New California

[Machismo]

This isn't the State of Jefferson idea that incorporated North California and parts of Oregon (Maybe Washington?). Poorer nations? States?

The new state is wanting to take San Jose and San Diego with them and a good section around Sacramento. Its not all the "poor" rural areas....
http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/...141819809.html

Here's the problem, those cities wouldn't want to come. It's dead int eh water, and an even more absurd idea than the SoJ. It crates ridiculous borders, and is not based on any reasonable logic whatsoever.

- - - Updated - - -

Why exactly? Because reasons... not sure why you think they wouldn't lay claim to infrastructure on THEIR land. Or simply cut the flow from North, to say LA. Because why, because its the "right" thing to do. Ya we'll see how that plays out. If the evil republicans, and evil "New California" are separating for petty and selfish reasons as people are suggesting here... I don't see any reason to think they wouldn't be petty and selfish with something like waterways. Especially given the point of contention it currently is between Northerners and Southerners CURRENTLY.

My point wasn't that these counties aren't currently paying for their water use. My point is that if we are going to play tit for tat, that surplus revenue you think "old california" has now that they no longer fund those counties in "New California", can go toward paying for water at a premium.

They wouldn't own the water, that's the point. Almost all the water would be controlled by existing deeds or the federal government.

[A dot Ham]

Here's the problem, those cities wouldn't want to come. It's dead int eh water, and an even more absurd idea than the SoJ. It crates ridiculous borders, and is not based on any reasonable logic whatsoever.

- - - Updated - - -



They wouldn't own the water, that's the point. Almost all the water would be controlled by existing deeds or the federal government.

Again why would you think that? There isn't exactly precedence to go on here. Common sense should dictate if you are going to draw up borders it doesn't include a piece of infrastructure and the lakes on the other person's land just because you don't want to pay for it... as if old california would get to pick and choose which bits and pieces it kept and left scraps for "New California".

This mindset is exactly why New California wants to split.

It wouldn't be controlled by the federal government either. Not sure where you guys are getting that exactly. If waterways were controlled by the feds... then the "water crisis" of California, wouldn't have been unique to California and we would have received far more help with the problem than we did.

[Machismo]

Again why would you think that? There isn't exactly precedence to go on here. Common sense should dictate if you are going to draw up borders it doesn't include a piece of infrastructure and the lakes on the other person's land just because you don't want to pay for it... as if old california would get to pick and choose which bits and pieces it kept and left scraps for "New California".

This mindset is exactly why New California wants to split.

It wouldn't be controlled by the federal government either. Not sure where you guys are getting that exactly. If waterways were controlled by the feds... then the "water crisis" of California, wouldn't have been unique to California and we would have received far more help with the problem than we did.

Most of the water is already owned and controlled by the federal government. Almost all of the rest is controlled by contractual deeds that will still be legally enforced by that very same federal government.

The water crisis happened, because it is a state with 40 million people, and a finite amount of water. The feds weren't going to transport it by truck over the Cascade Mountains. The water is not owned by the state, and that goes for anywhere. The federal government controls most of the waterways in this country.

[Macaquerie]

Not even guns are, i've noticed that the american left(not dems) are very pro-gun. Marx himself was against taking guns away from the worker class. His post is just filled with drivel, if you'd rather live in a theocracy(which are extremely authoritarian) over recognizing transgenders and legalizing weed(lol, cultural, what does that even mean?), then I really have no words for that.

It is distressing to see just how many people these days are relying on memes and social media to educate themselves about serious issues. People like the OP can't put together a coherent political philosophy, yet they will argue so vehemently in favor of whatever idea they last saw on the internet.

[Elegiac]

So, I vote republican. Even if it means I have to live in a theocracy. If it wasn't for those assholes dragging us down, I COULD convince them. But, that isn't the reality we live in. So it's either give the rural rednecks a say, or lets elect the first demiqueer foxkin pansexual President.

So you're agreeing in that your argument is basically "I can't convince people to vote for my values so I want to disenfranchise them."

- - - Updated - - -

How about the issue with mine workers in West Virginia? They lose their jobs because the mines become less profitable thanks to overkill environmental regulations.

Which regulations specifically are "overkill".

Because some of us do not like sulphur being burnt off into the atmosphere, let alone the impacts of fossil fuels on climate change.

What about California, who voted to regulate emissions on vehicles, raising the cost of cars? They continue to push for even stricter regulations. Why not? They can use public transportation, bikes, or even just walk. Its not like they have to drive through half a dozens backwoods miles to and from work every day. Why, who even needs cars?

As was said, if the issue is that rural people cannot afford more environmentally friendly vehicles this is an argument for tax deductions and wage increases, not for 'deregulation'.

If the issue is that rural people no longer get to engage in biohubristic dick wagging because "look at how big my truck", I could not care less.

[A dot Ham]

Most of the water is already owned and controlled by the federal government. Almost all of the rest is controlled by contractual deeds that will still be legally enforced by that very same federal government.

The water crisis happened, because it is a state with 40 million people, and a finite amount of water. The feds weren't going to transport it by truck over the Cascade Mountains. The water is not owned by the state, and that goes for anywhere. The federal government controls most of the waterways in this country.

Again just a little common sense here... would make building something like an aqueduct a criminal act. If the body of water is owned by the federal government, than building infrastructure that essentially STEALS that water would be illegal. Unless they had some sort of agreement with the federal government to use that water.

Water reserves, are built with state funds and are state owned. If the land that these bodies of water are on, a suddenly no longer property of that state... it would stand to reason if they wanted access to it they would need to pay for it.

If what you are saying is true, other states would be able to tap into neighboring states bodies of water for their own use, without the permission from the State itself, only the federal government... it doesn't work like that.

I'd be happy to eat my words if you can find a shred of reputable and relevant evidence that suggests otherwise. Also lets be clear we aren't talking about States that share a naturally existing waterway like a river, in which borders are drawn specifically because of those natural features. You would need to find a state that is taking power, water, or gas from another State without paying directly to said State. Please... find it.

[Flame6]

I'm in Roseville, so we're not them evul city folk. Except we totally are because Sac is a beast that won't stop growing into the cities around it @_@

And yeah, I love the idea that this is somehow just evil Demos / Repubs encouraging this when yeah.. water. That's all it is. Live in a desert state, that's prone to long droughts, but could be greenified for its amazing growing season and wow what a shock there are water fights all over the place.

doh .

[Vanyali]

Ha, I'm slightly more east in Auburn, and the old folk always say "don't Roseville, Auburn / Grass Valley"

Such rudeness, this is why we put Lincoln between us and the hicks :P

Rly though, all these towns cheek to cheek is weird as hell, and continues to be weird. The roseville / rocklin border isn't far from me and it's literally between shopping centers on one side and shopping centers on the other, not even an inch of open space.

[A dot Ham]

I'm in Roseville, so we're not them evul city folk. Except we totally are because Sac is a beast that won't stop growing into the cities around it @_@

And yeah, I love the idea that this is somehow just evil Demos / Repubs encouraging this when yeah.. water. That's all it is. Live in a desert state, that's prone to long droughts, but could be greenified for its amazing growing season and wow what a shock there are water fights all over the place.

I can tell you though as a Southern Californian, nothing chaps my ass more than talks about water conservation, and then seeing brand new fucking homes going in places like Lancaster where there are Yucca plants (which are basically cacti) every fucking 100 yards, and seeing these new homes go in with huge fucking grass lawns that need to be watered 3 times a day just to keep from turning yellow/green to yellow/brown. Fuck water conservation... if you aren't going to regulate stupid shit like that... or when a new public building goes up with a giant fucking water wasting fountain right out front. Or how the water shortage doesn't seem to have any effect on golf courses, and/or car washes. Nope but I have to pay triple because I want to brush my teeth every day instead of every other day... fuck you Jerry Brown.

[Vanyali]

I can tell you though as a Southern Californian, nothing chaps my ass more than talks about water conservation, and then seeing brand new fucking homes going in places like Lancaster where there are Yucca plants (which are basically cacti) every fucking 100 yards, and seeing these new homes go in with huge fucking grass lawns that need to be watered 3 times a day just to keep from turning yellow/green to yellow/brown. Fuck water conservation... if you aren't going to regulate stupid shit like that... or when a new public building goes up with a giant fucking water wasting fountain right out front. Or how the water shortage doesn't seem to have any effect on golf courses, and/or car washes. Nope but I have to pay triple because I want to brush my teeth every day instead of every other day... fuck you Jerry Brown.

Were you trying to show an example of what I was talking about when I said people frothing over greenifying the desert or is this just happy coincidence?

[Elegiac]

I can tell you though as a Southern Californian, nothing chaps my ass more than talks about water conservation, and then seeing brand new fucking homes going in places like Lancaster where there are Yucca plants (which are basically cacti) every fucking 100 yards, and seeing these new homes go in with huge fucking grass lawns that need to be watered 3 times a day just to keep from turning yellow/green to yellow/brown. Fuck water conservation... if you aren't going to regulate stupid shit like that... or when a new public building goes up with a giant fucking water wasting fountain right out front. Or how the water shortage doesn't seem to have any effect on golf courses, and/or car washes. Nope but I have to pay triple because I want to brush my teeth every day instead of every other day... fuck you Jerry Brown.

Yeah, these sorts of practices need to be stopped; golf courses especially.

The doubly insidious things about a lot of 'aesthetic' homeowner regulations is more than just the water consumption, it's the fact it takes up space that could be used for trees, or vegetable gardens, etc.

[A dot Ham]

Were you trying to show an example of what I was talking about when I said people frothing over greenifying the desert or is this just happy coincidence?

Its genuine froth...

[The Stormbringer]

You realize the NVPIC would make the popular vote decide the president, right?

That's not how I understood it. It looked like it would be a state-by-state popular vote, which would then say, 'X state is for Y candidate due to A party having 51% of the votes'.

Unless I misunderstood it. I am strictly for a 'actual percentage of votes' to each candidate kind of guy.

[God Save The King]

That's not how I understood it. It looked like it would be a state-by-state popular vote, which would then say, 'X state is for Y candidate due to A party having 51% of the votes'.

Unless I misunderstood it. I am strictly for a 'actual percentage of votes' to each candidate kind of guy.

NVPIC is a coalition of states that promise to send their electors to the EC based on the popular vote. The pact will only go into effect if 50% of the EC signs up. This means that regardless of how their individual state votes, they will send electors based on the national popular vote. Once it breaks 50%, then they hold the majority of the EC's power, and the pact will elect the president.

To give an example, in this last election, if the pact was in effect, all the signatories would have sent delegates to the EC to vote for Hillary Clinton, and it does not matter how each state voted. She'd have won because more than 270 EC votes (the number needed to win) would have been committed due to the pact. It's the states' way of getting around the Constitution.

[Sunseeker]

Rural California has jack all ability to do shit about the state's borders. Only Congress can do that, and if Congress isn't going to make Puerto Rico or Guam a state they're sure as hell not going to cut up California.

[The Stormbringer]

NVPIC is a coalition of states that promise to send their electors to the EC based on the popular vote. The pact will only go into effect if 50% of the EC signs up. This means that regardless of how their individual state votes, they will send electors based on the national popular vote. Once it breaks 50%, then they hold the majority of the EC's power, and the pact will elect the president.

To give an example, in this last election, if the pact was in effect, all the signatories would have sent delegates to the EC to vote for Hillary Clinton, and it does not matter how each state voted. She'd have won because more than 270 EC votes (the number needed to win) would have been committed due to the pact. It's the states' way of getting around the Constitution.

Aahh, that makes much more sense then. I really did misread it the first time around! I would be more in favor for that kind of system, yes.

[Kaleredar]

It's already been explained above.

Hopefully some of the states with pending leglesitation have it go through. It actually has a good amount of support across the political spectrum too. Here's a poll from 2007 by the Washington Post.

Sure but that was 2007; before it was proven through three consecutive presidential elections that republicans can't win over the majority of voters.

While it's only speculation, I'd guess it's fairly safe to that republicans have suddenly "come around" to the electoral college... because it's the only way they've been able to secure the presidency in the last decade.

[Jastall]

But when the majority has a completely different set of issues than you do, elected officials will ignore you completely. They don't need your vote. You are useless. In a republic, no one is useless. A democracy is only valid when a population is evenly spread among geographic, economic, and cultural lines. And it currently is definitely NOT so, especially in a country as diverse as the USA.

So instead they should ignore everyone who's not in a swing state?

Besides, it's not like every single city person is blue or every rural person is red, that's just trends enforced by first past the post. US politicians (Democrats and Republicans) should stop looking at freaking everything through the lens of demographics.

[God Save The King]

Aahh, that makes much more sense then. I really did misread it the first time around! I would be more in favor for that kind of system, yes.

Yeah, I really like this idea. The current pact possesses 165 electoral votes, and another group of states, currently with an additional 149EVs, are considering the proposal this year. While a long-shot, it isn't unfeasible for the pact to be in effect for 2020, especially after the 2016 election.

[Selastan]

So instead they should ignore everyone who's not in a swing state?

If a state isn't a swing state, it needs adjusting until it is one. Only way to keep everyone relevant.