A new bid to place a measure on the ballot that would ask California voters to approve the state's secession from the U.S. has been cleared for signature gathering.
  • Majorllama@lemmy.world
    253·
    7 days ago

    God dammit I find this so fucking hilarious. Every time a Republican wins you’ll inevitably see an article talking about California is to leave. And on the flip side every time we get a Democrat in office fuckin Texas starts bitching and tryna leave.

    I’m not going to say it’ll never happen, but I would be willing to bet all the 7 dollars I have to my name that it’s not gonna happen.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      9·
      7 days ago

      Well in fairness, the pendulum keeps swinging farther with each new administration. So the split is never going to happen until it does. No way to know if this is the time or not. But unless something happens to break the cycle of more and more extremism, their will be a serious attempt at a split eventually. Weather it results in some kind of civil war where one side forces the other to stay, or a split actually happens is also unknowable.

  • icecreamtaco@lemmy.world
    2310·
    7 days ago

    Do NOT fall for this shit, they’ve tried it before. This makes america an easy red majority and that’s the entire point of it. We’re in this together and not going anywhere

  • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
    81·
    6 days ago

    CA better get their hands on some ICBMs. Keep one pointed at DC, and another pointed at Mar-a-Lago. It’s pretty much the only way a state can keep its sovereignty.

    • superkret@feddit.org
      9·
      7 days ago

      Likely.
      Russia’s goal isn’t to support Republicans.
      Russia’s goal is to support anything and everything that splits the USA and NATO apart.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    437·
    7 days ago

    Okay, but then California becomes a smaller country bordering a much larger fascist neighbor with the largest military in the world.

    In what world is that a good outcome?

    • theherk@lemmy.world
      363·
      7 days ago

      They’d become a pretty large country with one of the world’s largest economies holding major port access to their neighbor. A few allies and things aren’t quite so clear cut. Not to mention they’d potentially have significant military resources.

      • cristo@lemmy.worldEsperanto
        21·
        7 days ago

        If you think the US military wouldn’t immediately remove all assets from California you’d be sorely mistaken. There is no way that the fed would allow assets like that to be given away to a successionist movement. Even if they didn’t, California doesn’t have the logistic ability to maintain those assets for more than id say 3 months.

        • theherk@lemmy.world
          12·
          7 days ago

          If you think you know exactly how all installations, including National Guard Installations, would operate in a situation of this magnitude, I envy your blind certitude.

      • superkret@feddit.org
        71·
        7 days ago

        That economy is tightly integrated with the rest of the country.
        In a secession, those ties would be severed, likely tanking the economy of both California and the US.

        • theherk@lemmy.world
          5·
          7 days ago

          That’s definitely possible. I’m not saying it would be a good thing. The only thing I feel confident about is that we do not know. A lot isn’t as it once seemed right now. Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.caEnglish
      121·
      7 days ago

      If they do start to secede or actually secede than it just becomes an expensive and complicated mess that doesn’t help anyone. Because even if they are forced back then the larger federation has to work ten times harder to keep them in place and cooperative and in the end becomes a net negative where they have to decide if it’s cheaper to let go or keep paying to stay together.

      Ask a Canadian what it means because we’ve had that discussion many times with Quebec and less often with other regions. It’s far cheaper for everyone to be cooperative and mutually benefiting one another on good terms than to threaten anyone into a corner … and even when things are working, it’s still not easy.

    • peregrin5@lemm.eeEnglish
      4·
      7 days ago

      Oregon and Washington would probably do the same if California seceded. (Which it won’t). If BC Canada left, Cascadia would be a thing that is large and prosperous enough to stand on it’s own. That or the three states just join Canada.

  • dilroopgill@lemmy.world
    141·
    7 days ago

    Itd never happen but secessions not an unpopular opinion whenever it’s mentioned here, only republicans that have repeatedly said they want to leave and move out hate the idea for some reason

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    43·
    6 days ago

    The remaining Blue States should do the same. Common sense should prevail and it would allow the MAGAts to create their racist neo-Nazi White Christian slave run utopia dictatorship without resistance from those who support the US Constitution.

  • Alex@lemmy.world
    209·
    7 days ago

    Fight for better more fair representation, secession solves nothing.

    • Cryan24@lemmy.world
      152·
      7 days ago

      It will take a massive chunk out of federal funding to reduce states most of whom don’t pull equal weight

  • Godric@lemmy.world
    235·
    6 days ago

    1. Brexit was clever wordplay, every proposal since hasn’t been. Fuckin “Calexit”, do better.

    2. Yeah, you don’t get to just leave a country. Believe it or not, there was actually at least one war about that!

    3. Fuck CBS for their cancer ass website.

  • Freefall@lemmy.world
    43·
    5 days ago

    This is stupid and a pointless gesture. Do something more productive with your time.

  • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.socialEnglish
    633·
    7 days ago

    For all of the reasons given, secession from the United States is a bad idea. But I’m going to keep banging this drum: The metropolises need to secede from their states, while staying part of the United States. Heck, Los Angeles County alone has more people than 40 of the states. It’s about time that they got fair representation.

    • Not a replicant@lemmy.worldEnglish
      20·
      7 days ago

      That’s an approach I’d never considered - is there wiggle-room in the state constitutions to split into smaller states?

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.socialEnglish
        3·
        7 days ago

        I think it’s probably neither allowed nor disallowed in state constitutions, but I’m just a dilettante constitutional scholar. Whether it’s allowed or not under the current system, that system is broken and can’t be fixed within the limitations of the system, and it needs a disruption. Disruptions tend to be unpleasant, so this is the least-disruptive disruption that I’ve come up with. There’s even historical precedent for it, in the form of the free imperial cities of the Holy Roman Empire.

      • Something Burger 🍔@jlai.lu
        31·
        7 days ago

        Article IV Section 3 of the US constitution

        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.

        If a state agrees, a new state can be formed in its territory, effectively splitting it.

        • derf82@lemmy.worldEnglish
          20·
          7 days ago

          And there is the rub. Conservative legislators won’t allow it in most states, because it would mean more Dems in congress.

          Same in California for much the same reason. There has long been a Republican proposal to split it into 5 states so there are more Republican senators.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            51·
            7 days ago

            We could follow an approach like in the slavery days. Balance each new slave state with a free state.

            NY is a very blue state on the strength of NYC. But I grew up upstate, and there were just so many differences. ITs not just that it was a conservative rural area, but it was hard to find anything in common with the city and it always felt like the city dominated and we were afterthoughts. There was definite resentment and I’m sure it hasn’t helped as upstate economies and population dwindle while NYC strengthens. At the time you could split the population pretty evenly between conservative upstate and liberal city: there’d be a new red state to balance the new blue state of Los Angeles, and everyone could more closely elect their preferences

            • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
              2·
              7 days ago

              For the record, we in NYC have unique needs that are sometimes time sensitive, see funding for tunnel doors after Sandy as an example. There was no intention to override or co-opt funds meant for people outside the metro area, we all live the beauty of the Hudson valley and so forth.

              That need for expedience generates ill will nonetheless, I forgot how many politicos from the state area would purposely slow down city requests or legislation unless a deal was attached.

              • AA5B@lemmy.world
                2·
                7 days ago

                I’m a huge fan of high speed rail and always hoped that could bring us together.

                • Currently, spending on rail is a divider since nyc has a huge rail system and rail effectively doesn’t exist in the rest of the state. Why should we spend money on a project that only benefits the city (forgetting which direction the money actually flows)?
                • if we all came together to build high speed rail to Albany, then up to Montreal and across the Mohawk valley to Buffalo (perhaps to be extended to Toronto), then the entire state benefits from rail. Upstate gets a much needed infusion to resurrect dying cities, we build a greater economy together, and NYC is the hub of a greater network. We can also all benefit by closer ties to our brothers up north and be part of a greater high speed rail network if their HSR gets off the ground
                • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  7 days ago

                  The “forgetting the money” is one of the parts we city people grumble quite a bit about amongst ourselves whenever the upstate politicos play games with our funding needs.

                  Look, the goal of govt is supposed to be benefit as many as possible, though for some that seems to also mean ignore the few, which I strongly disagree with.

                  If we build an HSR system within the city e.g. by replacing metro-north tracks, city people immediately benefit… but then the system can expand from there out to Schenectady, Albany buffalo etc. There’s no reason we can’t build your idea in a sensible, phased manner. We could go backwards too, start in buffalo and build south since the metro-north system is already fully functional.

                  I no longer live in NYC, but the years working for the MTA showed me a lot of the difficult, non-engineering problems to balance. Maybe there are ways to avoid the human problems associated with any large engineering project, but I don’t yet know if any such shortcuts exist or ever existed.

  • jagged_circle@feddit.nlEnglish
    11·
    7 days ago

    Shit my CA driver’s license expired. Does that mean I’ll need to apply for citizenship or will old residents be good?