• Tug@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    It’s nice to think about taking your ball and going home. However, if we denigrate Texas everytime they threaten to secede we really shouldn’t be giving California a pass.

    Edit- fix fat finger spelling

    • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I don’t denigrate Texas every time they say they’re gonna secede. In fact, I want them to. If they don’t want to be a part of America, then let them go do their own thing. If that turns out to be a bad move for them, then that’s on them.

  • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    It’s a moot point anyway, though, because the ruling post-Civil war (Texas v. White, specifically) determined that unilateral secession was not allowed. In order for California to leave they would either have to come to an agreement with the Federal government to do so (or a majority of all other state legislatures, or something… there’s no precedent) or fight a war against the rest of the union and win, forcing capitulation and a concession.

    Both possibilities seem extremely remote.

    This is only posturing, and even if it passes it is not designed to result in California actually leaving the union.

  • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 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.

  • Godric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 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.

  • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    4 days ago

    Lots of peoole didn’t read the article

    According to the text of the measure, the state would be required to create a 20-member state commission to study California’s viability as an independent country in 2027 and to publish a report the following year.

    If the ballot question is approved, the proposal would declare a “vote of no confidence in the United States of America”, but would not change the state’s government or its relationship with the U.S. The measure would also call for the removal of the U.S. flag from all state buildings.

  • leadore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Something that might work out better and would be a lot easier to do (thought still not very easy), would be to split into 3 (or 4?) states.

    California has almost 12% of the US population concentrated in that one state! By far most of the states contain about 2% or less of the US population each.

    By splitting, the population would be better represented in the Senate with 6 senators between them instead of only 2, and there might be a net gain in some other benefits that are given on the state level.

    edit: I see that someone had already brought this idea up, but IMO it’s a good idea that they should seriously consider!

    • ModestMeme@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      The right wing has wanted this for years because California is very conservative outside of its cities. Splitting the state up would guarantee a Republican Senate.

    • Desert Hermit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      The State of Jefferson would have started this process, but WWII got in the way. Except that was all predicated on being super racist.

      I think if you get a legit Cal3 proposal, you might end up with a Cal4 where they pull from the six-state version where “Silicon Valley” is its own state shows up so that there can be some technopolis with custom laws and insane cost of living. Essentially, turning SFO into another Manhattan.

      I would never move back to CA as it is, but if there was a breakup, I might actually go for it.

      • peregrin5@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        The racists all wanted to leave the US because it wasn’t racist enough. However now the racists are in power and they don’t want to leave anymore.

    • unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 days ago

      Careful. Texas has some long forgotten provision where they could easily do the same thing, into 5 states. and they’d all be red.

      • leadore@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        If they split California into 3, the northern state might be red (or swing) but the other two would definitely be blue because of SR and LA. Look at a map of election results by county.

        With Texas, at least a couple of them would have to be blue because some would contain the blue urban areas. Same with FL, at least one new state would be blue. if CA, TX, and FL all did it. If they divided into 5 states it might even out. Of course there would have to be negotiations to get enough people and the parties to agree to the boundaries, which should prevent too much of an advantage to one side or the other, especially if people don’t want their cities be split between two states.

        But regardless of the results for the Senate, the point is that the people in most populous states of this country are not getting their fair representation in our federal government and that needs to change.

        Then of course as long as we’re altering our makeup of states, we have to give the citizens DC representation and make that a state. And Puerto Rico should be able to decide if it wants to become a state as well.

        • McWizard@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          German here, so excuse my ignorance, but wouldn’t it be easier to change the voting system to one that counts each vote as equal on a state level and get rid of the voting people stuff? Last time I checked you’re no longer riding horses to Washington…

          • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            but wouldn’t it be easier to change the voting system to one that counts each vote as equal on a state level and get rid of the voting people stuff

            Country wide that requires a constitutional amendment, which requires 2/3 of all states to agree. It’s been tried, the cuckservatives rage and bitch like the children they are because it would mean they’d never win again, so it never goes through

            There’s an effort to make it so that individual states will ignore the EC called NAPOVOINTERCO that would basically force the US to use a popular vote system, but it’s not got enough individual states signed on yet to activate itself

            When it comes to the US, this is a simple rule to follow: federal change is nearly impossible because of the babies in the GOP, while states are easier but can change a whole lot less overall

    • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      Why would we though? There has and would be no break betwesn the original Bear Flag Revolt and the modern California Republic. We could definitely create CR Rangers tbough.

  • doingthestuff@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    Remember how the federal government treated the south when they tried to secede. And people still celebrate it, not without good reason. But they didn’t just go to war to stop it, they burned the south to the ground.

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Well, there are two big differences.

      The ethical one, the South wanted to secede to keep their slaves, and to clarify because the term slavery has been run ragged by propaganda, they wanted to keep their forced labour/death camps where they could kill, maim, rape, buy and sell people, also children, and have them do backbreaking, crippling work to enrich themselves.

      On the other hand, California is contemplating this because the South, after losing their war, did a 200 year psyop to get a rapist and a bona-fide sieg heiling Nazi in power to force California to drop initiatives that would keep the Earth inhabitable and let their citizens live in peace.

      The pragmatic one is that while the South was what it was, California is still an economic powerhouse accounting for 20% of the US economy. If they would secede, and bring a few like-minded states with them, it’s not the least bit implausible that the South would be doing the burning again.

      All that said, the Russians and the Chinese are salivating at this idea I’m sure.

    • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      But they didn’t just go to war to stop it, they burned the south to the ground.

      Do that to CA and you’re shooting yourself in the foot as the US

      Destroying your most important ports and where more than 50% of your agriculture nationwide comes from is not a good idea

      • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Which is exactly why they would burn it to the ground. The federal government would never let California, let alone any state, secede peacfully. They can’t risk losing those resources and would destroy them before allowing them to be competition.

        • Siegfried@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Was it really? I was under the impression that they mostly were agricultural, while the north had all the light and heavy industries… (sorry, I’m not american)

          • WagyuSneakers@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            You are correct. It heavily contributed to their loss. Without international support, or the industries to leverage that support they were isolated, poor and out of manpower.

            If Union leadership was better in the beginning we would have seen them rolled much faster.

          • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            This was RIGHT before the industrial revolution in America. The timing of industrialization going north because the south was utterly burned to the ground was a massive shock that is still felt today. They couldn’t switch to industrialization in time

        • ubergeek@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          A huge reason the south lost was because they were NOT an economic powerhouse…

          Much like today.

  • ALQ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    Y’know, as unrealistic as this (probably? I’m not really sure of anything, anymore) is, seeing this pop up in my scrolling gave me a bit of relief. I’ve been so terrified and angry and anxious and unsure of the (immediate) future that it’s practically paralyzed me. Knowing that this pipedream is there helped me breathe for a moment. I’ll take what relief I can get right now.

    • Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      41
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Ah yes, because Brexit was such a success, demonstrating that this clearly would solve all your problems 😬

  • Meursault@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    4 days ago

    Yes, please. As a Californian who is already looking to move abroad, it would be a dream come true for my state to do it for me.

      • Meursault@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        My heart goes out to the rational minority in the red states. My advice to them is to leave while they can, however they can. This very well could be a matter of life and death.

        • HeroHelck@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          3 days ago

          Your heart goes out to us, how sweet, I’ll think of your heart when me and my friends who cannot leave are rounded up and sent to camps.

          • Meursault@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            “Cannot leave?” My brother in Christ. If I honestly thought that my life was genuinely in danger of a violent end, should I remain where I am, I’d leave without hesitation. It costs nothing to get in your car and drive until you are across state lines RIGHT NOW, this very instant. I wouldn’t worry about selling my house, closing escrow (or trying to communicate or formalize anything with a landlord, were I renting), “getting my affairs in order”, or whatever else. I would first load up my car and then GTFO right goddamn NOW while I still draw breath. Yes, it’d be a hassle having to deal with those loose ends later, but my first priority would be my own self-preservation.

            • HeroHelck@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 days ago

              No, I think I’ll stay and try to protect whoever I can. I’ll probably get killed, I’ve more or less made peace with that.

              • Meursault@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                That’s at least a stance I can admire. Keep yourself and your loved ones safe. And if it comes to it, you show those fascists what hell looks like when it wears the skin of a gentle human.

          • boonhet@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Look, I’ve got no dog in this fight, but in my opinion, something you need to make peace with is that the people in blue states have to watch out for themselves too, before the rot spreads too far and they find the modern day Gestapo on their own streets, killing their own people.

            And if/when they do split, try to understand them, and blame the fascists, not those trying to escape from fascism.

            Either way, if your life is threatened by fascists, I hope you’ll survive and make it out. If you don’t, I hope you’ll put up a good fight, but that’s up to you to decide, not me. I wish the best to all of you and hope that here in Europe we won’t decide to follow through on the whole right-wing swing of the pendulum.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 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.

      • superkret@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 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!

      • cristo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        Esperanto
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 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.

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 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.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 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.

  • Alex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 days ago

    Fight for better more fair representation, secession solves nothing.

    • Cryan24@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

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