could individually. Breaking up the United States would have devastating effects due to trade restrictions, potential currency changes and sharp decrease in world influence of the new smaller countries.

But if states are too unweildly to be governed on a micro-level, let them break up. Who cares? Trade and travel between states is still completely free as mandated by the US Constitution. Breaking up California wouldn't decrease the influence or standard of living of anyone (well, maybe some of the bureaucratic machinery of the state) unless one of the new states enacts bad policy, which is always a risk.

Originally posted by @sh76
It's to the advantage of all states to marshal their resources so as to draw more water as a whole (economically, culturally and politically) than any region could individually. Breaking up the United States would have devastating effects due to trade restrictions, potential currency changes and sharp decrease in world influence of the new smaller countries.
...[text shortened]... machinery of the state) unless one of the new states enacts bad policy, which is always a risk.

Why not let them break up? It's because Dims have all of California held hostage by their policies. As we can see on the map, California wants away from San Fran and LA. That's it, the rest just wants to be free. On a political level, why surrender those hostages? They work for you and produce much needed revenue for the insanely high tax rates to pay for their insane fiscal policies.

You might say that they work the plantation for Dims.

Freedom is the enemy of the Bernie Sanders socialist types. They will decide for all with no toleration for dissent.