Slashdot Mirror


Silicon Valley Investors Call For California To Secede From the US After Trump Win (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: As Donald Trump's shock election victory reverberated around Silicon Valley late on Tuesday night, some high-profile technologists were already calling for California to secede from the United States. The broader west coast is a stronghold for the Democrats, and significantly more politically progressive and racially diverse than large swathes of central U.S. California is also the biggest economy in the U.S. and the sixth largest in the world with a gross state product of $2.496 trillion for 2015, according to the IMF. The campaign for independence -- variously dubbed Calexit, Califrexit and Caleavefornia -- has been regarded as a fringe movement. But support was revitalized by influential Uber investor and Hyperloop co-founder Shervin Pishevar, in a series of tweets announcing his plans to fund a "legitimate campaign for California to become its own nation" -- posted even before the full results were in. A few hours later, Hillary Clinton conceded the election to Trump, and Pishevar told CNBC that he was serious about Calexit. "It's the most patriotic thing I can do," he said, adding that the resulting nation would be called New California. "We can re-enter the union after California becomes a nation. As the sixth largest economy in the world, the economic engine of the nation and provider of a large percentage of the federal budget, California carries a lot of weight," he said. Pishevar was supported by others in Silicon Valley. Angel investor Jason Calacanis said that California succession would be simple in the wake of both Brexit and a Trump win. Evan Low, a Democrat serving in the California state assembly, said that he'd support the introduction of a bill to start the independence process. The proposal illustrates the technology industry's frustration with Trump over his repeated criticisms of Silicon Valley companies. Trump has said in the past that he would make Apple build computers in the U.S. He also thinks Amazon CEO "Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post to exert political power and avoid paying taxes, and claimed that Mark Zuckerberg's push for specialist immigration would actually decrease opportunities for American women and minorities." In July, 145 technology leaders wrote in an open letter about how "Trump would be a disaster for innovation."

1,368 comments

  1. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    What else can I say?

    1. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Hahaha?

    2. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A United States Congress without the wacko democratic representatives (Pelosi) and senators (Feinstein) from California in it can only be a massive improvement for the rest of us.

      Let California secede and try to pay for all of it's socialist programs and "porous borders" through it's failing tax base and deficit-ridden state budgets. How long will that last?

    3. Re:Wow by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was under the impression that the secession from the Union thing was settled back in the 1860's. If I recall a few million Americans died in the process.

    4. Re:Wow by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about Wow, a double win! I'm all for it, as long as they take their share of the national debt with them.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    5. Re:Wow by rossz · · Score: 1

      I believe the count was closer to 600,000. Other than that, your observation is correct. /off to the googles to check the civil war death rate.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    6. Re:Wow by knightghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      SV already seceded by hiding $2 Trillion dollars outside of the USA despite living off of incredible amounts of tax assistance and infrastructure.

      CA wouldn't know how to survive without tax welfare.

    7. Re:Wow by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      How about Wow, a double win! I'm all for it, as long as they take their share of the national debt with them.

      Maybe we could sell California to the Chinese in exchange for forgiving their share of the national debt...

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    8. Re:Wow by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Maybe we could sell California to the Chinese in exchange for forgiving their share of the national debt...

      Why sell California so cheap? The largest holder of US debt is the Social Security Trust Fund.

    9. Re:Wow by russotto · · Score: 1

      SV already seceded by hiding $2 Trillion dollars outside of the USA

      The irony here being that Trump is the one who would let them feasibly repatriate it (by reducing US corporate income tax)

    10. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      " despite living off of incredible amounts of tax assistance and infrastructure."

      = You have no idea of the math involved. SV has contributed many hundreds of times more than it has received in government assistance, unless you have your official GOP calculator handy with some actual facts. Compared to the GOP's pet coal/oil industry or almost anything else, SV has been wildly profitable per invested dollar. You're ridiculously uninformed, but that appears to be in fashion now, good for you!

    11. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pishevar is originally from Iran.
      He is welcome to return if he doesn't like the current situation.

    12. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about Wow, a double win! I'm all for it, as long as they take their share of the national debt with them.

      At 17.8 Trillion dollars and 37 million Californians, that would only be about $54,000 per person. After they pay for that, then increase their State taxes by 32.4% to make up for what the fed adds to their general revenue, let alone others like military or border security and let them leave.

      I wonder how long a country would last where guns are banned, everything causes cancer, and safe spaces become a way of life when Uncle Sam won't back them up.

    13. Re:Wow by quenda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course the whole US back then had a population less than California today.
      The working-age male population in the South was worse than decimated.

      It turns out that it is easier to secede from the Soviet Union than the United States. The Hotel California can never leave.

    14. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      California is a NET CONTRIBUTOR to the federal government.

      For the typical /. reader, this means Californians pay more in federal taxes than they get back from the federal government.

      Somebody has to pay for the food stamps all those met addicted red state degenerates receive.

    15. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your ignorance is showing. California sends far more tax money to the rest of the nation than it receives. So it seems more likely the red states wouldn't be able to survive without the 'welfare' they receive from California.

    16. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      It'll last until Californians get tired of being stinky, unwashed thirsty hippies, or they evolve the power to drink brackish water. I give it a week.

    17. Re:Wow by EmeraldBot · · Score: 5, Informative

      A United States Congress without the wacko democratic representatives (Pelosi) and senators (Feinstein) from California in it can only be a massive improvement for the rest of us.

      Let California secede and try to pay for all of it's socialist programs and "porous borders" through it's failing tax base and deficit-ridden state budgets. How long will that last?

      Pay??? You do realize that California, along with almost every other democratic stronghold, contributes huge amounts of tax money to poorer states? Californians would have significantly more money on their budget, enough that they'd be able to implement their policies and probably cut taxes at the same time. I agree though, if the west and northeast coasts succeed, we'd all get an opportunity to finally see how the two parties float their sides, and I personally wouldn't mind to see my taxes support my own state, not some farmer in Nebraska.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    18. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Anyone in California who wants to leave is more than welcome to move to Mexico.
      Hell, that's where half of them are from anyhow.

    19. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, whats your souce on California being a net taker of reenue?

    20. Re:Wow by rajafarian · · Score: 1

      "First post" motherfucker!

    21. Re:Wow by Archfeld · · Score: 4, Informative

      You'd better do some research. California is one of ONLY 3 states to give more to the US federal government than it receives. Without California's MASSIVE tech and Agricultural industries the US GDP will take a double digit drop, creating an economic hit similar to the great depression and the banking crash. If California were a nation it would rank 6th in the world GDP.

      https://www.google.com/#q=stat...
      https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...
      http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

      All that said I can't argue the wacko part, nor would the US government even begin to allow one of the states to succeed from the union. That was established a long time ago by the confederate states, Texas, and Utah.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    22. Re:Wow by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I believe the count was closer to 600,000.

      Yes, about 600k soldiers died, but the majority of those were from disease rather than battlefield deaths, which was normal before antibiotics.

      The secession question was settled in April of 1865, on the battlefield at Appomattox, when the Army of Northern Virginia failed to break out of the siege of Petersburg. Joe Johnson surrendered the Army of Tennessee a week later. And that was the end of that.

    23. Re:Wow by naubol · · Score: 1

      You realize that California sends a metric shit ton of money to the federal government? More than they receive.

      --
      Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
    24. Re: Wow by macsimcon6500 · · Score: 1

      California pays more to the Federal government than it gets back (it's a "maker" state not a "taker" state), and the state has a surplus.

    25. Re:Wow by Phydeaux314 · · Score: 2

      It's pretty close to even, IIRC - I think in 2014 it was something like California getting back about 95% of what it sent in taxes.

      --
      Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
    26. Re:Wow by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Informative

      California is the 8th largest economy in the world. Jesus Christ the political right is populated by some real halfwits.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    27. Re:Wow by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      How about Wow, a double win! I'm all for it, as long as they take their share of the national debt with them.

      Since California gives more to the Federal government in taxes than they get back in benefits, you could say that their "share of the national debt" is negative. We would owe them a rebate, in fact.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    28. Re:Wow by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I know! We can separate the country on the basis of Republican and Democratic states.

      The ensuing struggle could be called Red vs. Blue.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    29. Re:Wow by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      No, Sv has debased an American work force in the name of profit while claiming to be providing a service.

      Calexit? Over your dead body. Its time we break the sillycons and take their assets until their tax bill is paid in full.

      I rather like my job designing chips, doing cryptography, setting international standards, traveling to nice places, occasionally lecturing at colleges.
      Silicon Valley didn't debase that job. Silicon Valley enabled that job.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    30. Re:Wow by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I can't confirm or dis-confirm your data as a casual google search has turned up nothing (really surprised it's not easy to find this data) but I do think you're being a bit conservative. With that said, even a 5% budget surplus in the 6th largest world economy in the world would be a shit ton of money.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    31. Re:Wow by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      The situation is a bit different this time: 1) No slaves 2) California has most of the weapons.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    32. Re:Wow by frovingslosh · · Score: 0

      Actually, why don't we just "nationalize" the China share of the national debt? Others have "nationalized" American property (Cuba, several mid-east oil countries to start) and the world doesn't seem outraged by that, so I assume it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    33. Re: Wow by rfengr · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see Nebraska cut the food off to California, and those other Western states cut off the water.

    34. Re:Wow by Clived · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or the tech companies could move to Canada. The Ottawa valley as well as the Kitchener-Waterloo has a lot of tech startups as well as established companies who are well established. Both of the areas have well respected Canadian universities resident there so the is a good talent pool. And there is the Toronto/Mississauga area which offers the same. Canada has a lot to offer, no Trump-like entities in our political spectrum (thank God) so its something to think about. We would love to have you here, to be part of our sophisticated and affluent society. Just saying :)

      We the North :)

      --
      Clive DaSilva Email: clive.dasilva@gmail.com Ubuntu 18.10 Kernel 4.18
    35. Re:Wow by hawguy · · Score: 3

      How about Wow, a double win! I'm all for it, as long as they take their share of the national debt with them.

      At 17.8 Trillion dollars and 37 million Californians, that would only be about $54,000 per person. After they pay for that, then increase their State taxes by 32.4% to make up for what the fed adds to their general revenue, let alone others like military or border security and let them leave.

      I wonder how long a country would last where guns are banned, everything causes cancer, and safe spaces become a way of life when Uncle Sam won't back them up.

      The national of $17T divided by 300M Americans means that the national debt is *already* $54,000 per person, Californians (and residents of all states) *already* owe that money, so seceding from the USA wouldn't add to that burden.

      Since California wouldn't need to extend its military presence overseas, military costs would be a fraction of what the USA spends now.

      make up for what the fed adds to their general revenue

      Why do you think the federal government pays more to California in benefits than California pays in taxes? Hint: they don't -- it's mostly the red states that receive more federal money than they pay in taxes.

      when Uncle Sam won't back them up.

      Uncle Sam has no choice - if an aggressor tried to occupy California, the USA would have to protect them, or that aggressor would be right at their doorstep.

    36. Re:Wow by taniwha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are quite wrong - look at the real numbers Californian's pay more in taxes proportionally than they receive back in benefits from the federal govt.

      It's the bible belt states, Trump's big supporters, who really suck at the teat of federal government, paid for by those very people in California you deride

      REF: http://www.theatlantic.com/bus...

    37. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But look at all the bullshit lobbying that comes from there. We'd be far better off without that. Plus we could instantly steal all their IP for free just like Hollywood did from the east coast when they moved out west.

      And when Trump wants to have a war we can invade CA. That's gotta be far cheaper than invading a country on the other side of the planet.

    38. Re:Wow by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      You could say "FF XIV".

    39. Re: Wow by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd like to see Nebraska cut the food off to California, and those other Western states cut off the water.

      I'd like to see that, too. If we're not growing food for the whole nation, we'll need a whole lot less water. The majority of the produce eaten in the USA is produced in California. Our share of foods you eat ranges from about 50% to about 95%, if you put corn aside. Just corn mind you, not wheat or rice.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    40. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it was settled in Texas v. White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White. States may not unilaterally secede but may as part of a multilateral process.

    41. Re:Wow by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is California. You're Canada. Forget about the culture shock, it's the weather shock that will kill us off!

    42. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that California, along with almost every other democratic stronghold, contributes huge amounts of tax money to poorer states?

      So poorer states should just shut-up and do what they're told!

    43. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They re-elected the same reps and senators that choked any financial assistance to the rural districts of the country, right down to filling potholes. Let them Reap what they Sow, I'm going to be busy trying to provide for my family and making where I live better.

    44. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the plan for fresh water? Another issue, why is the government tasked with leading innovation? All these government plans are great, use others people money for programs until you run out. Great plan. How about stop looking to the government to stop solving peoples problems, take responsibility for your well being and your neighbors.

    45. Re:Wow by hambone142 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. If they "calexit", where will the money come from to finance the giveaway programs ? Go ahead and leave. I could use the tax break.

    46. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the fact that california gives more taxes than it receives, their share in the debt is probably negative; they'd GET money.

    47. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not much of a culture shock, but I hear Californian's melt in the rain.

      That said, Tech companies currently would move to Ireland due to the tax rate. Companies that don't have an Ireland tax sandwich scheme but have a Canadian takeover target would merge and take the Canadian company as the HQ thus moving outside the country without physically moving anything.

    48. Re:Wow by quax · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On the bright side with Trump in the White House nothing will be done to mitigate global warming. It's a long game, but I can assure you, moving to Canada help me to keep my sanity.

    49. Re:Wow by quax · · Score: 1

      Actually Russian politologists have long predicted such a break-up.

      What's new is that they are actively working to make it happen.

    50. Re: Wow by GoChickenFat · · Score: 1

      Well according to this http://www.theatlantic.com/bus... California is nearly 1:1 - so not much of a taker or a contributor. Some solid red states like Kansas and Nebraska get much less back than they put in though. Oregon, at solid blue, is second from the top for the highest pull on food stamps as percent of population. South Carolina gets the greatest return at nearly 8:1 while "meth capitols" like Missouri and Illinois are at the bottom with roughly 1:1 and 0.5:1 respectively. You can't simply equate percent of population on food stamps with the amount returned though since federal dollars enter back in to states for all sorts of reasons beyond safety net. High percentage food stamp states like Oregon rank in the middle at about 1.25:1 in terms of states that get back more than they put in. My armchair view is that there seems to be little to do with red vs blue and more to do with the "pork" influence of the representatives elected by the states.

    51. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, fuck you. This country is insanely polarized anyways. People gravitates to be with the ones that are like them. California is overwhelmingly blue, to the point that the Republican party is more like a support group here. So why do you give a shit? if we choose to do this, let may things fall where they will. We'll gladly take our two senators that have done nothing but fighting for the right of the common people. But hey, you don't want them, no big deal. I hope you are rich. Then we'll negotiate "great deals" with all our food production in the central valley, our software and our porn. Fast forward 20 years and you'll be a third world country, by your own making...

    52. Re:Wow by galabar · · Score: 1

      Venezuela II

    53. Re:Wow by GoChickenFat · · Score: 1

      and I personally wouldn't mind to see my taxes support my own state, not some farmer in Nebraska.

      Well, according to this article http://www.theatlantic.com/bus... California is already at 1:1 in terms of return on federal taxes while Nebraska is at 0.5:1, meaning they only get half back of what they put in. Additional farming states like Oklahoma, Ohio, Kansas, and Illinois are also getting less back. So your taxes ARE supporting your state and apparently no farmers elsewhere.

    54. Re:Wow by Sassinak · · Score: 2

      Lets see.. California takes relatively little in federate aid (https://ballotpedia.org/California_state_budget_and_finances), returns more to the federal government (https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700), and tries to insure ALL its citizens have at least a safety net. And given that most of the "poor" states are republican (the notable exception being Texas).. Texas, CA and NY could leave the US would tank.

      California's federal aid goes towards programs required by the feds, but as those programs would end (or be selectively implemented if desired), their budgetary requirements would shift. And as an independent nation, it would be free to seek other interests and partnerships with other countries to make up that shortfall. In short, its not impossible for it to depart. it would take some planning and sacrifice in the near term, but definitely possible.

      --
      God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
    55. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/05/05/californias-budget-surplus-soars-to-new-heights-schools-to-benefit/

      Seems like they'll do just fine? You seem to be underestimating how much mone goes through there. It's like a Republican's wet dream, since the companies can do whatever they want. Lol

    56. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, party's over for you.

    57. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada and Australia have fairly tight gun control laws. They seem to be doing just fine since most people are not gun waving assholes.

    58. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could sell it as scrap.

    59. Re:Wow by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

      "I agree though, if the west and northeast coasts succeed, we'd all get an opportunity to finally see how the two parties float their sides"

      I don't know about that.

      Sure, there is a majority of dems up here, but NH is a battleground state, to that matter, so is Maine. Maine feels like Georgia's lost child sometimes. Eastern MA, as in Boston metro, western MA is red, and CT / RI would probably have better luck, but even then would feel resistance. Don't know much about VT politics, but I think, being smaller than CA, would have the best luck in "floating their side".

      From what I hear, and others have commented, northern CA is red, only the metro areas would see any welcomed progressive movement.

    60. Re:Wow by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

      "Actually Russian politologists have long predicted such a break-up."

      Source?

      Any case, it already happened, which means it'll happen again. Just give it time, people forget history.

    61. Re:Wow by frankenheinz · · Score: 1

      No problem. We'll take our share of U.S. national debt and then pay it off with California-issued Fun Bucks. (Like the USA does.) Then, we'll change currency . . . .

      --
      The law is not an ass. No really.
    62. Re:Wow by frankenheinz · · Score: 1

      Exactly. This proposal is not as nutty as it sounds because most of the (red) States would probably like to see California go from a politics management perspective.

      --
      The law is not an ass. No really.
    63. Re:Wow by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      The largest holder of US debt is the Social Security Trust Fund.

      Eh, that's sort of true in a purely technical sense, but not really from any reasonable perspective. It'd be like if I pulled money out of my own savings account, wrote myself an I.O.U., and then spent the cash on hookers and blow. From a purely technical perspective, one would consider an I.O.U. (or US Treasury Note) to be a debt, but the debt is from myself and to myself. There's no one to go after if I "default" on it and there's nothing to prevent me from tearing up the I.O.U. or framing it on the wall and laughing at it. The US Federal government actually classifies it as "intragovernmental Holdings" and they're kept simply for accounting purposes. The idea that they'll spontaneously transform into cash one day is pure fantasy. The reality is that when cash starts flowing the other way, however much is needed will come out of the general fund and we'll either borrow or print (or both) however much is needed to cover whatever isn't sitting in the general fund's account. The Treasury Notes will be passed around, but again, this is simply for accounting purposes and it only being done at all because we've decided to do it that way in order to maintain the appearance that this is anything other than a pyramid scheme/shell game. It isn't even hard currency or any related proxy at this point; it's literally a number in a computer. It only has meaning inasmuch as we - the human race - pretend that it does.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    64. Re:Wow by frankenheinz · · Score: 1

      How long will that last? How does it matter? At that point, its no longer your business!

      --
      The law is not an ass. No really.
    65. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red states recieve more money based on military calculations . Red states host a large number of bases and personel per capita. California will financially probably be ok. Depends on if the US decides to tariff there tech and AG industries as a foreign power. And assuming Mexico doesn't decide to lol refurendum annex California.

      And assuming we let you. America didn't take too kindly the last time half of us decided we should part company. Texas is still here on that alone.

    66. Re:Wow by frankenheinz · · Score: 1

      No one is advocating violent conflict. Rather, what is sought is a peaceable and consensual separation. RTFA: http://www.yescalifornia.org/

      --
      The law is not an ass. No really.
    67. Re:Wow by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      No one is advocating violent conflict

      You might want to turn your TV on (OTOH, maybe not).

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    68. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yikes, watch out for less patriotic things Mr. Pishevar could do.

    69. Re:Wow by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      California doesn't need to secede. It will be part of Mexico before too much longer anyway.

    70. Re: Wow by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      ... But only the anti-gun pussies want to secede. Ironic. You won't win a war from within your safe space.

      Maybe, but it'll be tough withstanding a human-wave charge of thousands upon thousands of these:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      [shudders]

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    71. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point, if CA leaves that means they leave the water compact ensuring them a hefty portion of the Colorado River. The rest of the west can just cut off most the flow going below Lake Meade, then lets see how livable LA is without water, and let's see how much produce they can grow without water. They rely heavily on that river in southern CA.

    72. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For *you*. Everyone else gets to do what, exactly?

    73. Re:Wow by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      In other news California forms an alliance with Scotland

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    74. Re:Wow by dfghjk · · Score: 5, Informative

      "California is one of ONLY 3 states to give more to the US federal government than it receives."

      Not even close. https://visualeconomics.credit...

      California is one of 17 states, not just 3, that gives more than it receives. California ranks 8th among those 17. It is not one of only three, it's not even in the top three.

      "You'd better do some research."

      So should you.

    75. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair warning, the Conservative leadership race has started and Kellie Leitch would make a great counterpart for Trump (if she weren't a 4).

    76. Re: Wow by stealth_finger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fucking hell guys, no wonder racism and sexism is so rife over there. A lot of you guys seem to be most interested in figuring what group a person is and then using that alone to determine friend or foe. It's akin to two little kids in the park both shouting "no, you're the poopypants" That's how the rest of the world sees it. Fucking cut it out and grow up. For the good of all of us.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    77. Re: Wow by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see Nebraska cut the food off to California, and those other Western states cut off the water.

      Are they giving that food or selling it?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    78. Re:Wow by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      How about Wow, a double win! I'm all for it, as long as they take their share of the national debt with them.

      Sure, let them take the whole thing. The national debt, any national debt is a massive joke that will never, ever, ever be paid, nor even really attempted to. It's just there to keep the system going.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    79. Re:Wow by um...+Lucas · · Score: 1

      What so many fail to realize is that the Blue states are net exporters of Federal Tax dollars. We pay far more than $1 for every $1 of federal spending that comes back to our states. The Red states, on the other hand, suck off the teats of the blue states. You'll see no improvement, only even fewer tax dollars to support you than you already get.

    80. Re:Wow by um...+Lucas · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Canada is a bit too gold for many of us. But who knows, with a coal industry about to get revitalized, maybe Canada will take on more tropical temperatures in the coming years...

    81. Re:Wow by um...+Lucas · · Score: 1

      California sends far more money back up to the Federal Government than it gets back. It's the red states that are typically the subsidized ones, receiving back from the Federal Government far more than they pay into it.

      Damn pesky facts...

    82. Re: Wow by um...+Lucas · · Score: 1

      Except OP is speaking factually, and you're just making stuff up based on what you want to believe, which is 100% wrong. A little research might help you not be an idiot, not that it matters since you're just an anonymous coward...

    83. Re: Wow by um...+Lucas · · Score: 1

      You realize that you make a ton of money selling food to other states? Can you imagine what would happen to incomes in Nebraska if they only produced enough food for themselves?

    84. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's important to remember this debt because it shows that Social Security isn't the thing that will be spending more money than it should - everything else is.
      So when people talk about SS going bankrupt they should instead say that other parts of the government are about to default on their obligations.

    85. Re:Wow by um...+Lucas · · Score: 2

      The Tax Foundation only had 2005 numbers available when I bookmarked the page a month or two ago. And i know things have changed since then, but none of your links provide the full picture, so I"m going to post this one for some historical data:

      http://taxfoundation.org/artic...

      As of 2005, the States that paid more to the Federal Government than the spending they received in return were:

      New Jersey
      Nevada
      Connecticut
      New Hampshire
      Minnesota
      Illinois
      Delaware
      California
      New York
      Colorado
      Massachusetts
      Wisconsin
      Washington
      Michigan
      Oregon
      Texas
      and Florida

      Rhode Island was break even.

      The rest of the states, at that point, were the recipients of that taxation.

    86. Re: Wow by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 1

      Especially since everyone not rich or poor left California.

    87. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, without any water and with absurdly high tax brackets, I somehow don't think that business would stay in California. In addition to the fact that the US would rapidly become way more business friendly.

    88. Re: Wow by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You realize that you make a ton of money selling food to other states?

      You realize that Trump's stated immigration policy is going to make that impossible without a higher minimum wage, right? California already has food rotting in fields because we can't come up with enough labor to harvest it. We're not going to be able to feed the whole country simply because we won't have enough hands. We're going to have to cut back on those exports, especially if we have to cut back on our water consumption.

      Even doing so, we'll still be able to raise prices because we do frankly produce the best produce, and the rest of the nation will still want it. And you'll also pay just for access to our ports for your imports from other nations.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    89. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The coal industry isn't going to be revitalized so long as fracked Natural Gas is under $4/mmbtu. That war is over even without the Clean Power Plan (which is a Supreme Court mandate - if Trump undoes it, he has to replace it with something acceptable to the court).

    90. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nor would the US government even begin to allow one of the states to succeed from the union. That was established a long time ago by the confederate states, Texas, and Utah.

      Actually, there is a constitutional route for seceding from the union. If it was satisfied then the feds would have to allow it.

    91. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol 5 percent is going to replace the federal government?

    92. Re:Wow by pastafazou · · Score: 1

      Ya, I'm sure the companies of Silicon Valley would want to relocate to Ontario.
      And that article was written before another round of electricity rate hikes, and a carbon tax being introduced this year. Ontario used to be referred to as the economic engine of Canada. It's been so poorly managed it is now considered a "have not" province and receives payments from Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, and BC to prop it up.

    93. Re:Wow by ghoul · · Score: 2

      Silicon Valley may have hidden 2 trillion but that is out of 20 Trillion it has paid in as taxes during the last 10 years. California is large enough to be self sustaining. It is a large exporter of food so even if the Central valley farmers want to secede back California would still have food. Plus even though the Central Valley farmers vote Republican most of them are not white supremacists - heck there is a large population of Sikh farmers who migrated down from Canada before it was legal for non whites to become citizen (1965) and married latino women (who were here before California was in the US). They own most of the fruit orchards in Central Valley. These may be conservatives on issues of tax and welfare spending but they are not white supremacists. California vote was much more lopsidedly Democrat this election than in any other. So if the secession is about fighting racism they would stay.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    94. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since California wouldn't need to extend its military presence overseas, military costs would be a fraction of what the USA spends now.

      Uncle Sam has no choice - if an aggressor tried to occupy California, the USA would have to protect them, or that aggressor would be right at their doorstep.

      I don't think you know how military policies and politics interact - at all. The above two statements (assuming a California secession) are so ridiculous as to border on fantasy.

    95. Re: Wow by ghoul · · Score: 1

      California is a major exporter of food- it doesnt need Nebraska's food. It also has a large number of army bases. Any attempt to cutoff water would be considered an act of war followed by bombing of the dams trying to cutoff the water. Those other western states are also pretty liberal and economically entertwined with Califronia. They may just come with California.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    96. Re:Wow by ghoul · · Score: 1

      The times have changed. When Ireland wanted to leave the UK in the 19th century it led to war but when Scotland wanted leave UK in the 21st century it led to a referendum

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    97. Re:Wow by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Sure California will take the share of the National Debt as long as it also gets its share of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. They would mostly cancel

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    98. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      First, you overestimate how much food your produce. I live in Colorado and regularly look at where my produce comes from. Basically the food I eat, it's berries and grapes that come out of California, and that's only during the right time of the year. All of my vegetables, all of my cereal grains and probably a good half of my fruits, none of that is product of California. You're irreplaceable for basically almonds and avocados. That's it. Yeah, my berries would become a bit harder to come by as it would move to Washington, so early season might disappear, but oh well.

      Second, pull up a heat map of the political leanings of your state. I think you'll find that all that farm land isn't as likely to go along with your wacky plans as you might think. Turns out they may not have such a problem with Trump.

    99. Re: Wow by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      So is New York and you don't hear them crying in their beer.

    100. Re:Wow by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Like Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan....

    101. Re: Wow by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      LMOL tell that to all the other food producing state moron. How's that drought working out for you...

    102. Re:Wow by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      What tech? From a manufacturing stand point none of it is made here. Then of course most of the workers are H1B Visa holders or the work is outsourced. So not much of a jobs employer. And as for paying taxes, what taxes. Cupertino has been trying to get Apple to pay more in taxes to help pay for infrastructure costs.

      And without water, you aren't growing much.

      Move along Potsy.

    103. Re:Wow by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Vancouver has a lot of tech companies because of it's close to California. There's a lot of graphics work as a lot of movie and TV work goes on there. The big downside is the price of housing. And there is Montreal too which has more of a focus on gaming (building, not playing).

      I wouldn't say that we don't have any Trump-like entities. Currently we don't but there's a Trump-lite who might run for the Conservative Party leadership.

    104. Re:Wow by bmo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Back in the 90s and early 00s I used to go back and forth from Rhode Island to Toronto every weekend or every other weekend (and off to Bobcaygeon).

      I was envious of the prosperity across the border. American Exceptionalism became less exceptional.

      >more stringent ecological rules and laws
      >higher taxes
      >universal healthcare (OHIP).
      >whole corridor from Windsor to Oshawa more prosperous than anything with comparable population south of the border.

      Somehow it seems that there's been a bunch of lyin' by certain politicians over the decades.

      --
      BMO

    105. Re:Wow by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      It depends on how you count. If you include people who died due to things like starvation, disease and lack of medical care ( limited at the time as it was ) due to economic conditions created by the war, I have seen numbers estimated around 1.2 million. The 600K figure is people directly killed in the conflict.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    106. Re: Wow by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      tell that to all the other food producing state moron. How's that drought working out for you...

      About as well as that flooding has been working out for everyone else.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    107. Re: Wow by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      yes well a huge part of that is driven by things like imaginary property. Cali is also an agricultural powerhouse and does have a lot of natural resources but if Cali had to exist in isolation and cope with a neighbor that might decide it does not care so strongly about enforcement of Cali's IP rights suddenly SV might be a lot less valuable in terms of economic output.

      The numbers alone don't really tell the story.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    108. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, you're the poopypants!

    109. Re: Wow by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The water compact that already includes Mexico?

      Let us see how the rest of the US likes trading with the Pacific rim via the Panama canal, or paying a CA transit tariff.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    110. Re: Wow by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Also note the size of the CA economy. The western part of the US would be smart to watch themselves to avoid getting crushed.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    111. Re:Wow by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The SS trust fund hasn't had an operating surplus in about a decade.

      Money is, in fact, flowing the other way. Ink isn't dry.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    112. Re: Wow by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That's a relatively recent change.

      During the cold war bases were largely forward deployed and CA was a net taker. After the cold war ended, the CA bases were disproportionately closed because they were expensive and there were more of them.

      Ignoring the billions that CA took before it became a contributor isn't reasonable.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    113. Re:Wow by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The debt _is_ (largely) their share of the SS and medicare trust funds. Duh. There is nothing there debt.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    114. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love that.

      Liberal and willing to help until it's "our money", and those people don't agree with me, so they should go get fucked.

      The left and the right of this country are both awful in their own special way.

    115. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you do realize that the majority of the people growing that food are largely conservative, right? They won't want to secede because of Trump, but they probably would like to secede from Sacramento...

    116. Re:Wow by phorm · · Score: 2

      Move to BC. It's not quite California but the weather in southern BC is pretty decent. Osoyoos or Oliver might be a bit small but Penticton is right on a lake and could probably build up infrastructure fairly quickly.

    117. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!

    118. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the good of all of us.

      Except the ones who are dead...?

    119. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. except the ones who are dead.

    120. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually farm. You have zero idea of what you are talking about.

    121. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With global warming, the smart move is head to Canada now and beat the rush as it will have weather like California.

    122. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you so quickly forgotten about Emperor Harper?

    123. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Yes they do owe that money, thus why they ought to pay it upon leaving.
      2. The fed gives 32.4% more than what the state tax currently is in California. In order to make up for that shortfall, the state tax would need to increase by the same amount.
      3. Look at how well that childish attitude worked out for Georgia, Syria, Turkey, all of central America. Do you really think Trump would push to aid people that left the nation because of him?

      This is elementary math and reasoning. Do they have elementary schools where you live?

    124. Re:Wow by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point that we pay interest on the national debt. And after Obama more than doubled it (meaning we now owe more than twice what we owed from the cumulative debt of all presidents before him), that is a very significant part of the entire budget. Money that could go to other things but is simply paid as interest every year instead.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    125. Re:Wow by hawguy · · Score: 1

      1. Yes they do owe that money, thus why they ought to pay it upon leaving.

      Sure, I didn't say they shouldn't pay, but California would just sell bonds to cover it, so there's no real difference to CA residents, they still have the same debt they're just paying it through different bonds. The USA itself may be the largest purchaser of the bonds.

      2. The fed gives 32.4% more than what the state tax currently is in California. In order to make up for that shortfall, the state tax would need to increase by the same amount.

      But that would be offset by Californians owing no federal tax -- and since California is a net contributor of Federal tax, they'd see a reduction in tax rate. Even moreso because California wouldn't need to fund a global military, they need only fund local defense, so much of the military spending the budget would go away.

      3. Look at how well that childish attitude worked out for Georgia, Syria, Turkey, all of central America. Do you really think Trump would push to aid people that left the nation because of him?

      This is elementary math and reasoning. Do they have elementary schools where you live?

      None of those countries border the USA --- the USA is not going to let a foreign power take over California, regardless of whether California is part of the USA or not because that would give that foreign power a foothold in continental USA. Even ignoring the geography issue, California would be one of the USA's top trading partners, so it's in the USA's economic best interest to keep California from being taken over by an aggressor. Besides, the secession negotiations would include a mutual defense pact, since it would be in both countries best interests.

      While it's fun to talk about, a secession will never happen. Despite Trump's blustering, and even with republican senate and house control, it's exceptionally hard to make any broad governmental changes. Though I am a little worried about the Supreme Court.

    126. Re:Wow by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      For *you*. Everyone else gets to do what, exactly?

      They can do their own things. There are lots of things to do.
      At no point does one of those things become debased by making a profit, which is the assertion that you Mr A.C. made above.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    127. Re:Wow by Lanforod · · Score: 1

      Or the tech companies could move to Canada. The Ottawa valley as well as the Kitchener-Waterloo has a lot of tech startups as well as established companies who are well established. Both of the areas have well respected Canadian universities resident there so the is a good talent pool. And there is the Toronto/Mississauga area which offers the same. Canada has a lot to offer, no Trump-like entities in our political spectrum (thank God) so its something to think about. We would love to have you here, to be part of our sophisticated and affluent society. Just saying :)

      We the North :)

      You forgot about Mr. Wonderful.

    128. Re:Wow by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      We all know that these funds are about to go broke. If what you say was true then we wouldn't be paying out money to "service" the debt. As it is the money we spend on the debt is more than we pay for other programs such as education or scientific research. It isn't just a concept to be ignored, it is a real drain on the economy and it is a horrible drag on the economy. Google National Drebt yourself, what you find will have more impact on you than if you just read what I can type here. It will keep growing, but it can't keep growing forever. Unless something is done, very soon (likely in your lifetime) the debt will grow to the point that the money this country spend just to pay interest will exceed all of the taxes this country takes in each year. There will be no money for anything else and this country will basically fail. China and the other debtors will own everything, without firing a shot.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    129. Re:Wow by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Then you do not understand the debt. Social Security and Medicare funds are held in a separate trust . Both are currently positive though they are paying out more than they are getting so they are going down in value. The debt is govt bonds which the govt has issued as well as money it has borrowed from the SS trust and Medicare Trust (mostly under Raegan to pay for Star Wars). This money belongs to the Trust and needs to be paid back using taxes which pay into the general fund.
      If California leaves it will get its share of the SS&MC trust, will owe its share of the bonds and will owe its share of the money the Federal govt has borrowed from the Trust to the trust. In general it will either cancel or be an amount equal to around 30% of GDP. California can print California dollars or issue California Bonds to cover the same. As without having to pay Federal taxes California will be running a Surplus even bigger than the current one; this 30% debt along with another 20% state debt givinng a total of 50% (which is not high by the standards of sovereing nations ) will be paid down. It doesnt even need to be paid down as most sovereign nations carry a debt. Its a way of creating money supply when the economy slows down withdrawing money supply (by early repdemption of bonds) when the economy overheats. The debt is needed as a dampener on the boom and bust cycles natural to capitalism.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    130. Re: Wow by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I think these statistics are pretty overblown, according to USDA it is 1/3 of vegetables, not a 'majority'. Also I have not seen a clean breakout that includes Mexican imports.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    131. Re:Wow by ghoul · · Score: 1

      The key factor is debt relative to GDP. Even if your Debt is growing as long as your GDP is growing faster the Debt-GDP ratio is going down and it gets easier to service the debt. Under Obama the Debt has gone up very fast to pay for the financial rescue but the GDP has also grown so the Debt-GDP ratio is very manageable. And Obamas policies are beginning to payoff so under Trump (unless he does something stupid) the GDP is set to rocket and the debt will look like very trivial.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    132. Re: Wow by youngatheart · · Score: 2

      Said like a true better-than-though left wing social justice warrior... or a right-wing-religious nut. Whichever offends you more!

      Wait, you said "over there" like you're not from round dees parts. Whar ya from stranger? Ya sound like a gol durned foreigner an we don't take kindly to gol durned foreigners telling us how to live our lives!

      (On a more serious note, I'm amazed at how much people got twisted over this election. If there was ever a time to freely admit that you could understand why someone would oppose your own candidate, this was it!)

    133. Re: Wow by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      California is a NET CONTRIBUTOR to the federal government.

      For the typical /. reader, this means Californians pay more in federal taxes than they get back from the federal government.

      Somebody has to pay for the food stamps all those met addicted red state degenerates receive.

      Yes, California pays more taxes than they collect in tax dollars but most of the tax dollars goes to programs that California voted for so if you lost all the California tax dollars but were also able to eliminate half the government spending on idiotic things like (to use your example) providing food stamps to people on meth then we still come out ahead.

    134. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hard to grow food in CA without water.

      Enjoy!

    135. Re:Wow by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      California sends far more money back up to the Federal Government than it gets back. It's the red states that are typically the subsidized ones, receiving back from the Federal Government far more than they pay into it.

      Damn pesky facts...

      But that money is to fund programs created by California. If California goes and takes all their stupid welfare programs with them then we lose the California tax base but more than make up for it by the reduction in federal spending.

    136. Re:Wow by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Pay??? You do realize that California, along with almost every other democratic stronghold, contributes huge amounts of tax money to poorer states?

      I personally wouldn't mind to see my taxes support my own state, not some farmer in Nebraska.

      And so would all those farmers in Nebraska so why don't you liberals stop trying to force your one size fits all social programs down everyone else's throat.
      Let the state governments collect their own money to fund their own programs and have the federal government stop collecting money from the states and
      then giving it back to them. To name just one example, we don't need or want national health care, medicaid, or medicare. Let the states each decide how
      they want to handle taking care of their medical problems.

    137. Re:Wow by Sassinak · · Score: 1

      Yeah.. the US Government won't ever give up its most lucrative state.. (ditto with Texas or NY).. At least not without a major fight..

      --
      God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
    138. Re:Wow by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      nor would the US government even begin to allow one of the states to succeed from the union. That was established a long time ago by the confederate states, Texas, and Utah.

      The difference is that the rest of the country didn't want them to leave. Texas wouldn't be able to leave because both the democrats and the republicans would try to stop them. If California wanted to leave, the red states would likely jump on board and getting a 2/3 majority in the house would be easy. The red states want California to leave just as much if not more than California wants to leave. The senate would really be the only roadblock because California only gets 2 votes there and there are a lot of small blue states in the east that likely wouldn't want California to leave.

    139. Re: Wow by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      California pays more to the Federal government than it gets back (it's a "maker" state not a "taker" state), and the state has a surplus.

      This lose of revenue would more than be compensated for by the reduction in the size of the federal government once the red states could get rid of all the liberal programs and regulations they don't like.

    140. Re:Wow by frankenheinz · · Score: 1

      Actually the "Government" would never have a choice in the matter. Rather, a constitutional amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states would suffice. My thinking is that many states would like to see California gone because then they can be "Red As they Wanna Be" (tm)

      --
      The law is not an ass. No really.
    141. Re:Wow by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      California's federal aid goes towards programs required by the feds, but as those programs would end (or be selectively implemented if desired), their budgetary requirements would shift.

      Likewise for the rest of the country. If California left, the red states could terminate all those programs required by the federal government and likely make up any lost revenue from California leaving.

    142. Re:Wow by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      What so many fail to realize is that the Blue states are net exporters of Federal Tax dollars. We pay far more than $1 for every $1 of federal spending that comes back to our states. The Red states, on the other hand, suck off the teats of the blue states. You'll see no improvement, only even fewer tax dollars to support you than you already get.

      Sure you pay more that $1 for every $1 you receive but your stupid social programs and regulations probably cost us $2 for every dollar you give the federal government so in some ways you are a net taker. If you took your revenue and your laws with you, the net revenue of the rest of the USA would probably increase as they no longer had to fund a bunch of stupid liberal programs.

    143. Re:Wow by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      While it's fun to talk about, a secession will never happen. Despite Trump's blustering, and even with republican senate and house control, it's exceptionally hard to make any broad governmental changes. Though I am a little worried about the Supreme Court.

      It's not the republican senate that is the problem, it is the democrat senate. The republican house would love for california to leave. The republican house plus the democrats from California could easily get the 2/3s needed to start the process. The problem there is that california only has 2 votes in the senate and there are likely a lot of democrats in the small eastern states that would not want a large portion of their liberal voting block to leave.

    144. Re:Wow by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      How about Wow, a double win! I'm all for it, as long as they take their share of the national debt with them.

      Since California gives more to the Federal government in taxes than they get back in benefits, you could say that their "share of the national debt" is negative. We would owe them a rebate, in fact.

      That's only if you look at money flow not who voted to spend the money where. The programs and regulations voted on by california contributed greatly to the national debt.

    145. Re:Wow by hawguy · · Score: 1

      While it's fun to talk about, a secession will never happen. Despite Trump's blustering, and even with republican senate and house control, it's exceptionally hard to make any broad governmental changes. Though I am a little worried about the Supreme Court.

      It's not the republican senate that is the problem, it is the democrat senate. The republican house would love for california to leave. The republican house plus the democrats from California could easily get the 2/3s needed to start the process. The problem there is that california only has 2 votes in the senate and there are likely a lot of democrats in the small eastern states that would not want a large portion of their liberal voting block to leave.

      Ahh, sorry, I wasn't clear in that last comment -- I didn't mean I was worried that the US Government wouldn't let California secede (well, they wouldn't), but rather I meant that despite the doom and gloom, Trump is not going to destroy the country, he doesn't have that much power. So California would have no reason to secede.

    146. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shh. Don't tell anyone that our 2016 growing season up here in Minnesota is 1) still active, 2) rivals that typical of north Texas. On top of that, it never once got hot this year !

    147. Re:Wow by vovin · · Score: 1

      Which economically would be massive windfall to both the government coffers and the economy as a whole.

      I for one would love to see the US tax policy be competitive with countries like Hong Kong and Singapore combined with incentives for R&D and domestic manufacturing would be great for the US. It would decimate Europe and the UK as well as chunks of Singapore. Some of Hong Kong's export centric companies would survive but the investment centric services would certainly feel the pinch.

    148. Re: Wow by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Well, party's over for you.

      Why do you think that?

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    149. Re:Wow by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      That's only if you look at money flow not who voted to spend the money where. The programs and regulations voted on by california contributed greatly to the national debt.

      That's a strange way to look at it. Bottom line: Even with the "programs and regulations", California is a net contributor to Federal coffers. That means they don't contribute to the debt. Also, California has the same number of senators as Texas, Oklahoma, and all the Southeastern states where they don't wear shoes. They're no more responsible for "programs and regulations" than any other state.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    150. Re:Wow by rmckeethen · · Score: 1

      CA wouldn't know how to survive without tax welfare.

      You're kidding, right? California is no where near the top when talking about how much the state sends in tax dollars versus how much it receives from the federal government.

    151. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're 100% wrong on that one. California produces 11% of the country's _total_ produce, but has 12% of the country's people. 80% of the country lives off the kinds of produce NOT produced by California.

      Besides, when the water is cut off, you won't be growing anything but weeds. When the other states claim their water back, they'd have more than enough space and resources to fill in the gaps. I can do without almonds for a while. There's also the entire lack of military support you'd have.

    152. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please do. Fuck off California

    153. Re:Wow by rmckeethen · · Score: 1

      Calexit? Over your dead body. Its time we break the sillycons and take their assets until their tax bill is paid in full.

      Apple's tax bill is paid in full, the same as president-elect Trump's. The evidence clearly indicates both Silicon Valley, and our next president, took liberal advantage of a deeply flawed tax system to avoid paying many millions in taxes.

      Please -- feel free to break Mr. Trump, and take his assets too. I bet though, in four years from now when everything is said and done, that neither the Donald or Apple will end up paying any more in taxes than they are now.

    154. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      11% isn't a majority, dude.

    155. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moving to a country because of the tax-rate??? Companies would never do that. Certainly not the ultra pure, angelic liberal Silicon Valley companies that would be leaving "because of Trump."

    156. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. I've read some stupid shit on here, but that takes the cake. Don't even know where to start. The military bases would be empty on Day 1 of your New California.... And once you did build a military, if absolutely LOVE to see it bomb a state still part of the US. That would be more fun than watching Van Jones' head explode on election night.

    157. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a safe bet that your (or your neighboring) state's economy is far better than that of California. Wait... Yeah... Hmm? Yeah my statement is right. Wait but uhh... I thought California was... Yeah, my statement is right so California go away.

      I'm m in California, can you put in a good word for us to your congressmen and your neighboring states' congressmen to vote yes when we try to leave.

    158. Re: Wow by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      When the science gets done we can make a neat gun, for the people who are still alive.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    159. Re:Wow by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The interest rate on the debt is currently manipulated by the federal reserve. Who buys all the 'extra'* bonds at every auction. Sure we're 'servicing the debt', by rolling it into new 0% bonds. Chumps are starting to stop buying the bonds, other are only buying them for political reasons.

      * extra bonds being defined as any bond that was going to cost more than 0% (-2%+- after inflation).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    160. Re:Wow by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Q: What would happen to a private insurance company that tried to hold company bonds as reserves for a pension plan?

      A: They would be shut down and the corporate officers in prison. Not arms length transaction. Not prudent investment. Horrible risk management.

      Once US bonds get derated, the lie will be even more open. But the above points are already enough to jail the SS trustees, were they not holding the cops reins.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    161. Re:Wow by SivDotnet · · Score: 1

      I think the people of California should go and live in China and see what their undemocratic views really end up becoming.

      The rest of their country voted Trump in and that was a democratic decision by the people of the US. Part of living in a democracy is to gracefully accept when the majority of your fellow citizens disagree with you that you must happily abide by that decision.

      Certainly you have a right to protest when clearly what Trump is doing is seen to actually be bad, I would defend that, but the guy isn't even in office yet.

      To start calling for California to leave the US is just being childish and a spoilt brat, what is up with people nowadays. We are having the same thing here in the UK where the spoilt brats in London can't accept that they and their peers elsewhere in the country were offered a vote to leave the EU, and the vast majority of us did and are now trying to undo it because they think their minority view is more important than the rest of us.... F U C K O F F !!!

      --
      Martley, Near Worcester UK.
    162. Re: Wow by DEN_GUY · · Score: 1

      Can they make water? Because they get from Arizona.

    163. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will someone please let me know when America is great again?

    164. Re:Wow by MercTech · · Score: 1

      Actually, the issue of secession being constitutional was never settled. The issue was selectively ignored after Andrew Johnson invited all the Supreme Court justices to dinner and broached the subject of prosecuting leaders of the rebellion.

      --
      NRRPT/RCT
    165. Re:Wow by drsquare · · Score: 1

      SV wouldn't even exist without decades of huge government military spending. By rights, the US tax payer should own most of those tech companies as they created their products.

    166. Re:Wow by drsquare · · Score: 1

      You are aware that outside of the US, most of California's big industries wouldn't exist? No Hollywood, no aerospace, no silicon valley, no rich countries to sell their agricultural produce to. California only contributes more to the treasury because SV gets to use US military technology for free. US taxpayers all over the country spent tens of billions making things like the Internet and GPS, some nerds in turtleneck sweaters come along and put them in a shiny box, then declare themselves wealth creators.

    167. Re:Wow by drsquare · · Score: 1

      California wouldn't have a tech industry outside of the US. The vast majority of the most valuable technology used in Silicon Valley was created by the US military. Unless you think an independent California is going to create its own GPS to use on those shiny phones? And outside of the US, who are they going to sell that agricultural produce to? Rich countries and trade blocs put import tariffs on agriculture to protect their own food security. Oh, and now you're doing it without water from other states. And no US border force to protect you from the drug cartels.

    168. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no Trump-like entities in our political spectrum

      I think you've forgotten about a certain recent Mayor of Toronto...

  2. this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a little dramatic.

    1. Re:this is by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Reminds me of a 3 year old throwing a tantrum because they didn't get a toy they wanted in Walmart.

    2. Re:this is by jdunn14 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pretty similar. Also similar to tantrums thrown by the other side 4 and 8 years ago and again 12 years ago on the dem side. There be drama queens everywhere. My favorite was probably anti-Obamacare threats to move to Canada. Someone didn't think that one through.

    3. Re:this is by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My favorite was probably anti-Obamacare threats to move to Canada. Someone didn't think that one through.

      If a push comes to a shove, I would move to Australia. The Aussie women are so hot.

    4. Re:this is by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Talk is cheap.

      They likely won't take you though. Not as tough as Canada to get into but still no cakewalk. They control their borders and criticize others who want to do the same.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Exactly. Tantrums from California are expected.

    6. Re:this is by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

      That's what they say on Planet Texas, where everything is YUUGE!

    7. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My favorite was probably anti-Obamacare threats to move to Canada. Someone didn't think that one through.

      If a push comes to a shove, I would move to Australia. The Aussie women are so hot.

      As a co-worker from Australia said during the last election when someone said they would move their "good luck getting in, immigration is far more controlled where I came from."

    8. Re:this is by s.petry · · Score: 1, Troll

      Self promotion, but I published this a bit ago.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    9. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You nailed it. There is nothing patriotic about "I don't like this president so I am leaving the nation."

      Anyway, the US Supreme court has ruled that states do not have the right to secede. There was a war fought over that once, in fact.

      If anyone in California thinks they can just pass a bill and poof, they are no longer part of the USA, they have another think coming!

    10. Re: this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the videos where the parents take the Halloween candy

    11. Re: this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trump took a lot of shit for suggesting he might not accept the outcome of the election if he had lost. I don't think threatening to secede is much different. I hope that Trump meant legal challenges to the voting in some states, as Democrats did in 2000, to ensure that all ballots were counted properly. However, threatening to secede cannot be misinterpreted as a reasonable legal challenge to ensure that all votes are counted properly.

    12. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My favorite was probably anti-Obamacare threats to move to Canada. Someone didn't think that one through.

      If a push comes to a shove, I would move to Australia. The Aussie women are so hot.

      I'm thinking Japan. I've got ready employment there. It's a nice place (I've been there enough to know). Only 2000 more Kanji characters and a ton of vocabulary to learn then I can pass the language tests.

    13. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My favorite was probably anti-Obamacare threats to move to Canada. Someone didn't think that one through.

      If a push comes to a shove, I would move to Australia. The Aussie women are so hot.

      No, move to Canada, they are hotter and nicer.

    14. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You nailed it. There is nothing patriotic about "I don't like this president so I am leaving the nation."

      At a personal level I don't give a shit about patriotism. If human rights start slipping in the way people expect from the new government, I will use my privilege to move somewhere where such rights are understood and respected. This isn't idle talk, I've done it once before. The new government might surprise me, but they might well not.

      Patriotism is simply stupid. Work to have a nice country. But countries are bigger than individuals, and it's correct to protect yourself and your family when push comes to shove.

    15. Re:this is by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can come here mate, just don't come by boat.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    16. Re:this is by Yvan256 · · Score: 2

      You should move to Binaryland, they only have two characters to learn.

    17. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of a 3 year old throwing a tantrum because they didn't get a toy they wanted in Walmart.

      I was going to say Donald Trump, our president-elect, but hey we're both right.

    18. Re:this is by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sorry to burst your bubble but our right wing government headed by Turnbull isn't that much of an improvement on Trump, with lefties threatening to move to Trudeau-land.

      I would have thought Chile would be natural choice for Californians - Spanish speaking, a long Pacific coastline, centre-left government with a woman president and even earthquakes. And no need to build a wall, there's a mountain range. (just kidding, Argentina!)

    19. Re: this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What place is that you are going to move to? Check the emmigration laws for that area first (I doubt they are easier then the US has). You must not be a minority and have never traveled outside the US. If you did it was probably in a big city tourist area.

    20. Re:this is by YukariHirai · · Score: 1

      As a co-worker from Australia said during the last election when someone said they would move their "good luck getting in, immigration is far more controlled where I came from."

      And actually traditionally more racist than US immigration, too.

    21. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And not at all "stuff that matters".

    22. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bull, its easier to move to Canada than Australia. Australia is much more restrictive when it comes to immigration. Check your facts.

    23. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they stopped only accepting criminals a while ago?

    24. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Shervin Pishevar is also as disconnected from reality and the norms of human behavior as anyone I've worked with in the Bay Area IMHO. I saw him in action, when he was briefly an executive at a former employer. He got whisked in by the Chair and put in charge of something. He'd meet some random person, and then decide we had to hire them. He didn't even understand that the other people in the team should actually have a chance to interview such a person. He thought he could just point to people, and they would be hired. He's like the Gene Simmons of tech, but without the mediocre bass playing or sexual conquests.

    25. Re:this is by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

      Switzerland wants you to bring wheelbarrows of money. Maybe in 20 yrs they'll consider giving you an application for citizenship.

    26. Re:this is by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I would move to Australia. The Aussie women are so hot.

      You're an air conditioning installer?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    27. Re:this is by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      How do they criticize countries that control their borders? Everything I've seen is them pushing tighter border control on others

    28. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a little dramatic.

      That's California for you.
      They don't have cows, rodeos, they wouldn't know where to start to cook a medium rare sirloin steak but man they do have drama queens.

    29. Re:this is by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Same thing.
      Back when Obama came president those liberals laughed at those crazy republicans who got all panicky because the democrat party took over.

      In short we seem to put trust in the party you stand behind and distrust the other.
      So when your party looses you fear a bunch of bad things jump to assumptions about the other party even if it wasn't stated or really isn't some sort of priority to that party.

      Ok your party loss. You feel let down and let down by your fellow citizens. However we can't just have a temper tantrum. We need to find a way to work with the current party to make sure parts of your agenda are implemented. And stay vigilant to make sure that party doesn't start stepping over your rights.
      Because both Democrat and Republican policies do tend to want to step on some of our rights for what they may think is the greater good.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    30. Re:this is by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Well Trump-Care health plan may cover plastic surgery.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    31. Re:this is by pmontra · · Score: 1

      The difference is that CA would not be a 3 year old out in the cold but one the first 10 economies of the world. Take something off that figure because of the negative network effects of leaving such a large market, but it won't be that bad.

      However that should happen in a friendly way, at least because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      And this leads to the most important fact: do the USA have a procedure to secede, like UE's famous article 50? Last time somebody wanted to leave they had to fight for it and it didn't went well for both parties, right? All I found is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    32. Re:this is by silentcoder · · Score: 1, Troll

      >Back when Obama came president those liberals laughed at those crazy republicans who got all panicky because the democrat party took over.

      That's because all the reasons for that panic were made up. He was not a Muslim, he was not born in another country, he was not a communist, he was not a socialist, he didn't take anybody's guns away.

      Where-as all the reasons for THIS panic is based on what the candidate ACTUALLY SAID - not what one particular news channel claimed he thinks, even though he doesn't say it.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    33. Re:this is by silentcoder · · Score: 0

      This isn't like past elections. There have always been people threatening to leave if X wins - but almost none of them ever did. This time the Canadian immigration website fucking crashed under load !
      Why would this lot suddenly seem to apparently be SERIOUS about it ?

      Because none of those past presidents were elected on a platform that actually threatened anybody's actual life and physical wellbeing, which now has happened. The Trump supporters won't NEED Trump to deport lots of Muslims, Jews and Black people to get many of them out of the country - they are running - because only an idiot wouldn't.
      When the people at the new president's victory party are chanting "We hate Jews, We hate Blacks, we will take out country back" - you fucking run.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    34. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you won't. We have a good national health care system and no guns and we like it like that.

    35. Re:this is by 1u3hr · · Score: 0

      "And actually traditionally more racist than US immigration, too."

      Traditionally, the US only let blacks in in chains.

    36. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Aussie women are so hot."

      Yeah, but will they let you grab their pussies?

    37. Re:this is by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      With respect to both you and the GP, there's a world of difference between saying you want to leave because a peaceful, respectful of democracy, political opponent is elected, and because someone who promotes violence against his opponents is elected. If Trump is telling the truth about who he is, and if Congress and the Courts are unable to keep him under control, then we're in for four years of the most horrific government the US has ever seen, and might be about to see the end of this nation.

      I'm not advocating a Californian withdrawal, I think that'll make things worse, but this isn't a "both sides" thing: people who said they'd leave if Bush or Obama got into office were hyperbolic idiots. People saying much the same thing about Trump are fearing something that should be feared.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    38. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No the panic is based on lies about what he said. He said we need to enforce the border. He said we should stop immigration of individuals of a certain faith from certain areas of the world until we can better determine if they are trying to come here to cause us harm or not.

      Most of what the left claims he said is nothing but a deliberate twisting of what he actually said by the media.

    39. Re:this is by dwillden · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nowhere did Trump ever call for deporting Muslims, Jews or Blacks or even legal Latino immigrants. Nor did he ever call for harming anyone. He called for the deportation of illegal immigrants (regardless of race or ethnicity) and he called for a halt to immigration of Muslims from certain nations until we can better determine their reason for wanting to come to this country. If to live peacefully that is fine. If to cause harm then we want to stop them.

      And I have yet to see the footage of such racist chants as you are falsely claiming occurred at the victory party.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    40. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, This is a stupid idea. A really stupid idea. Suppose it can't be stopped then.

    41. Re:this is by Clsid · · Score: 1

      Not everybody has a leech mentality. Other people are actually trying to make a prosperous community where they live and that does not involve leaving at the first sign of trouble.

    42. Re:this is by silentcoder · · Score: 1, Troll

      Being told you have to register in a special database and carry special ID is calling for harm to you. Even so, regardless - that is what (a lot of) his supporters think he said - that's why they are going around harassing people. Telling black people to "go back to Africa" etc.

      Trump may not have said those things outright, but you bet your fucking ass it's what most of his voters heard.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    43. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is about pay-to-play politics being taken away. I don't really believe this is about a crooked liar not being elected like they wanted.

    44. Re:this is by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      And don't forget the great wine.

    45. Re:this is by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      nah, he just fixes the cable.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    46. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to what Trump would have done if he hadn't won?

    47. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now you know why the GUI of gmail and all of those products looks so childish

      children do it

    48. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like Chile, but from what I've read the politics in Chile are practiced "knives-out" and are worse than here in the United States.

    49. Re:this is by Mr.+Droopy+Drawers · · Score: 2

      Citation for the registration requirement, please.

      --

      To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.

    50. Re:this is by imadeyoureadpoop · · Score: 1

      Can confirm. Whatever you do, don't claim refugee status.

      --
      Hanlon's Razor -- Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
    51. Re:this is by imadeyoureadpoop · · Score: 1

      It wasn't called the White Australia policy for no particular reason.

      --
      Hanlon's Razor -- Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
    52. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, there is no worse thing than seeing thousands of immigrants fleeing a country and leaving it in even more chaos due to their escape.
      Over 7.5 million Syrians left Syria. Let's say 3 million are male and say on a stretch that 1 million are capable of fighting.
      Napoleon steamrolled through whole of Europe with an army motivated by nothing except the name of a man above them, which at the apex had 600k soldiers.
      Syrians who escape have bigger willpower and resolve if they are capable of making themselves cross over a thousand miles and even resolved themselves to risk death crossing the Mediterranean, and there are far more of them than Napoleon's army, and they are all organized to escape together.
      If all of this resolve and organization and willpower was focused on fighting ISIS/ISIL instead of escaping, the pitiful and pathetic numbers of those terrorists would be squashed within a month or so. There would be many casualties on the Syrian side, yes, but the war would be 10 times quicker, the destruction of infrastructure reduced, the long-term psychological effects on society vastly reduced, ISIS/ISIL would be swarmed and destroyed.

      However cowardice prevailed, Syrians are more busy escaping than fighting, Syria is in turmoil because the people that are supposed to fight are retreating.

    53. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Australia, women grab you by the pussy!

    54. Re:this is by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      This just shows us how much disdain they have for the United States. It almost seems like they are crying that all the millions in planning and conniving to show just how ignorant they really are.

      WAKE UP !!!!!! The United States is nothing like you.

      Good riddance! I lost hope in the San Andreas opening up anytime in the near future anyway.

    55. Re: this is by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      4 seperate Trump speeches. How the fuck can you doubt this.
      Its amazing how the source for every bad thing about Trump dismissed as smears by his followers is Donald Trump himself. But then they all believe he was the target of an assasination attempt as well... and like most things they believe it never happened.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    56. Re:this is by khallow · · Score: 1

      To be fair, there is no worse thing than seeing thousands of immigrants fleeing a country and leaving it in even more chaos due to their escape.

      I can think of plenty worse than that.

      If all of this resolve and organization and willpower was focused on fighting ISIS/ISIL

      Imagine all that manpower staying and fighting for ISIS. The good guys don't always win.

    57. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You've drawn the line wrong.

      Comparatively speaking, Australia's right wing politicians are left of the Democrats in the USA.

    58. Re:this is by deathguppie · · Score: 5, Informative

      he did suggest that all Muslims be registered on a database and carry special ID cards like Jews in WW2 Europe.

      --
      once more into the breach
    59. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trump is a bigot, plain and simple. I can think of a few instances off the top of my head. I know there are many more (on record).

      1. He did call for a ban on ALL Muslims entering the USA. Of course this causes angst among Muslims who already live in the USA.. Later on, he added the "certain nations" part.

      2. In the Trump University case, He didn't believe the judge would be fair, because he is of Mexican decent. That is blatantly racist.

      3. His "look at my African American over there" comment while at a rally....is simply racist.

      Not to mention that his running mate, Pence, is one of the most anti-LGBT politicians in the USA.

      So, of course, all blacks, Hispanics, Muslims and LGBT people are scared of a Trump - Pence presidency.

    60. Re:this is by msauve · · Score: 1

      Shervin Pishevar is a naturalized US citizen, born in Iran. If he no longer wants to be associated with the US, his path is obvious.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    61. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look, another shill Republican yapping away. You know what this reminds me of? South Carolina wanting to secede from the Union when Obama was elected in 2008.

    62. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many conservatives hit the streets and started setting stuff on fire in 08 and 12?

    63. Re: this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pure nonsense. And doubling down on regarding Trump voters as hateful, bigoted racists is an absolute refusal to confront where you got it all wrong.

    64. Re:this is by clifwlkr · · Score: 0, Troll

      2. In the Trump University case, He didn't believe the judge would be fair, because he is of Mexican decent. That is blatantly racist.

      3. His "look at my African American over there" comment while at a rally....is simply racist.

      Since when is 'Mexican' a race? Who is the racist now?

    65. Re:this is by thunderclees · · Score: 1

      The Canadians seem to be able to make theirs work as opposed to Obamacare which has turned into another Medicare.

    66. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Listen asshole, dissent is at the very heart of what it means to be an American, and 'dissent' doesn't just mean moving your lips to say "I disagree". This is DISSENT whether you think it's 'dramatic' or 'a tantrum' or not. Scoffing and ridiculing someone for an act of dissent makes me wonder more if you're actually an American citizen or not (foreign national agent, maybe? Astroturfing?) or if you understand even the basics of what this country is about. Know where there is no dissent, protesting, or criticizing of the government? Authoritarian dictatorships, and shitty countries like China, Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Russia, to name a few.

    67. Re:this is by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a 3 year old throwing a tantrum because they didn't get a toy they wanted in Walmart.

      I was going to say Hillary Clinton , but hey we're both right.

      FTFY

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    68. Re: this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the very embodiment of the left now. You tolerate/accept us, our victories, whatever. We on the other hand will not behave equally. They also justify it with the paradox of tolerance. So yes, while it is mentally painful for me -- Trump not accepting the outcome is bad but Hillary/followers not accepting it is good and there is no conflict between those ideas. Practice it if you have to.

    69. Re:this is by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A lot of people criticise Australia for having an inhumane immigration policy.

      Like many countries, they are unable to deal with the problem at source for political reasons, and unwilling to deal with it domestically for political reasons, so end up doing something awful instead.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    70. Re:this is by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      It is dramatic, but it's not necessarily a bad idea. It could be better for everyone -- both Americans and the rest of the world -- if the USA splits into several smaller friendly nations with free trade agreements who relate to each other much like the USA relates to Canada now. Disparate interests would be better represented. The south could outlaw abortion and institute school prayer and Christian values to their heart's content, California could outlaw guns, Texas could eliminate all pesky regulations, etc.

      The one big problem is that states are not a unified mass. California may hate Trump, but my county in California voted 51-39 for Trump... and is attempting to succeed from California to create the state of Jefferson. A clean split without Balkanization would be difficult to achieve.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    71. Re:this is by randallman · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.politifact.com/trut...

      "After going through all of his comments from this past weekend, it seems that Trump definitely wants a database of Syrian refugees, and he hasn’t ruled out the possibility of a database for all Muslims -- though he isn’t actively calling for the latter. And we’ll warn you now that many of Trump’s comments strike us as contradictory or confusing."

      The last line pretty much sums up Trump's "stances" - contradictory or confusing.

    72. Re:this is by GNious · · Score: 1

      Didn't people in Texas claim to want to do the same when Obama was elected?

    73. Re:this is by HumanWiki · · Score: 1

      As a native Texan, I'm loving the humor involved with this... I can't WAIT to break this out the next time my home state threatens to take their ball and leave and gets laughed at for it.

    74. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a 3 year old throwing a tantrum because they didn't get a toy they wanted in Walmart.

      Reminds me of people in Texas saying the same thing when Obama was elected.

    75. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, Trump doesn't have as much power as you are dramatizing him to have. You can chalk that up to your own ignorance of the American governing system and your lack of basic civics education. Take a book and read it.
      Second of all, Trump was always impact-full with his words with focus on them unnerving as many people as possible just so his name sticks and he gets free marketing. There are many things Trump said that he never did, yet we seem to accept negatives as truth and positives as lies. It's precisely negativity that brings the best marketing.
      Third of all, the USA is too divided and too wary and tired of war in order for Trump to pull any of that fear and death shit you are pulling from watching too much Hollywood as of late which for some reason is obsessed with wiping out whole cities in their movies.
      Fourth and final, compared to Trump who is all bark and no bite, Hillary has a history of supporting all the policies of Bush Jr. that are pro-war, anti-encryption, pro-surveillance, and her inflamed speeches about USA having to defend Europe from Russia as if Europe today can be compared to the disorganized and completely destroyed Europe after WW2 or Russia today to the Soviet menace at the same time, is much more likely to pose a danger of fear than anything Trump can do since it destabilizes relations that are already dangerous with Russia and other countries.
      The fact that the same idiots who criticize Trump for easing relations with America's enemies just because the prefer aggressive and unstable relations because "they are enemies", are now acting as if Trump is going to lead to WW3, only shows that the same mentality you have now outlined is insane by itself to say the least. This cognitive dissonance astounds me.

      Trump may fuck up many things, or he may even fix some things if someone allows him as his opposition even asks for (and they certainly understand Trump more than you do, some panic spreading nobody on Slashdot, since that's their job),
      but to think that he is to be feared can only be regarded as both social and political ignorance.

    76. Re:this is by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The problem stems from the mass media unilaterally deciding to drop the term "illegal immigrant" for the PC term "undocumented immigrant". That created confusion among viewers (particularly those with short attention spans) who then leapt to the conclusion that everything Trump was saying about illegal immigrants, he actually meant about all immigrants. I admit I'm rather cynical when it comes to PC stuff (what next, bank robbery being called an unauthorized withdrawl?), but I suspect this was actually the intent of the change in terms - to muddle the illegal immigrant issue by confusing the distinction between immigrants in the country legally vs illegally.

    77. Re:this is by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Might want to double-check what actually occurred according to reviews of the video, rather than accept some reporter's interpretation of it.

    78. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But only to beautiful people. Ugly people will be deported to Mexico.

    79. Re:this is by painandgreed · · Score: 2

      Citation for the registration requirement, please.

      Is this what you're looking for? Here's the NY Times

    80. Re:this is by Anonymous+Coward+912 · · Score: 1

      "Talk is cheap" is true on many levels. You rarely have to worry about the guy who is yelling at you. He just wants to yell. It is the guy approaching you who isn't saying anything that warrants your attention. He's the one who will actually throw a punch.

      I'll start worrying about a state seceding the moment they stop talking about it and start doing something.

    81. Re:this is by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Moving to Canada took too much effort. Easier to put someone in who would take the ACA out.

    82. Re:this is by losfromla · · Score: 1

      So you're saying we have nothing to fear from these refugees? Sounds like we should let them all in, they'd probably make good software developers as they would easily be made to work long hours without complaining due to being so meek by nature.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    83. Re:this is by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      "Hispanic" being an ethnicity rather than a race makes for annoying conversations. You know what he meant.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    84. Re:this is by losfromla · · Score: 1

      I sort of agree with you but am still supporting the secession of The Republic of California. We benefit not much from the union and are significantly underrepresented. We should have eight senators, at least and should have first vote in all things, because we have more people and more money and produce most of the food.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    85. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which was later retracted that after he presumably understood how bad of an idea that is. And no it wasn't like the Jew thing at all, the similarity is very superficial.

    86. Re:this is by losfromla · · Score: 1

      This was because Obama came in all meek and seeking appeasement rather than guns blazing putting buckshot in people's asses like Bush (the chimp) would have. Had Obama come from a position of strength and willing to shut it all down (the government) if he didn't get his way then it wouldn't have become a giveaway/entitlement to the hospital and pharmaceutical industries. Single payer is what he should have fought to the death for and should have won it.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    87. Re:this is by TangoMargarine · · Score: 2

      If somebody pulls out patriotism as the first reason to do something, I assume it's because they can't come up with any actual reasons.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    88. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the minor inconvenience of Clinton winning the popular vote.

      So actually the United States *IS* like them. Or at least more like them than like you.

    89. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Aussie women are so hot.

      And when you’re an American, they let you do it, you can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

      Trump 2020.

    90. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and he called for a halt to immigration of Muslims from certain nations

      On multiple occasions he said he would halt Muslim immigration without reference to limiting it to certain countries etc. He's won, you don't have to keep peddle bullshit to muddy the water anymore.

    91. Re:this is by Miamicoastguard · · Score: 0

      As long as you can keep them from talking.

    92. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because none of those past presidents were elected on a platform that actually threatened anybody's actual life and physical wellbeing, which now has happened.

      Wait, I'm sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on this. And I voted for Clinton, and I'm disappointed that Trump won.

      What SPECIFIC parts of Trump's platform "threatened anybody's actual life and physical well-being"?

      When the people at the new president's victory party are chanting "We hate Jews, We hate Blacks, we will take out country back" - you fucking run

      Neither your purple prose, nor your apparent inability to fact-check your sources, or even quote correctly, does your case any favors.

      The chant was actually purported to go, "We hate Muslims, we hate Blacks, we want our great country back." And, of course, since somebody reported it on Twitter, it must be true, right?

      Look, there's a great many things to dislike about our new President-elect and his policies, and a lot of things he intends to do that I will oppose as strongly as I'm able to do so. But making false and unsubstantiated claims to your little clique of liberal friends as some sort of shorthand for "I don't like Donald Trump" in some sort of bizarre attempt at self-consoling and telling yourselves that you're smarter and better than everybody else is *exactly* why Clinton lost this fucking election. She under-performend President Obama among minorities. She took her white working-class vote (the so-called 'uneducated whites' who flocked to Trump across the Rust Belt) for granted. And she got shellacked for her trouble. Keep behaving like this, and you'll simply guarantee a repeat of the same in 2020.

      The people who supported Trump are not, by and large, "evil" people. Nor are they "stupid" people. They are struggling, they have been taken for granted, and when they listened for someone who was talking to them, about their problems - it was Trump telling them he'd bring back the manufacturing jobs, and fix their failing infrastructure, and lower their taxes, and pay attention to THEIR problems, too.

      Please, go read this article and think about it for a few minutes. It's a brilliant piece of writing, and if you really think about it, you'll see some absolutely fantastic points that explain a major part of Trump's appeal. (Spoiler alert: it has very little to do with "we hate blacks and muslims.") Here's an excerpt:

      Hey, remember when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? Kind of weird that a big hurricane hundreds of miles across managed to snipe one specific city and avoid everything else. To watch the news (or the multiple movies and TV shows about it), you'd barely hear about how the storm utterly steamrolled rural Mississippi, killing 238 people and doing an astounding $125 billion in damage.

      But who cares about those people, right? What's newsworthy about a bunch of toothless hillbillies crying over a flattened trailer? New Orleans is culturally important. It matters.

      To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites. "Are you assholes listening now?"

      The Democrats USED to also care about the poor and working class white people (see: Appalachian Regional Development Act, and their consistent support from unions over the years), but they've been taking them for granted for years now. What we saw on Tuesday was a middle finger from those people to the candidate and the party that simply assumed that "Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania are solidly blue, there's no need to do much campaigning there."

    93. Re:this is by suutar · · Score: 2

      That would seem to be implied by the existence of the special ID; the ID isn't useful if there's no record of it, is it?

    94. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has been a movement in texas for secession for years. Likely alot more people in Texas were crying and threatening secession if Clinton won than are threatening secession in California.

    95. Re: this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially since 33% of Californians voted for Trump.

    96. Re:this is by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Only 50 years out of date. Nice one.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    97. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This, and the douche-bag gene.

    98. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not because he was of "Mexican decent" (sic, did you mean descent?), but because he's a card-carrying member of La Raza and Mecha and some other violent racist reconquista groups. But you wouldn't know that because CBS told you "He hatez duh mexicuns"

      Get it yet?

    99. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What he meant was the judge was a supporter of La Raza. THAT'S why the judge was biased.

      Just "being Mexican" wasn't the main issue.

    100. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BULLSHIT. Yahoo News Suggested it, not Donald Trump. Trump ignored the ridiculous statement and commented on increasing procedures to protect American lives. No he won't sit, roll over, play dead, and respond like a puppet to every ridiculous thing Yahoo News throws out. He stayed on message.

    101. Re:this is by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      "Borders"? You mean, hundreds of miles of ocean?

    102. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the minor inconvenience of Clinton winning the popular vote.

      Which only means that she was *very* popular in the heavily-populated cities that did vote for her. If there was no electoral college, nobody would ever campaign outside of urban areas, because the population density of more rural areas wouldn't justify the small number of votes you could get from them, compared to the urban areas with millions of people.

      In other words - campaigning would happen up and down the eastern and western seaboards, and a few select cities in the midwest, and fuck everywhere else.

      If you don't see the problem with this arrangement, which would essentially disenfranchise more than half the country, then you are unqualified to hold an opinion on American electoral processes.

      So actually the United States *IS* like them. Or at least more like them than like you.

      By a few tenths of a percent? You're splitting hairs. It's not like Hillary got 75 million votes, and Donald got 4 million votes, but somehow still won the presidency. We are a collection of states, and the constitution - which, on the one hand, you seem very concerned about Donald Trump violating, but on the other hand, you seem to have no hesitation about suggesting we tear up entirely because your team didn't win because it got lazy and complacent - enshrines this concept by explicitly doing away with direct democratic elections at the federal level.

    103. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Progressives are furiously revising history in an effort to disarm your satire.

    104. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that in the past when a D won there was talk of Texas doing a secession for a second time. Agreed that this is in the nature of a tantrum.

    105. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually from 1940 until 1981 all aliens were required to register their address at the post office every January. (I recall the tv adds about this every year).

    106. Re:this is by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      No, I haven't, the landscape has shifted over the past decade. While it may be true that the 'progressives' are left of Hillary, the other mob are a different story.

      The Federal government is now controlled by the Catholic right from New South Wales, who would make Pope Francis weep. They firmly align themselves with your GOP. Lower taxes, marginalise the poor, incarcerate 'illegal' asylum seekers, deny climate change - all the while brainwashed by a free-market think-tank which Naomi Klein savaged during the week. And ably supported by Rupert Murdoch, who honed his skills here long before becoming a US citizen.

      The cross-bench are a different story. There's Pauline, who blames everything on Asians and Muslims, Malcolm R, a flat-earther who wants 'proof' of climate change, David L, a libertarian gun nut and a guy named Bob, a nice 'Christian' chap who was forced to resign after his business empire lost a few hundred million.

    107. Re:this is by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      and he called for a halt to immigration of Muslims from certain nations until we can better determine their reason for wanting to come to this country.

      (Ignoring for now if even that there would be problems even with that..)

      Nope.

      From https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p...
      (and whois shows that The Trump Organization registered it).

      Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com... says the same thing

      Donald Trump called Monday for a "total and complete shutdown" of the entry of Muslims to the United States "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

      No "certain nations". Total and complete shutdown.. BASED ON RELIGION. That's by definition prejudiced.

      BTW, I am probably far far far more right wing than you on many issues.. This and many other of his ideas/statements, are just evil.

    108. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's actually way harder to get into Australia than Canada (I imported an American to marry)

    109. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he also has said things like "knock the crap out of 'em" in reference to protestors at his rallies. At one point, he even offered to pay the legal fees of anyone who did such things.

      But you have to remember who you're talking to: dwilden is a Trumpette, and like all Trumpettes, is low on information, high on willful ignorance, and immune to facts once presented.

    110. Re:this is by stdarg · · Score: 1

      The Democrats will never let a big Democratic state secede. It would mean they won't win an election in the rest of the US for another 50 years because they've lost so many dependable electoral votes, never to return.

    111. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they really aren't. The problem is with the language. For example, if you say something about illegal immigration, the media paints you as "anti immigrant". If you say you want a database of Syrian refugees then the media says you want a database of Muslims. If people would stop conflating these into something else then it would be more clear. Here's what he said BTW:

      " I want surveillance programs. Obviously, there are a lot of problems. But, certainly, I would want to have a database for the refugees, for the Syrian refugees that are coming in because nobody knows where they're coming from."

    112. Re:this is by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a 3 year old throwing a tantrum because they didn't get a toy they wanted in Walmart.

      Now that's a goddam lie. They never, ever set foot in Walmart. They threw their tantrum in Nordstrom.

    113. Re:this is by Sumtingwong · · Score: 1

      Damn, I missed those riots! Can you please remind me where they were?

      --
      Word!
    114. Re:this is by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      A universal problem.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    115. Re: this is by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      4 seperate Trump speeches. How the fuck can you doubt this.
      Its amazing how the source for every bad thing about Trump dismissed as smears by his followers is Donald Trump himself. But then they all believe he was the target of an assasination attempt as well... and like most things they believe it never happened.

      It's amazing how people will believe anything the spin-masters say, without even checking it out. Both sides, but the democrats are worse...

    116. Re:this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nor did he ever call for harming anyone.

      https://youtu.be/qSgmAMjtYcw?t=36s

      "You have to take out their families." I'd call that harming innocent people.

    117. Re:this is by syntotic · · Score: 1

      Psychosis. They are in psychosis very scared by what they *hear* in voices and have formed their own (Afromuslim) ideologies based on it. They self incriminate, self imply then pretend they are very clever beacuse they are following a method and some voice... but they want to hear no voices and... it IS inconsistent and very few can turn it into consistency. How can a business industry be scared of a businessman President? UNder normalcy? It is insider knowledge. I happen to know well their ideas are plagiarized and they used stolen code and do not want to pay rights and do not want to admit non-genius status and being guilty they fear the worse and some of those voices indeed KNOW some of them have to suffer consequences! Brexit is still discussed in England because it was also an idea caught out of the aether with a surprising outcome. Unless all these schizophrenics get THERAPY and vomit their ideologies there is very little to do, only havoc to be seen. Who thought these modern times would be attacked and destabilized by very old tested and **proven** ideologies like psychosis and religions? They should start restoring the Paretos that would help a lot and sorry for the ones who deserve several life sentences, but they were not so intelligent nor the people they trusted.

    118. Re:this is by MercTech · · Score: 1

      A Visa/Green Card is still renewed annually.

      --
      NRRPT/RCT
    119. Re:this is by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      What's with the flag burning though? I remember all the butt hurt about Obama getting elected by some of the radical right. It's was silly and stupid but no one burned flags. Why is it liberals love pyromania?

    120. Re:this is by imadeyoureadpoop · · Score: 1

      Only 50 years out of date. Nice one.

      And yet still relevant. (see 'last 15 years of Australian politics')

      --
      Hanlon's Razor -- Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
    121. Re:this is by Tyrannicsupremacy · · Score: 0

      How many cars got wrecked and stores got looted when republicans demonstrated against obama?

      --
      http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
    122. Re: this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Califrexit" thing should hardly come as a surprise. If I owned a U.S.-based business (or had major investments in any of them), I would be extremely worried. I mean, did nobody here notice what international markets did in the aftermath of the U.S. elections? (Trump needs to get out of denial and start confronting the reality that he is not a popular man.) And that's just how the rest of the universe reacted to Trump: he is far from being the financial genius he likes to pretend he is. He pays other people to ensure that when his businesses go bankrupt (don't get me started on how many times this has happened) he isn't personally affected, and to stretch the loopholes in the tax laws wide enough that he gets away with not paying any income tax. While they are certainly lacking in the moral department, I will admit that these lawyers and accountants are at least clever, unlike the at least equally sleazy man who employs them. I can only hope that he is prevented by the Democrats and the intriguing number of Republicans who hate him in Congress from messing up the economy too much, but I am not optimistic; the U.S. Presidency is a very powerful position compared to the leaders of many other nations' governments (far too powerful, in my opinion). The first thing I did on the morning of Wednesday the 9th (OK, technically I punched the snooz-alarm a few times, then dragged myself out of bed and showered, but as soon as I'd done those things...) was get in touch with my financial advisor, a dear old friend whose recommendations have always proved sound. It turned out that calling him as soon as I could was a wise move: while the markets appear to have stabilized for the moment, when I called him he was already overwhelmed with panicking clients, but I still managed to get an appointment for the next day. When I saw him he told me how his schedule was full to bursting and that if I'd waited until the afternoon to call him, I wouldn't have been able to get an appointment until the following week. I feel much better now that I have moved my (relatively modest) assets somewhere hopefully safe (if there is any such place anymore).

  3. Typical by rossz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll be these same people pointed and laughed when Texans said the same thing.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
    1. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's different when libtards do it. They're the right people doing it for the right reasons, racist!

    2. Re:Typical by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'll be these same people pointed and laughed when Texans said the same thing.

      Actually, most of them were in favor of Texas seceding.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Typical by Fluffymuffin+Cocobut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, no - everybody wants Texas to leave - Texans and non-Texans alike. There is no argument. WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS? We will need to physically ship all of the non-capital parts of Austin over between Portland and San Fran. Obviously. Army Corps of Engineers can make Austin Great Again.

      --
      imagine a soft, buttery paw gently pressing down onto a sleeping soldier's face. forever.
    4. Re: Typical by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      I wonder how California would feel after it's secession when we cut their fucking water off. That State drains water from all their neighbors. Good luck growing almonds.

    5. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope when the NAFTA bit gets tossed Canada does something similar and turns the hydro off for those across from Ontario and Quebec.

    6. Re: Typical by rossz · · Score: 1

      They would form a drum circle and sing kumbaya in an attempt to get the water flowing. Nobody wants that. Hell, I'm in California and that would push me over the edge.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    7. Re: Typical by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wonder how California would feel after it's secession when we cut their fucking water off. That State drains water from all their neighbors. Good luck growing almonds.

      You're aware that California grows 2/3 of the US crops? California water needs would drastically shrink if we didn't have to feed the rest of the world.

    8. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one Laughed they said
      Texas can go.
      B-Bye now.
      While California Pays More than it gets Back, Texas is a Taker state a $1.50 for every 1.00 in taxes.

    9. Re: Typical by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Informative

      2/3 of some crops. Nowhere close to 2/3 of the total dollar value.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:Typical by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      Only if they take Florida with them.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    11. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You're aware that California grows 2/3 of the US crops?

      Is that by weight, or by volume?

    12. Re:Typical by megamind · · Score: 1

      I'm ok with them leaving. Their cities are disgusting and riddled with homeless, construction, and traffic.

    13. Re:Typical by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Mexico's offer was laughable. We might have to accept, best we can get for it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:Typical by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We will need to physically ship all of the non-capital parts of Austin over between Portland and San Fran.

      Speaking as a Californian native and as a former resident of Austin, we don't need it. I mean, I wouldn't mind Amy's Ice Cream, or Kerbey West, but otherwise, you can keep it. We've got better everything here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I am in favor of the U.S. kicking out both California and Texas! However that will do nothing to mitigate the unparalleled disaster that the IDIOTS and iDiots among us have brought upon our nation by electing Trump to the presidency!

    16. Re: Typical by theycallmeB · · Score: 1

      Actually, as a western liberal, I have been on record wishing Texas the best of luck in showing themselves the door, and may possibly have offered them Oklahoma if they didn't let that door hit them on the way out.

    17. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I'll be these same people pointed and laughed when Texans said the same thing.

      OMG! Please... Pllllleeeeeeaaaase can we have a Texit?! Without Texas, we'd never have had George W Bush, or LBJ! Texans seem to get us involved in horrible, unwinable wars. I think they all secretly want to re-create the Alamo. Sort of a people of born losers.

      What would it take for you to leave Texas? Name your price! I'm sure we can work it out.

    18. Re:Typical by hey! · · Score: 2

      Texas has never wanted to secede. Just some kooks who live there.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    19. Re: Typical by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Actually, as a western liberal, I have been on record wishing Texas the best of luck in showing themselves the door, and may possibly have offered them Oklahoma

      You realize as far as Texans are concerned, they still consider portions of OK, NM, NE, and CO theirs, right? I forget exactly how big Texas was, but it's miniscule now.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    20. Re:Typical by quenda · · Score: 1

      I'll be these same people pointed and laughed when Texans said the same thing.

      Texas did secede!

      In 1830 President Bustamante outlawed immigration across the Mexico/United States border to Texas.
      But the flow of illegal immigrants continued. Six years later, Texas seceded from Mexico and slavery was restored.
      Maybe the Mexicans should have built a wall!

    21. Re:Typical by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wait though, it's not "Californians" who are calling for secession, it's a handful of crybaby tech billionaires.

    22. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya much more, all those almonds have a great markup.

    23. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, Cali is like Mexico but cleaner and more beautiful. So who's going to make the piñatas if Cali secedes? Why won't anybody think of the children?

    24. Re:Typical by WhoBeDaPlaya · · Score: 1

      You forgot Franklin's...

    25. Re: Typical by yndrd1984 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're aware that California grows 2/3 of the US crops?

      You must mean 2/3 of the crop species. California only produces about 11% of the food grown in the US (by value) and has more than 12% of the population. Iowa has less than a tenth as many people and produces more than 2/3 the crop value that Cali does. 'You', or rather the state you're in, produce a variety of fruits and veggies. But the grain and grain-fed meat that make up the bulk of what people in the US eat comes from the Midwest.

    26. Re:Typical by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Only if they take Florida with them.

      I was willing to give them Florida, South Carolina, a draft pick and a state to be named later.

      But now I live in Houston, Texas, and I'm not so keen on seceding, though Houston is a pretty chill place similar to Austin.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    27. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its by bullshit. Doubt they grow 2/3 of their own crops much less the nation's.

    28. Re:Typical by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You forgot Franklin's...

      I forgot it because I never went there. There are better places all over the area, though I don't remember the names of any of them any more. Some of them didn't even have a sign.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re:Typical by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really, I think it was a mistake to stop the south from leaving in the first place. Sure, the bar should be set pretty high... like a 3/4ths or so supermajority vote with multiple affirmative referenda over a few years... to prevent secession at a whim. But it's pretty damn hypocritical to revere the text of the Declaration of Independence so and to go on with statements about the rights of self-determination in the rest of the world; but to deny the people of California or Texas or whatever other state to go their own way when the citizens decide that Washington DC isn't working for them.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    30. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're aware that California grows 2/3 of the US crops?
        I think the US could survive without almonds and lettuce and some other fresh vegetables. It might not be as pleasant, but we'd be OK. Could California survive without water from the rest of the US?

      Think about who needs who more here.

    31. Re: Typical by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2

      And artichokes. I once stopped at the artichoke capital of the world while driving to Oregon.

    32. Re:Typical by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      We've got better everything here.

      You do not have better barbecue than Houston. Maybe the new city-state of Houston can work out some trade agreement with the Republic of California where we send you some real barbecue and you send us your porn. We have a port, it can all go through the Panama Canal without having to risk the Arizona wasteland.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    33. Re: Typical by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      I wonder how California would feel after it's secession when we cut their fucking water off.

      I wonder how the US would feel if California cut off your fucking produce.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re: Typical by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Well, that'd probably be the impetus to reform the godawful convoluted and archaic system of water rights (Some of which linger from back when California was still Mexico.); charge all water users in accordance with its actual value; and ban stupidly wasteful spray and flood irrigation in favor of modern drip systems. Then, we'd get along just fine without out-of-state water.

      On the other hand; how would the rest of the US west of the Mississippi feel about giving up their dairy and produce?

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    35. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck growing that with all the excess water California has. I guess we'll find out how much that Colorado River water is really worth.

    36. Re:Typical by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      I'll be these same people pointed and laughed when Texans said the same thing.

      That's because Texas takes in a whole lot more money from the feds than they put in. They can't afford to.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    37. Re:Typical by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Really, I think it was a mistake to stop the south from leaving in the first place. Sure, the bar should be set pretty high... like a 3/4ths or so supermajority vote with multiple affirmative referenda over a few years... to prevent secession at a whim. But it's pretty damn hypocritical to revere the text of the Declaration of Independence so and to go on with statements about the rights of self-determination in the rest of the world; but to deny the people of California or Texas or whatever other state to go their own way when the citizens decide that Washington DC isn't working for them.

      Yeah - it's weird. The most vociferous ultra righties I know want to do horrible things to "Libtards" which at this point is anyone not ultra far right. But they don't want this. Perhaps they realize that they won't have anyone to blame. But more likely because there is a pretty fair proportion of humanity that has a strong need to hate. And after their favorite scapegoats leave, they'll turn on themselves.

      Then again, if Cali was a separate nation, it would be the 7th largest in the world. It would have to hurt a bit losing that.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    38. Re: Typical by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, Funny

      I wonder how California would feel after it's secession when we cut their fucking water off. That State drains water from all their neighbors. Good luck growing almonds.

      Speaking as one of those neighboring states, we expect to go along with them for the ride and we've got lots of water.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    39. Re: Typical by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      2/3 of some crops. Nowhere close to 2/3 of the total dollar value.

      The vast majority of the food actually eaten in the USA is produced in California. The other states depend on their international exports to keep them afloat, even after stealing our tax money. If they ate their produce, not only would they be bored real quick (because all the variety that doesn't come from other countries comes from California) but they'd also be broke real quick.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    40. Re: Typical by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      You're aware that California grows 2/3 of the US crops?

      You must mean 2/3 of the crop species. California only produces about 11% of the food grown in the US (by value) and has more than 12% of the population. Iowa has less than a tenth as many people and produces more than 2/3 the crop value that Cali does. 'You', or rather the state you're in, produce a variety of fruits and veggies. But the grain and grain-fed meat that make up the bulk of what people in the US eat comes from the Midwest.

      I never eat grain fed meat. The stuff I get in my local supermarket is grass fed and comes from in-state. It's good too.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    41. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Probably ok since most of what is grown in Cali is shipped out of the country.

    42. Re: Typical by skam240 · · Score: 1

      All of our neighbors are deserts except North in Oregon and we most definitely don't get any water from them in any real quantity as our north is sparsely populated. Sure, small parts of the Rockies that arent in California might have their snow run off flow into California but I would hardly call that draining water from other states. There's certainly no active pumping of water to California from any of the surrounding desert states.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    43. Re:Typical by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 2, Funny

      6th, actually. We surpassed France earlier this year. :-)

      A few months ago, shortly before we knocked off France, Governor Brown had an awesome comeback when Rick Scott, Florida's governor, got a bit lippy with his misconceptions about our economy: "Rick, a fact you'd like to ignore: California is the 7th largest economic power in the world. We're competing with nations like Brazil and France, not states like Florida."

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    44. Re: Typical by skam240 · · Score: 1

      So that's not a shit ton?

      Really if you cut out the crops that can be grown almost anywhere, soy, corn, and wheat, California probably produces a majority of it for the country. The only reason why California doesnt out perform on the prior three is that those crops are only profitable in areas where you cant grow anything else. You'd be an idiot to grow corn in most parts of the California as it would be a waste of money.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    45. Re: Typical by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Funny

      I wonder how California would feel after it's secession when we cut their fucking water off. That State drains water from all their neighbors. Good luck growing almonds.

      You're aware that California grows 2/3 of the US crops? California water needs would drastically shrink if we didn't have to feed the rest of the world.

      'The rest of the world'?

      That would be 'world' as in 'world series'.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    46. Re:Typical by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      I'm ok with them leaving. Their cities are disgusting and riddled with homeless, construction, and traffic.

      Try driving from San Diego to Tijuana. Those places are not similar.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    47. Re:Typical by hawguy · · Score: 2

      I'm ok with them leaving. Their cities are disgusting and riddled with homeless, construction, and traffic.

      Yeah, who wants to live in a city where there are many construction projects -- cities should remain stagnant and never change.

    48. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we'll let Trump fix our water problems first. And then we will secede. Trump has a plan to fix our water shortage, you see. He'll make the best deal.

    49. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care, jettison them all. Then again how different will it be since they want open borders.

    50. Re: Typical by lgw · · Score: 2

      Most of America's calories come from corn - something like 80% if you include corn-fed animals.* Soy is a big chuck of America's protein, certainly the majority of non-animal protein.

      So, yeah, aside from where we get calories and protein, California grows a lot.

      * Did you know you can measure the percentage of all the carbon in any food that came from corn via a mass spectrometer? Corn's photosynthesis process (C4, vs C3 in most food plants) excludes Carbon-13.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    51. Re:Typical by lgw · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Houston used to be really nice, but then a mass of liberals, assholes, and others like Ratzo moved there. It's shit now. Similar to Austin.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    52. Re: Typical by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Oh fine, you got me good. If we all lived purely off calories California wouldnt be important agriculturally.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    53. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides the others showing how you'RE an idiot, even if you were correct (which your not) did it ever occur to you that producing that much food is a major economic driver without which Cali jobs and economy would crash and burn horribly.

      And that's just water. Cali's power issues are likely worse...http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2016/04/03/californias-growing-imported-electricity-problem/#f80a5f9e96bb

      Their power is highly unreliable, extremely costly (vs the rest of the country) and relies majorly on imports...so yeah Cali should succeed, it would likely help the rest of the country not having to cow to their needs/demands..

    54. Re: Typical by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

      Same here. Won't eat anything GMO .. Unfit for human consumption. Pretty much everything produced from the midwest area parent is touting. Additionally, most civilized nations around the world won't buy any of the Monsanto GMO garbage either, produced from that same region as well. California has nothing to worry about if they want out. Water isn't an issue for them. Why not.

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    55. Re: Typical by Sassinak · · Score: 1

      Be that as it may,CA would do what all other countries in the same boat do.. IMPORT what it lacks.. (like it already does).. it already pays fees to other countries.. again the main difference is as an independent country, it has a LOT more freedom to choose where to import/export to at rates that may be more favorable to it.

      --
      God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
    56. Re: Typical by slew · · Score: 1

      Please get your geography straight, the Rockies (where the Colorado River originates and which supplies southern california with more than 1/2 of their water) are *NOT* in California. You are confusing the Rockies with the Sierras...

    57. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hipsters ruin everything.

    58. Re:Typical by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You do not have better barbecue than Houston. Maybe the new city-state of Houston can work out some trade agreement with the Republic of California where we send you some real barbecue and you send us your porn. We have a port, it can all go through the Panama Canal without having to risk the Arizona wasteland.

      If you want good food, especially chile, all you have to do a trade agreement with your western neighbour.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    59. Re: Typical by skam240 · · Score: 1

      The sierras are part of the Rockies so I feel pretty good about what I said.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    60. Re:Typical by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This. And in my honest opinion, if the 1% are in panic then it's a good thing

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    61. Re:Typical by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And they're the same ones that were pushing Hilary so hard, instead of someone who might have won for the Democrats. The Republicans put up the least popular candidate that they've ever run (and one who did worse in terms of received votes than their last two candidates). All of the opinion polls during the primaries showed that any one of the Democratic candidates other than Hilary would have easily won. So the DNC, backed by a lot of Silicon Valley money picked the one candidate who only had a 50:50 chance. Well done guys: you are responsible for Trump winning, you don't get to run away from it.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    62. Re: Typical by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      California water needs would drastically shrink if we didn't have to feed the rest of the world

      And so would its income... you know, what with all those iPhones you don't even manufacture.

    63. Re: Typical by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      Same here. Won't eat anything GMO .. Unfit for human consumption. Pretty much everything produced from the midwest area parent is touting. Additionally, most civilized nations around the world won't buy any of the Monsanto GMO garbage either, produced from that same region as well.

      I can understand believing the European protectionist/anti-capitalist propaganda, and it's fine if you want to make choices for yourself based on it. But when your response to someone pointing out facts about agriculture is rant about how much of the country "produces garbage" - that's how you alienate the people who live there and lose elections because of it.

      Anyway, do you agree that California doesn't "grow 2/3 of the US crops"? 'Cause that was my entire point.

    64. Re: Typical by dwillden · · Score: 1

      And if we redirect that water to Arizona, they could grow the same crops for us instead.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    65. Re: Typical by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "I wonder how the US would feel if California cut off your fucking produce."

      If we lost the California produce, we would just buy more from Mex-

      Oh, wait!

    66. Re:Typical by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      But it's pretty damn hypocritical to revere the text of the Declaration of Independence so and to go on with statements about the rights of self-determination in the rest of the world; but to deny the people of California or Texas or whatever other state to go their own way when the citizens decide that Washington DC isn't working for them.

      I get what you're saying, but where do you stop then? If Texas or California should be able to break away from the Union, should Broward and Miami-Dade counties in Florida be able to break away? Should the cities of Austin or Houston Texas be allowed since they are blue in a sea of red?

        If you're going to talk about rights of self-determination, at what point does self not refer to an individual or smaller groups of numbers (neighborhood, town, city, county, etc)

    67. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AZ will grow it instead.

    68. Re:Typical by StatureOfLiberty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Plus it is exactly the wrong answer. I didn't vote for him. I never dreamed he'd actually get elected. But, I really do hope he shakes things up a bit. Like continuing to point out that representatives rarely actually represent their constituents. I know this is by no means a sure thing. But, if people would work to mold the change in a helpful direction instead of just assuming all change will be bad and therefore dig in or retreat something good might result.

      We have to get out of this 'rah rah my team' mentality and start looking for ways to influence the process in a positive way. We have to hope he greatly exceeds our expectations. And we have to make sure we don't poison the political atmosphere so it is impossible for him to do so.

      Considering that we have been stuck in a political quagmire for years, it is time for some change. I wish the voters had picked a different agent for change. There is a lot to not like about Trump. But they are absolutely correct that change is needed.

    69. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The irony is that the people growing the crops in Cali are republican.

    70. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'd do just fine. That water withheld from CA would go to AZ and NV farms and produce just as much. It's the out of state water that allows CA to grow all that they do, AZ has the same year round warmth, give them the water and they will replace CA.

    71. Re: Typical by dywolf · · Score: 1

      the difference is we now have a president and supporters who no longer remember what it means to be Americans, what our American principles and ideals are or what they mean.

      if they did, they would never have supported trump.
      Trump is the antithesis to those things.
      And supporting him means you no longer support those things.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    72. Re:Typical by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If you want good food, especially chile, all you have to do a trade agreement with your western neighbour.

      Living in Houston, my Western neighbor is Mexico.

      If the food were any better here in Houston, I'd need one of those mobility scooters to get around.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    73. Re: Typical by Mr.+Droopy+Drawers · · Score: 1
      Your attitude is EXACTLY why Trump was elected. Hillary saying, "half of the Americans supporting Donald Trump as a âoebasket of deplorablesâ made up of âoeracist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobicâ people." source: Brietbart.

      .

      Your elite attitude -- and hers -- are the primary reason for the rise of Donald Trump over more considered views.

      --

      To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.

    74. Re:Typical by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Yea, they have become somewhat intolerant for all this SJW BS and PC that is being pushed now days.

    75. Re:Typical by bmo · · Score: 5, Funny

      >I wish the voters had picked a different agent for change.

      Obviously they picked Agent Orange.

      --
      BMO

    76. Re:Typical by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      6th, actually. We surpassed France earlier this year. :-)

      A few months ago, shortly before we knocked off France, Governor Brown had an awesome comeback when Rick Scott, Florida's governor, got a bit lippy with his misconceptions about our economy: "Rick, a fact you'd like to ignore: California is the 7th largest economic power in the world. We're competing with nations like Brazil and France, not states like Florida."

      I think some folks need to read more or something. Cali's money problems are so 15 years ago. And in large part caused by some manipulation by a certain Texas based company. The idea of a progressive state that is doing well just doesn't sit easy in the minds of some people.

      So why not allow the red states to follow their dream, without having the liberals being a thorn in their side and dragging them down? Only makes sense. As well, the conservative policies should take full root, and soon Oklahoma will be a bigger economy than California. I've listened to talk radio and Fox News, and its obvious what is the cause of all problems - Liberals, and if the liberals go away, so will the problems. Who could be against all the problems being solved?

      It wouldn't be easy of course, water would be an issue - although I could see Colorado siding with Cali, probably Washington and Oregon as well, so there might be a new diversion project from the Columbia instead of the Colorado river.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    77. Re:Typical by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's shit now. Similar to Austin.

      Austin wins over Houston even if only because of climate. It's muggy like half as often. Which is still all the goddamned time, which is why the south is fit more for mosquitoes than men.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    78. Re: Typical by msauve · · Score: 1

      The rest of the country can live just fine without the fruits, nuts and flakes from California.

      Besides, I'm sure Arizona would love to start an agricultural industry using Colorado river water to irrigate.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    79. Re: Typical by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Probably ok since most of what is grown in Cali is shipped out of the country.

      You might want to compare percentage of produce exported from California to other nations to that of every other state which grows any measurable quantity of crops, because the results are about to shock you.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    80. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We".

      I bet you a dollar that that "we" is dependent on the rest of the USA as a support network.

      Go it alone and watch the profit melt away.

    81. Re: Typical by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      these are libertarians.

    82. Re:Typical by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Yea, they have become somewhat intolerant for all this SJW BS and PC that is being pushed now days.

      So why not leave them secede? You can go back to living life as you like it, no doubt without all of the problems that are caused by them

      Because it is no longer about Social Justice Warriors or whatever version of political correctness that gets your panties in a bunch. Pretty much everyone laughs at them. Its about putting up or shutting up.

      You have the country now. But the black truth is that you need these progressives, liberals, and Social Justice warriors badly. gotta have someone to blame.

      Is there a relationship between the California being the 6th largest economy in the world, and Oklahoma being an economic mess? I dunno. Tell me how it is all the liberals fault, and make yourself feel better.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    83. Re:Typical by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 2

      Wait though, it's not "Californians" who are calling for secession, it's a handful of crybaby tech billionaires.

      It wasn't so long ago that a crabby billionaire wanted to be president, the lesson from his story is: "Just wait until they start to hold rallies and make promises."

    84. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God forbid we go without avocados and pistachios...

    85. Re: Typical by ai4px · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there talk of Northern CA splitting away from SOCAL? So perhaps SOCAL should succeed?

    86. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California produces 11.63% of food in the US. That is by value too so things like pistachios and almonds up that number. More actual food is grown in places like Nebraska and Texas

      Believe what you want though, don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you. And let me know how things go when we use all the Colorado river water before it gets to you.

      http://westernfarmpress.com/management/what-us-states-produce-most-food-ranking-1-50

    87. Re:Typical by ai4px · · Score: 1

      Lincoln did not accept the secession declaration as the will of the people because the congressmen from the southern states said they were leaving the union. Pretty flimsy argument because we /are/ governed by representatives who speak /for/ the citizens. But alas, that only works when they want it to. The North went on to institute a draft and an income tax to pay for the war. With the exception of a few skirmishes outside of the southern states, the south did not seek to attack or invade the north. There's a reason we call it the "War of Northern Aggression". Even in Charleston SC Fort Sumter was provisioned with food after secession. It was only when the ship Western Star attempted to resupply arms to Fort Sumter that the SC Militia fired on them. But what do I know?

      On balance I was very disappointed to read the confederate constitution and find that it actually forbade every abolishing slavery.

    88. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even nerdy liberals know better than to laugh at armed cowboys.

    89. Re:Typical by lgw · · Score: 0

      Then again, if Cali was a separate nation, it would be the 7th largest in the world. It would have to hurt a bit losing that.

      Wouldn't hurt at all. Let them leave. Let it settle. Conquer them since they have no military. Impose brutal sanctions. Crush them, see them driven before us, hear the lamentations of their women. It's what's best in life.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    90. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad you are wrong.

      Within the North American Cordillera, the Rockies are somewhat distinct from the Pacific Coast Ranges and the Cascade Range and Sierra Nevada which all lie further to the west.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountains
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Cordillera
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Nevada_(U.S.)
      http://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/usa-maps/united-states-mountain-ranges-maps.html

      Go look at that map. The Sierra Nevadas are like TWO STATES AWAY from the Rockies. Just because a similar geological force may have created them it certainly doesn't mean they are part of the same range.

    91. Re: Typical by lgw · · Score: 1

      We do live off calories and protein. Everything else is luxury, or can be had via a pill.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    92. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They make a lot of "nuts" also. Don't forget governor moonbeam.

    93. Re:Typical by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Even nerdy liberals know better than to laugh at armed cowboys.

      There's a meme for ya. You'd be surprised at how many people who aren't Republicans own firearms and know how to use them very effectively.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    94. Re: Typical by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Go ahead, eat downer cattle (where most 'grass fed'* beef comes from).

      Leaves more of the good stuff for the rest of us.

      * all beef is 'grass fed', the good stuff also gets lots of grain in the last 6 weeks of life.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    95. Re: Typical by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Just not true.

      Colorado river water is only used in S. Cal.

      Almost all the ag water in the central valley comes from the Sacramento river system.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    96. Re: Typical by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      No. Factually wrong.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    97. Re:Typical by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Drive from N. Cal to San Diego and watch the trash on the side of the roads increase with every mile south.

      Mexicans litter like pigs. It's just a fact.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    98. Re:Typical by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Same thing that stops Quebec.

      If Quebec left Canada, about half of Quebec would leave and go back to Canada. The first thing they would do is make the whole place English only.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    99. Re:Typical by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The best BBQ is CA would be broke in the Texas/KC/Memphis etc.

      The best Chinese food in Texas/KC/Memphis etc would be broke in CA.

      It is a tradeoff.

      Having been raised in KC, I make better BBQ in my yard than anything from Texas. So I'm OK.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    100. Re:Typical by thrich81 · · Score: 1

      Notice that whenever the "21st Century Texas Economic Success" story is mentioned, is is almost always Austin or Houston listed as examples, never the conservative leaning cities like Port Arthur, Midland, ... Vidor, etc. There are reasons for that, one of which is that nobody really wants to live in those holes. The recent oil boom brought some prosperity to the boonies but that's over for now.

    101. Re:Typical by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      You have the country now. But the black truth is that you need these progressives, liberals, and Social Justice warriors badly. gotta have someone to blame.

      Ummm, No.... I don't need them. So please do not push your beliefs on me. If that is your argument to justify their existence, then you have failed. I am not a sheeple.

      And about "putting up or shut up"..... I thought we just DID that in this election (yes I was active with it) and told them NO MORE!

      Is there a relationship between the California being the 6th largest economy in the world, and Oklahoma being an economic mess? I dunno. Tell me how it is all the liberals fault, and make yourself feel better.

      Last time I heard they were all PART of the United States, which they are but a SMALL fraction of the people. Why are you putting so much emphasis on economic might which can be replaced (and I see that in the future). Since they make more they have more say in matters, how did that work out for them on Tuesday?

      As expected, you have forgotten the underlying principle of this country "We The People"

    102. Re:Typical by youngatheart · · Score: 1

      The original colonies and states along with the writers of the Constitution probably intended that states would be so independent that there would be no point in succeeding. The problem is now, and always has been that we not only freedom to do what we want, but we also want to be able to force other people to act the way we think they should.

      The original intent of the Declaration of Independence was to create a group of essentially independent nations with their own local self governments. The "united" part was intended to ensure that the small governments would have a framework to work together under an agreed set of minimum rights all the local governments would have to offer their citizens. The constitution even clearly sets out to state that the federal government is to have limits on it's own authority so that it can't give itself any additional power. That all ended when the united states went to war with itself.

      Slavery was evil, I hope we all agree, but saying "no slaves in the US" doesn't work unless you also have the "and the southern states have to stay part of the US" clause. It's not even about equality. Lincoln was fighting to end slavery in all the US, and was willing to concede pretty much everything else to achieve that goal.

      I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. - Abraham Lincoln

      When Lincoln won a war to prevent states from having the right to separate from the union, the inescapable conclusion is that the federal government has taken, by immortal "might makes right," more authority than was intended by the writers of the formulative documents that created the united states. A lot of things changed at that point, but perhaps most relevant is that the US changed from being a group of nations bound together in mutual support to being one nation with all final authority bound into a single central government.

      Much that is good has come from that change, and I think most of the citizens of the US have benefited from it. However, make no mistake, this is not the nation created by the Declaration of Independence and by the Constitution. This is a different thing. While those documents are of historical and interpretative import, they are not what make the United States what it is now as a nation.

      Perhaps we need a new pledge. "We the people of the nation of America ('cause mentioning states is like mentioning city councils now and Mexico and Canada already have other names) have decided that we are one nation, no matter how divided in desires and opinions, independent of the authority of other countries, except the UN, for now, but completely at the mercy of one single federal government so that we can ensure our neighbors thousands of miles away have to do what we say, until such time as they can win an important election and then we'll throw tantrums and rise up to assert our independence. At least until the military style police organization we created to enforce our will on others comes to squash our own attempts at independence."

      That seems a bit too long and complicated. How about something shorter that means the same thing. "The United States died a long time ago, and while fondly remembered, shall not be confused with our current nation. Long live 'Murica!"

      The people of this nation are mostly good people. The government is mostly good. Being able to change our leadership without a war is good. I'm just having a tiny bit more difficulty stamping down my internal cynic this morning than usual.

    103. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nearly 3,000,000 people in California voted for Trump, 33% of the people who voted. Apparently to the California elite, those people are not Californians.

      Maybe they will be deported to the United States. :-)

    104. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racist? Many people's main objection to the previous presidency was that they didn't want a "n****r in the white house". Just saying, friend.

    105. Re:Typical by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The best Chinese food in Texas/KC/Memphis etc would be broke in CA.

      Houston has a very large Chinese population. There is some pretty great Chinese food here.

      Having been raised in KC, I make better BBQ in my yard than anything from Texas. So I'm OK.

      Wars were fought over less. I admit, Kansas City has some very fine barbecue, but this Texas thing is a whole 'nother level. Plus, KC has the downside of being in Missouri. Having once lived and taught in Columbia and Rolla, I can tell you, outside of KC, you might as well be the Fallout 3 wasteland except with more Bible.

      But I still have a soft spot for KC because of it's important place in the history of jazz. The only problem was that all the greats got the hell out of there as soon as they could.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    106. Re: Typical by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Same here. Won't eat anything GMO .. Unfit for human consumption. Pretty much everything produced from the midwest area parent is touting. Additionally, most civilized nations around the world won't buy any of the Monsanto GMO garbage either, produced from that same region as well.

      I can understand believing the European protectionist/anti-capitalist propaganda, and it's fine if you want to make choices for yourself based on it. But when your response to someone pointing out facts about agriculture is rant about how much of the country "produces garbage" - that's how you alienate the people who live there and lose elections because of it.

      Anyway, do you agree that California doesn't "grow 2/3 of the US crops"? 'Cause that was my entire point.

      I have no clue what proportion of US crops are grown in California. But yes, meat production in the US is mostly garbage. If you leveled the accusation at me (on behalf of my left side people) that we make garbage manuals that are impenetrable I would take it in the chin. It's true. I don't take it as alienating. Farmers who feed grain to cows to push the the fat in your ground beef from 15% to 20% while ruining it's healthy fat ratios and the quality of the meat are equally wrong. They don't have to read my manuals. I don't have to eat their crappy meat.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    107. Re: Typical by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Go ahead, eat downer cattle (where most 'grass fed'* beef comes from).

      Leaves more of the good stuff for the rest of us.

      * all beef is 'grass fed', the good stuff also gets lots of grain in the last 6 weeks of life.

      Cows are like humans. You feed them grains to fatten them up.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    108. Re:Typical by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Drive from N. Cal to San Diego and watch the trash on the side of the roads increase with every mile south.

      Mexicans litter like pigs. It's just a fact.

      Sorry I went bankrupt when I tried to buy petrol in Weed.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    109. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find this statement to be really odd. I live in NYS though, so maybe I'm spoiled. I'm pretty sure most of the food I buy is grown locally-- exceptions being the bulk produce like wheat and grain, some root vegetables-- but I believe most of that comes from the Midwest. Citrus fruit is mostly from Florida and sometimes south america. In fact I'm pretty sure I've bought more produce from foreign countries than I have from California.

      I wouldn't be able to buy almonds cheap anymore... but then they aren't really cheap now that water in CA is so expensive. I'm also not sure what they'd water their crops with when the water is gone.

      All that said, I'm 100% for Californian succession. One of my companies engineering projects was about recovering and desalinating ground water. We'd probably be able to get a lot more work if California's water crisis got any worse.

    110. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * all beef is 'grass fed', the good stuff also gets lots of grain in the last 6 weeks of life.

      I was gonna say the same thing. I raise hogs and steers for my freezer every year, and a few weeks before butcher they go on a grain diet. Makes them so much more tasty!

    111. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'd be fine. We'd get our grains from the Midwest and our fruit from south america.

    112. Re: Typical by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      the difference is we now have a president and supporters who no longer remember what it means to be Americans, what our American principles and ideals are or what they mean.

      if they did, they would never have supported trump.
      Trump is the antithesis to those things.
      And supporting him means you no longer support those things.

      The one thing we can probably agree on is that the people who support Trump have a completely different definition on what it means to be American and what our American principles and ideals are. Most Trump supports I know have a very good understanding of the constitution and want a limited federal government and sovereign states. That is their principles and ideals like the founding fathers originally wanted it. They don't want a national health care system or a federal department of education. They want their states to decide what is best for their state not to be force feed regulations from afar. The people in Montana have no problem with guns. They don't want a federal ban on assault rifles. If assault rifles become a problem in their state then they can take action locally to deal with it. I don't even understand the logic of something like a federal ban on assault rifles. I understand why people in Chicago might want to ban them but why do the people in Chicago want to ban them in Montana?

    113. Re:Typical by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Really? Do you equate dollars spent for NASA equal to dollars spent for welfare?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    114. Re:Typical by stinerman · · Score: 1

      I fully supported Texas seceding. I still do.

    115. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tofu capital of the world isn't going to now good bbq from bad, your better off trying to sell them land, that seems to be what they come for.

    116. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please leave. Then your votes won't count in the next election. Maybe even some of the liberals that live in my state can move to CA and try to collect welfare, health insurance, etc. from your tax dollars instead of mine. It wont hurt everyone else at all because while you are huge economy you also consume a huge portion of the US resources. E.x. China is a huge economy but that doesn't mean it would be a good thing to merge them with the USA as a State.

      No one wants to do horrible things to you. No one wants to even hate anything about you EXCEPT YOUR BLIND HATE FOR US. You can't even see through your own prejudice and hate to see that Trump supporters are not racist, homophobic but we do disagree with the solutions to those problems that democrats propose. Just because we think the solution to the problems black people have should be different then what you think does not mean we "hate" black people. It means we think there are different solutions that have never been discussed or tried because liberals and the media scream racism if we don't think the solution is what they think.

    117. Re: Typical by Topwiz · · Score: 1

      The top 5 crops in California: Marijuana, Grapes, Almonds, Hay, Cotton.

    118. Re: Typical by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      A large part of midwest produce is for federally mandated ethanol produced by growing corn. That could change quickly.
      You can keep your avocados.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    119. Re: Typical by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Nice job of rewording the issue to favor your viewpoint. The Colorado river flows into California, but it doesn't go into California by "active pumping of water".

      I could claim that California doesn't truck out vegetables to the rest of the country if it were all sent by train.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    120. Re:Typical by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      That's a matter of spending priorities. You need both - investment in science and investing in helping people climb out of poverty.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    121. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California water needs would drastically shrink if we didn't have to feed the rest of the world.

      Yeah, as long as you're okay with a massive portion of your state's economy being shut down in its entirety, since, you know, if you "don't have to feed the rest of the world," you also don't "need to have all those farms," which means "you don't need to have all those jobs."

      Enjoy your vast economic depression once you secede and stop producing food to avoid the onerous task of "feeding the rest of the world" which is a big part of how your state "makes money."

    122. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably do have better barbeque than Houston. Houston has pretty ass barbeque, unless you make it yourself.

    123. Re: Typical by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      California should not secede by itself like this. However, if it could convince all the western states (up to CO, NM, MT, etc.) to join it, that new country would do quite well on its own, without being dragged down by the South and Florida.

    124. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about we limit the power of the federal government for all states? Let states keep more of the income tax put on it's citizens. Or better yet no federal taxes paid by individuals and collect at the state level.

      In any case CA doesn't get to send liberals to congress and the white house and run up a $20 trillion debt and expect to just walk away. As soon as they pay their fair share they can leave.

    125. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is some mighty fine specious reasoning you got there buddy. Outside of your bubble as a tech worker do you think its reasonable to assume that the majority of the state, which is working poor, can afford to eat grass-fed beef? You are literally ignoring reality by saying, "Well I've got some cash so increasing food prices after a secession won't be a problem." Meanwhile the people who drive trucks delivering your food will be starving.

    126. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck with that state budget with out all the Federal dollars pouring in from the rest of the US. You'll be bankrupt in 3 months begging to be let back in.

    127. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My state would have a fuckton more water if we didn't have to send it all to you. So maybe we would have a bit less almonds and cheap California wine; we could grow other stuff, on our own.

    128. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the job of Congress to address such possible confusing issues about the Constitution. Just like territory and states can be acquired and created by acts of Congress, presumably an act of Congress could allow a state to leave the union by means similar to a treaty. IMO there is nothing legally bizarre about a state government petitioning Congress to begin negotiations for secession.

      The fuss about the Civil War was that certain states asserted their right to unilaterally secede, and backed that claim with pre-emptive overt violence. Whether such a right existed was clear as mud, and they took the gamble that it would be easier to not apologize later, than ask permission now. They had the option to attempt negotiation and chose otherwise.

    129. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Texas secession from Mexico was primarily about the freedom to own human chattel, in contradiction of the more civilized laws on the books in Mexico City. Texas was enough of a backwater that they could have gone on ignored by Mexico for a very, very long time with respect to everything else. There was the usual kind of freedom aplenty.

    130. Re:Typical by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Houston does have some of the best food in the USA, and far beyond BBQ! Houston also has a higher population than Alabama.

    131. Re:Typical by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Houston does have some of the best food in the USA, and far beyond BBQ!

      No kidding. Even the street food is phenomenal. Today, I had a little snack at the El Rojo Taco Truck and it brought tears to my eyes. And that's just cheap street food.

      I used to laugh at all the people driving around Wal-Mart on their mobility scooters because they're too fat to walk. Now, I'm beginning to understand. At least in Chicago, I could work off the Italian food, polish sausange, and pork chops by shoveling snow and pushing cars that are stuck. Sitting in my shorts in the back yard with a vodka and lime juice on ice doesn't burn all that many calories.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    132. Re: Typical by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      ..I would take it in the chin. It's true. I don't take it as alienating.

      I don't really care about your state-v-state arguments - I just get annoyed when people on my favorite sci/tech website spout clearly false statements about my industry, whether it's getting basic facts blatantly wrong or anti-GMO conspiracy-theory style nonsense.

      But I couldn't pass up the similarity to the main story - left-leaning CA wants to leave because of a single election where the left spent the entire time trying to insult people into voting their way, and even Obama-supporting gay-marrying Iowa went red. And two posts after someone states some facts about agriculture the whole region produces nothing but garbage unfit for human consumption that civilized nations won't buy. *shrug*

    133. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Speaking as one of the neighboring states." LOL that is hilarious. Which one are you today? Let me guess, Oregon? How long have you had these delusions that you speak for an entire state?

      Let me try one:
      "Speaking as the emperor of Mars, all women will report to my launch pad where they will be transported to my new domed pleasure palace on the Martian surface."

    134. Re: Typical by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      "Speaking as one of the neighboring states." LOL that is hilarious. Which one are you today? Let me guess, Oregon? How long have you had these delusions that you speak for an entire state?

      Let me try one:
      "Speaking as the emperor of Mars, all women will report to my launch pad where they will be transported to my new domed pleasure palace on the Martian surface."

      Your autism is strong today Glasshopper. When you can come across a witty comment without misinterpreting it as serious political discourse, you will pass.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    135. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is pretty much my take on it all. I didn't vote FOR Trump. I voted against Clinton, but sadly Trump was my best chance of making it an effective vote. I would have rather seen someone like Gary Johnson in the Office, but I knew that wouldn't happen, so I voted intelligently.

      In all, as I see it, both sides were severely proselytized to. "Trump is a racist bigot who will undo everything good that's happened in the last eight years" or "Clinton is a bald-faced liar and will take away your guns," etc. And those of us who listened to the propaganda are feeling either hopeless or relieved. But guess what? When I actually talked to a friend on the other side of the coin, both sides felt EXACTLY THE SAME WAY about the other side. It's just that one won and the other lost, plain and simple. The reactions now are only secondary to that.

      All said and done it seems like in the end it all came down to a split between selfishness versus rational thinking.

      It's why even now I'm barely emerging from my hidey-hole of "are you guys done throwing your tantrum yet? No? Well then my nose is back to the grindstone while I ignore you for another day."

    136. Re: Typical by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I heard the head dude in Canada already called Trump. Seems he's not all that happy with NAFTA either and wants to discuss some big changes.

    137. Re: Typical by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Most of what I see in my grocery store is from Brazil and Chile. We do get California peaches when they're out of season here but they have no taste at all. I don't know what they do to them but they don't ship well.

    138. Re: Typical by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Meat production in the US is geared toward taste not nutrition. Here they raise beef cattle on grass but feed them out on a mix of mostly corn. Corn fed beef are very tender and tasty. People tend to buy things based on cost and taste for their table. I would never deny anyone the right to buy what they wish for their own consumption and tend to view food Nazis as an annoyance. I don't understand why people can't mind their own fucking business.

    139. Re: Typical by skam240 · · Score: 1

      In the modern context vitamins are not luxuries. They are what allow members of our species to live beyond their 30s.

      I would really go as far as to say that, despite myself being a meat eater, that your description of corn being so vital is only because beef is such an incredibly wasteful means of producing food. The protein that makes corn so big is a true luxury.

      Anyways, if you want to subsist on corn, bread, and meat along with pill vitamins, good luck to you. Here's a bit about California agriculture that you might find enlightening. http://www.slate.com/articles/...

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    140. Re: Typical by skam240 · · Score: 1

      No, you're factually wrong!

      Man, I need to follow your model. My posts take way longer to type out given that I feel the need to justify my claims.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    141. Re: Typical by lgw · · Score: 1

      beef is such an incredibly wasteful means of producing food

      Waste is a silly term for something there's no shortage of.

      Anyways, if you want to subsist on corn, bread, and meat along with pill vitamins, good luck to you.

      Been working for the last 20 years (well, include wheat there too). I'm not a girl, I don't eat salads.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    142. Re: Typical by skam240 · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you talking about? If i let something go bad in my fridge I've wasted it. It doesnt matter if my fridge is full or empty. "Waste" is not some arbitrary term you can just apply as you like. Furthermore, If you're even a few years out of your parents house you have to have noticed the price of food increasing faster than inflation. Beef as an example has had its price go up tremendously in the last decade. This is due to increasing scarcity.

      As for your diet, I hope you're one of the lucky ones with the genes to support a diet like that. I think I'll continue with our natural omnivorous diet and enjoy my 60s and 70s without having to be on blood thinners or take insulin.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    143. Re: Typical by lgw · · Score: 1

      If there's one thing you shouldn't trust, it's dietary advice. I've seen all of it reverse, sometimes twice, over my life. But I'm pretty sure eating 20+ grams of sugar as a regular snack is a bad plan if you don't want to be on insulin, so maybe avoid the fruit.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    144. Re: Typical by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Hahaha, and then you go and give dietary advice. Classic...

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    145. Re:Typical by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      It is all the anti-democratic Democrats who don't like it when people don't want to vote the way they told them to, that want to secede. Maybe you should let them go. It sounds like a bargain.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    146. Re:Typical by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1

      I sure was, and still am! Texas wants to secede? I'll count my blessings--one fewer red state mooching off the productive blue ones.

      --
      Who did what now?
    147. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, your cure is worse than the disease.

      Also: your face is sorry and wants your cut-off nose to kiss and make up.

    148. Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2/3rds of the crops are grown in CA to feed the USA? Are you fucking nuts? The next time you fly to Manhattan from LA, look out the fucking window. All you'll see in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, etc are farms. And Those farms produce food. It sounds like you believe that those farms don't exist.

      I live outside DC, surrounded by farms. That grow food, that I buy at the local farmers market. Just like I did when I lived outside Albany, NY... Where there are FARMS THAT GROW FOOD THAT FEED NY.

  4. Trump calling someone else for not paying taxes? by DaveyJJ · · Score: 2

    That's rich.

    --
    DaveyJJ
  5. Right wing secessionists wear cowboy hats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And drive trucks with gun racks. They chew and spit tobacco.

    Left wing secessionists wear VR headsets and have dongles falling out of their pockets.

    Otherwise, pretty similar.

  6. It has to suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It has to suck after you make all these of those "donations" and get nothing back in return.

    1. Re:It has to suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this up +5 informative & Insightful.

    2. Re:It has to suck by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      It has to suck after you make all these of those "donations" and get nothing back in return.

      For investor who usually donate to both Dems. and Reps depending on the situation at each time and in each place it's just cost of doing business. Sometimes you win, sometimes you loose.

    3. Re: It has to suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has to suck after you make all these of those "donations" and get nothing back in return.

      It has to suck after you cast a bit over 200 thousand more votes than the other guy's and get nothing back in return.

    4. Re:It has to suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump can send them a Christmas card with his 'grin face' and a printed autograph.

  7. Progressives by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are doing everything, EVERY. GOD. DAMNED. thing they said would be unacceptable for Trump supporters to do if Hillary won.

    They have NO self awareness, NONE.

    1. Re:Progressives by skam240 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A handful of Silicon Valley elites = action by all progressives?

      Good work! I would say that by applying incredibly broad generalities to a large group of people based on the actions of a handful you are definitely part of some sort of solution rather than part of the problem.

      You? Part of the problem!? With mass generalities based on the actions of an incredible few like that, that would be absurd! Why would anyone mark you flamebait?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    2. Re:Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Republicans: OMG Bill Clinton cheated on his wife in office. WORST THING EVER until they elected a a guy who's on his third wife, serial philanderer, etc., etc. The man isn't fit to run a clown college.

      Republicans: OMG why is it such a big deal that the Bush II White House "misplaced" a bunch of emails, but let's focus on Clinton II for doing pretty much exactly what every secretary of state since the advent of email has done.

      Trump: This election is rigged. RIGGED! What's that? I won? Oh, well, nevermind then.

      Republicans: lazy, poor, uneducated minorities! They could get jobs if only they were willing to work! Oh, but the poor uneducated *WHITE* people don't have jobs because China/Mexico/Obama/whoever took them all.

      There are many, many, more, but frankly I'm sick of pointing out hypocrisy and inconsistency in the right wing. It's exhausting.

      So run along and find yourself some of the many, many Republicans crowing about how "the majority has finally spoken", all the while ignoring that Trump got less than 50% of the vote, and fewer overall votes than Clinton. There's probably a dictionary with a definition of the word "majority" around someplace but I doubt you'll notice it. I'm sure you all will have no trouble convincing yourselves that it's only progressives that lack self awareness, because frankly it takes self awareness to realize you might not have it. Quite the catch-22!

      Unfortunate that the entire rest of the country - the majority, as it turns out - now has to suffer for republican shortcomings though.

    3. Re:Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They are doing everything, EVERY. GOD. DAMNED. thing" - They're inciting violence? Nope. Threats of it? Nope. Crude jokes about assassinations?

      Nope.

      I guess you're wrong.

    4. Re:Progressives by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Like what? I've always welcomed TX and Friends to secede.

    5. Re:Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It hilarious. We had the same snowflakes crying and marching when the UK voted for independence in June. They live in their own bubbles and echo-chambers, and have no idea what the silent majority feel and is going through. Ha fscking ha!

    6. Re:Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will always lie, and they will always project.

      They aren't out there spraypainting swastikas on the side of the road to try and rile up Trump supporters, after all

    7. Re:Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess they just prefer it when the winner wins because they have the most votes, not the best gerrymandering

    8. Re:Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see a lot of prominent stories saying that the election results were fraudulent. Claiming the election was fraudulent was the main thing Trump was implying that he would do if he lost and that everyone else was telling him was irresponsible to do.

    9. Re:Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At time of writing:
      Trump: 59,611,678 (47%)
      Clinton: 59,814,018 (48%)

      Liberals know exactly what the silent majority is going through, because WE ARE THE MAJORITY.

    10. Re:Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, just maybe with Trump, we can make Silicon Valley great again.

    11. Re:Progressives by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      They have NO self awareness, NONE.

      And that is why they lost...

      And why the "media" was so stunned Tuesday night. I watched CNN because I knew when they "called it" for Trump, it was real. The irony is they DIDN'T call it until Trump was in the middle of his victory speech!!!

      CNN was THAT unable to accept reality, talk about an echo chamber.

      John King got it that night early and kept trying to tell Wolf Blitzer that it was going Trump's way and Wolf didn't want to hear it. Over and over, all night, John could clearly see what was happening, and Wolf just wouldn't listen.

    12. Re:Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are doing everything, EVERY. GOD. DAMNED. thing they said would be unacceptable for Trump supporters to do if Hillary won.

      They have NO self awareness, NONE.

      Who's 'they'?

    13. Re:Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize "they" are not a single group. Not every liberal cared if Texas would've seceded. By every liberal is butthurt and wants to throw a tantrum. Chill

    14. Re:Progressives by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      these are libertarians...

    15. Re:Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean.. we've all seen this, right?

      http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x51ewqo_black-men-assault-white-man-for-voting-trump-awful_news

      Mirrors:

      https://streamable.com/6nwo
      https://youtu.be/NYW3aVfW0Kk
      https://youtu.be/qePsCTYuMyk
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDD6McJiElc
      https://youtu.be/kePW48BuwTY
      https://youtu.be/KZ0d8b9OGxU

      Mirrors of the longer version

      https://my.mixtape.moe/nhgzvx.mp4
      https://vid.me/PQBm

    16. Re:Progressives by russotto · · Score: 1

      John King got it that night early and kept trying to tell Wolf Blitzer that it was going Trump's way and Wolf didn't want to hear it. Over and over, all night, John could clearly see what was happening, and Wolf just wouldn't listen.

      The New York Times got it pretty early too. Not their pundits, just their site that appeared to use a simple algorithm that assumed that outstanding votes in a given precinct would be proportionally similar to existing votes in that precinct. They started it based on polls (which were way off), but it didn't take much actual data coming in before it converged.

    17. Re:Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think each party is a single entity? Really? Do you think the people that are out there protesting are the same people that were saying Trump supporters shouldn't riot if Hillary won?

      Parties are collections of people. And each of those people has their own opinions. It is no surprise that with such a polarizing figure such as Trump winning there are people upset enough to riot. And if Hillary had won the same would have been no surprise on the other side.

    18. Re:Progressives by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Yes, that NYT tool was really cool, it went from 20% Trump to 80% Trump in less than an hour and just kept climbing, never looking back...

      John King saw it in his numbers on his "Magic Wall", but every time Wolf saw something positive for Clinton, he jumped in "she's ahead by 2,000 votes!", to which John would say "yes, but lets see where there are outstanding votes", and Wolf just wasn't interested...

    19. Re:Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump: This election is rigged. RIGGED! What's that? I won? Oh, well, nevermind then.

      I'm sorry, I can't give you that one. Trump is absolutely not being hypocritical in this case. You just need to take him at his word.

      First, he said the election is rigged. Then he said he wouldn't accept the result unless he won.

      Therefore, he knew the election was rigged in his favor. The only way Clinton could win is if her side did a better job of rigging it than his side did. No hypocrisy there.

      The above was satire. As far as you know anyway.

    20. Re:Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are doing everything, EVERY. GOD. DAMNED. thing they said would be unacceptable for Trump supporters to do if Hillary won.

      I have yet to see any armed insurrection or assassination plots against the president elect.

    21. Re:Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people on the streets are tech millionaires? Must not be much racism then because there seems to be a shit ton of black tech millionaires running around starting fires, blocking highways and making factually incorrect tweets.

      Mass generalities? Like when democrats say trump supporters are all racist, homophobic, sexists even though tons of us are black, Hispanic, women, gay, etc. Even though I, as a trump supporter, love all races, sexes, etc but HATE being called a sexist just because I disagree with you on what the solutions should be. Mass generalities like assuming strong border controls is based on a racial argument rather than economic and security arguments. Mass generalities like assuming one KKK supporter of Trump (he can't choose who claims to be a supporter of his) means we are all KKK members even though Hillary is best friends with a KKK leader (Hillary can choose her friends). Mass generalities like all the tweets saying blacks now "fear for their lives" just because Trump won. As if his winning means white people are going to lynch them, fire them from their jobs, and scream at them.

      It seems to me that the liberal reaction to this election is super racist against whites and is only furthering the racial divide. How can you expect to heal racial tension by screaming "you are a fucking terrible racist pig" at us? You just can't fathom that we are NOT racists so your group spends all day smearing us on TV, radio and social media as if that makes it true. Well, it's not true and it certainly doesn't help fix any real or perceived racism.

      So, pull your head out of your ass and try to figure out why Trump won with a positive lens. If you really think 50% of the nation is so racist that they elected Trump to lynch minorities then you are loony. That is not why Trump won and the sooner you stop and think about Trump supporters in a positive light and try to see things from our perspective the sooner we can work together so that we don't have to elect someone like Trump to make a point.

    22. Re:Progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A handful of Silicon Valley elites +

      riots in Portland, Oakland, LA, New York, and even outside the White House with violence, vandalism, and fire bombs (which are nothing new for Hillary supporters as North Carolina can attest).

      http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/liberal-riots-trump-destroys-hillary-clinton/

      https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2147684/violence-erupts-across-the-us-as-pro-clinton-fans-riot-after-donald-trumps-shock-election-win/

      http://abc7.com/news/anti-trump-protests-form-across-state-after-election-results/1597889/

      Interestingly enough not many domestic news sources for these, apparently the locals don't want to admit that progressives are violent criminals.

        It just remains to be seen if the current exiting Democrat president will vandalize and steal from the White House like the last one did. Yes, I'm talking about Bill and Hillary.

  8. slashdot propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is strong in this one

  9. One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Funny

    If California becomes a country, presumably one with an open southern border and an H-1B peonage system of its own, it would have to implement some form of defense department. Would it have electric dirigible aircraft, wind-powered missiles and a Department Of Hugging It Out?

    1. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If California becomes a country, presumably one with an open southern border and an H-1B peonage system of its own, it would have to implement some form of defense department. Would it have electric dirigible aircraft, wind-powered missiles and a Department Of Hugging It Out?

      California has a metric assload of military bases within its borders, plenty of enlisted in spite of being the hippie state, and more money than average. Don't worry about California's defensive capabilities.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by LinuxInDallas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure it does, but those bases belong to that country called USA. I have a feeling that the enlisted would be required to move.

    3. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sure it does, but those bases belong to that country called USA.

      If California secedes, of course we'll nationalize that land.

      I have a feeling that the enlisted would be required to move.

      We will strongly resist any attempts to kidnap and enslave our citizens.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Think of the pensions. When CA runs out of other peoples money to bail out their own funds.
      Designed in CA, made in China will not be the dream most think it is. The few top design jobs once thought unique to CA can be outsourced back into the USA :)
      Great for the US shareholders and owners who can hide their profits globally. Not many would risk an emerging CA in need of any hard currency and all the new taxes.
      So CA will be stuck with massive water, energy, pension and population issues without a federal gov to help.
      Time to look for a new federal gov?
      Help from China to rebuild CA? Light rail, built and designed in China, constructed in CA by China so the project is on time and works.
      Every platform a reminder of how friendly China helped emerging CA in a time of need. The companies from China get to stay as part of a new fair and equal trade deal :)
      China will offer much needed soft loans and turn CA into one big campus and think tank.
      That new debt will need to be serviced, but the rates will be so friendly for decades.
      CA will become the made in China showcase to the rest of the USA. Open for business and now with working fast rail, new fully paved roads and brand new airports.
      Designed in China, Made in China, sold in CA.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of the folks on California bases aren't California residents. Just like there's a lot of Californians in other military bases.

      Non-Cali's would leave, Cali's would come home, but yeah that's pretty much it. Cali would already have most if not all of a very well structured military simply from California residents already in the US Armed Forces that would no longer be eligable to be part of that if they were no longer a citizen.

      - WolfWings, too lazy to login, but felt like commenting.

    6. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by vux984 · · Score: 1

      The red states are the relative beneficiaries of federal taxes. (Essentially the democrat coastal states subsidize the red states. They pay more in federal tax than they get back from the feds, while the red states get more then they pay.)

      If there actually was a secession, I'd say the heartland has bigger economic concerns than the coastal states.

    7. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nearly ONE IN THREE CALIFORNIANS VOTED TRUMP! Who is enslaving whom exactly you insensitive clod?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    8. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The metric win of expected US military bases within its borders will turn into cleared out sites with foot thick walls, empty bunkers and old optical taps but they will just be empty cold war structures. All the skills, jobs, smarts will be back safe and happy in the USA. CA will be left with museum sites, big doors, big filter slots, empty racks, lots of ports and really, really long runways. No electronics, no pumps, no NSA, no CIA, no spare parts, no labs, no funds, no clearances. Just like the US sites returned in any nation that requests the USA to go. Clean, safe, empty, useless, ready for a new nations occupants. Safe for movies and TV series, nature walks... or imports from China.
      If a free CA wants to buy US systems, they can line up with the rest of the world and put in a payment plan and export grade systems. About 1960's to 1970's standards and very expensive. Will CA like to pay with cash or with a big new US loan? California's defensive capabilities would be zero on the day of its exit from the USA. California would be presented with plans to buy new capabilities from the USA from a long list of export cleared systems.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    9. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irony defined: they'll defend what's left of their water supply with squirt guns :)

    10. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Where would that tax base come from? The global tax shelters hide all the profits out of the USA would magically flow back into the nice CA gov?
      Would CA invite all that profit back in a state to new nation tax holiday? Then more realistic a tax rate up to cover reality a month or year later?
      The CA state pensions still have to be covered. The US would only cover its federal staff. If the existing users want monthly payments or some wish to walk out with a lump sum?
      Once the US federal soft support for the movie and hi tech sector stops, the brands will be free find new homes globally.
      Canada can offer to make nice movies, any nation can lower taxes way down for their own hi tech campuses. Even other states in the US can attract movies and tv series. Energy is cheap, fewer local laws, parts of the USA start looking better for profit.
      A lot of other nations have nice weather, airports and some even have fast internet. They will all be putting in offers to big brands to get them away from a risky, isolated CA.
      CA is unique in its support it gets from the US taxpayers to keep skills and education supported, not unique in anything it offers the world as CA.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    11. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Example - Ukraine a couple of decades back.
      Think of that and reconsider based on some reality how the hypothetical situation would play our.

      It's a stupid discussion anyway, as unlikely as the movie plot of nukes in the fault causing the entire state to slide into the sea.

    12. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California will also sell access to Vandenberg AFB to the USA, so they can still launch NRO missions. Because otherwise, the USA would not be able to launch high-inclination (ie. recon) birds from Kennedy.

    13. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your plan is to take land from one of the most powerful military forces in the world? With what? Words? Remember at that point THEY still have the cool weapons and they *really* like to use them. You also do not have federal legal backing to make those words work. So they are not just going to hand everything over. That would not work out well for either side. I do not see the USA just saying 'oh well we didnt really want those bases anymore'.

      I also do not think you quite realize the scope of the military and how many bases they hold across the world. They only give them up when it is no longer needed.

      Also remember if you decide to kick off a war your enemy knows exactly your weak points. They helped build them and likely already control them. Water for example would be a large weak point. They could quickly blow up your damns and pipelines. They do not even have to blow them up. They OWN most of them in the surrounding states and could just turn off the flow. You would quickly run out of water both for growing food and pissing in. No amount of conservation would make it better. Your state just uses too much. Hope you like long term rolling power blackouts. As they would cut off power from neighboring states (remember they own the dams and power plants). Mow down those fields of wind mills and solar panels or the local power exchanges and leave them intact for later use. The 5 would quickly become a cratered mess of checkpoints. They know exactly where the people of power live. They are in *love* with drones and satellites and can do what they want from 1 state over or off your coast from a carrier. Also keep in mind I would say 99% of the rest of your state probably thinks it is a terrible idea. How is your oil production? It is according to wikipedia about half a million barrels per day. According to most estimates they consume 16 million a day. Remember the US can setup a nice embargo too with its fleet of aircraft carriers. Then blow out your oil wells with a quick sortie strike. How is your hospital infrastructure? Is able to handle thousands of gun shot and shrapnel wounds everyday? The US has a well versed history of taking war to its enemys and keeping it off their own soil. Will you be able to keep in line the opportunists that would almost certainly show up? If so I hope you like martial law. Also keep in mind the US gov owns 46% of California, and much of the surrounding states to put whatever they want there. There is a reason the rest of the world grumbles at the power the US throws around. They have a lot of it. Still dont think so? How about I let wikileaks sum it up for me https://twitter.com/wikileaks/... [twitter.com] The US gov is not above being a scumbag. They are well practiced at it. It is why our forefathers warned us of a large powerful one. We have built one and now it is to late. "They are guarding all the doors, they are holding all the keys"

      We will strongly resist any attempts to kidnap and enslave our citizens
      It would be more along the lines of 'fight to keep your country whole or get out'. Those who chose to get out would quickly find themselves back in CA but with no command structure, support structure, and no job. The military today is nothing like the romantic version you see in the movies of the civil war. Something as simple as a humvee has a LONG support structure behind it. Who are you going to pick for your president? Bernie Sanders? Maybe if he wants to give up living his cushy life in Vermont from the money he made off all those suckers. You better pick someone who has the stomach and ability to plan for war. For that is what you are planing. The CSA got lucky because one of the greatest generals of that time was a native 'Virginian first and an American second'. Are you sure you would catch such a lucky break? You are also assuming all of your fellow Californians would be cool with this silly idea? I seriously doubt that. Even *if* (thats a big if) you didn't end up with a war with the US you would end up with your own civil war.

      You are delu

    14. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about kidnapping and enslavement. The US would move the staff and hardware in its armed forces back to the US. The Californians who are no longer US citizens will probably be discharged for no longer being US citizens while the Californians who remain US citizens will be required to move to a different US base.

    15. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by mea_culpa · · Score: 1

      They'd have to build a wall and find some way to make the other 49 states pay for it.

    16. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Nearly ONE IN THREE CALIFORNIANS VOTED TRUMP! Who is enslaving whom exactly you insensitive clod?

      Also it has to be said that non-white votes, female votes or votes from a feminized man shouldn't count.

      So there! :)

    17. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by aliquis · · Score: 1

      They'd have to build a wall and find some way to make the other 49 states pay for it.

      If we only were talking about San Francisco I guess they would be up for it?

    18. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by jobsagoodun · · Score: 1

      Don't they already have lots of Nuclear Wessels parked up in Alameda?

    19. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Xest · · Score: 2

      No, that's not how it works. We went through this whole discussion and legal quagmire with the possibility of Scottish independence. If California became independent it would gain a population proportional share of the US' assets and debts, so 12% of the airforce, navy, and army and so on.

      During to the run up for independence there would of course be some negotiating - i.e. California and the rest of the USA may decide that California only gets 10% of military assets instead of 12%, but takes reduced debt instead, or vice versa - as a major coastal state they may decide they'd prefer more naval/carrier assets and accept more debt as a result. Fundamentally though the starting point and the default if no agreement could be reached would simply be a 12% share (based on current populations of course). Even if the rest of the USA wishes to genuinely try and block California getting anything by force or similar then the US would also have to retain all it's debt, which with the loss of the Californian economy could be rather crippling to the point it would force the rest of the USA to do massive decomissioning programmes on large parts of it's military anyway, whereas California could run a surplus from the outset and thrive, maybe buy some knock down assets from the rest of the USA as it's forced to sell them off regardless...

      Those are the principles by which it would work, so no it's not simply a case of the rest of the USA saying "Those all belong to us, you get nothing".

    20. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

      We will strongly resist any attempts to kidnap and enslave our citizens.

      California would do about as well as Texas would in a military fight with the USA...

      In short, poorly... and I live in Texas and even I know how well THAT battle would end...

      California has no more right to leave the US than Texas does, this is just a temper tantrum from the left.

    21. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      We went through this whole discussion and legal quagmire with the possibility of Scottish independence.

      The difference is there is a legal option for Scottish Independence to happen...

      That doesn't exist in the US, the SCOTUS has even ruled on this, there is no means by which a state may leave...

      Of course they could go to war over it, but honestly, how well do you think THAT would work out?

    22. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      During to the run up for independence there would of course be some negotiating - i.e. California and the rest of the USA may decide that California only gets 10% of military assets instead of 12%, but takes reduced debt instead

      To negotiate, you must have a position to negotiate from...

      Those are the principles by which it would work, so no it's not simply a case of the rest of the USA saying "Those all belong to us, you get nothing".

      And if the USA said exactly that, what would California do, hold a protest rally? Issue a strong statement?

    23. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are saying there MAY be an over two-thirds majority in pro-secession voters? Ouch. You guys MAY have a problem over there (I said may, not will...). A two-thirds majority vote is considered potentially constitution-breaking in most civilized countries. With a two-thirds majority vote on your hand you could pretty much do anything - like secede... if you wanted to...

    24. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Drethon · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling that the enlisted would be required to move.

      We will strongly resist any attempts to kidnap and enslave our citizens.

      You mean the people who voluntarily signed a contract to join a national (not state) military?

    25. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "California has a metric assload of military bases within its borders"

      You mean that California would have a lot of land where US bases once were.

    26. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You mean the people who voluntarily signed a contract to join a national (not state) military?

      It's interesting you bring that up, because the standing military was known to the authors of the second amendment to be harmful to freedom. The primary point of the 2a (besides ensuring self-defense, which very much was a priority of the authors) was to avoid having one.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's a lot like Scotland considering leaving the UK. It's become clear that the divide between the values of England in particular and Scotland is now too large for a union to work. There are UK military bases in Scotland, in particular nuclear submarine pens and associated facilities. Scotland wants rid of them, as part of a policy of being a non-nuclear state and because it's kinda blatant how politicians in London put the accident prone nukes far away from anything they care about.

      All that can be undone, the base can be moved. Independence is more important.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better plan than seceding and going independent would be for California to become a Mexican state and build a wall along it's border with Nevada.

    29. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's disturbing that there are people out there such as yourself who spend more than a moment fantasizing about what a civil war would entail. It's sick and you're sick. We're not going to start bombing our own land and people with modern weaponry. Jesus Christ, man.

      In short, you're a fucking idiot.

    30. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Xest · · Score: 1

      I'm not commenting about the legality of the act of independence or the possibility of it happening because I know literally nothing about that and am more than happy to admit it, I'm merely pointing out that if it did happen it would follow standard international norms on the situation which would result in the outcome I pointed out.

      "And if the USA said exactly that, what would California do, hold a protest rally? Issue a strong statement?"

      It means that California also wouldn't have to accept any of the US' national debt - debt is merely a negative valued asset and if you refuse to hand over positive valued assets then you don't have a hope in hells chance of getting them to accept any negative valued assets. Your nation's debt situation is precarious enough as is without removing your primary income source from the equation yet maintaining the same value figure on your debt. Frankly, if it were to happen it would be a stupid move by the remaining US as it would lead to a high chance of bankruptcy, as such it would be easier to just not be dicks about it and to just come to a mutual agreement in the first place.

      To put numbers on it based on current figures your debt to GDP ratio would climb from 106% to 124%. This would in turn increase the cost of bond yields for the US as your risk of bankruptcy would have increased which would in turn further increase your debt to GDP ratio unless you made significant spending cuts (i.e. this is exactly what happened with countries like Greece) - you enter a cycle which becomes hard to recover from as poor economic standing increases borrowing costs which increases poor economic standing which increases borrowing costs and so on, and so forth.

      So I'd say California would have a hell of a strong position to negotiate from. There's really no benefit to the rest of the US in being arseholes about it - what's the point in hogging 12 instead of 11 carriers if it means you can only then afford to sustain 8 carriers?

    31. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by dwillden · · Score: 1

      You can have the land, it's the equipment and personnel that make the land useful militarily.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    32. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We will strongly resist any attempts to kidnap and enslave our citizens.

      Being redeployed to another base elsewhere in the world, equals neither kidnapping nor enslaving.

    33. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, one in three people has an IQ in or below the low 90s, and over one in three people believes in ghosts. Given humans' inbuilt gravitation towards lying demagogues, I'm frankly heartened that only one in three Californians fell for Trump's con artistry. I think they'd do just fine as a country, and would probably be so kind as to provide their population of erstwhile Trump supporters free mental health services.

    34. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California doesn't have it's own independent electric grid like Texas does, so that'd be a big issue right there.

    35. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by ghoul · · Score: 1

      California could declare a moratorium on paying federal taxes and use that money to arm the California National Guard which could the proceed to surround the US Army bases and force a withdrawal.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    36. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      So I'd say California would have a hell of a strong position to negotiate from. There's really no benefit to the rest of the US in being arseholes about it - what's the point in hogging 12 instead of 11 carriers if it means you can only then afford to sustain 8 carriers?

      What happens when those 12 carriers are blockading California and not allowing any airplanes or ships in or out?

      I think you missed the whole point, the USA could dictate terms at the end of a gun, they have the military forces to do it.

      I'm merely pointing out that if it did happen it would follow standard international norms on the situation which would result in the outcome I pointed out.

      I have trouble seeing anything like that happening, since it is illegal for states to leave the USA. We had a Civil War 160 years ago when a few tried, it probably would take that again to try it again.

    37. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You can have the land, it's the equipment and personnel that make the land useful militarily.

      If we secede, those are our citizens, unless they explicitly decide not to be. Many of them will. Their training won't simply vanish. Also, most of that equipment is shit, and what isn't is cheap enough to replace. Most of those war machines are outdated garbage. What's missing? Aircraft. But unless we're actually anticipating invasion from the USA, we don't need many of those. And, of course, missiles. But we can build rockets.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    38. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      California could declare a moratorium on paying federal taxes and use that money to arm the California National Guard which could the proceed to surround the US Army bases and force a withdrawal.

      The CNG is already armed, but the US President can nationalize them. If they refuse, that is treason/act of war.

      Anyone who thinks that 1 state could win a violent fight against the other 49 just doesn't understand the situation. Now if you had 10 states against 40, you have yourself a civil war, then it depends on what the military wants to do.

    39. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      Sure it does, but those bases belong to that country called USA. I have a feeling that the enlisted would be required to move.

      When countries break up (assuming the result is not a civil war) the military forces are usually divided between the fragments. A good case in point is the breakup of the Soviet Union which was followed by years of horse-trading over who gets which forces/equipment/bases/nukes.

    40. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will build fast charging stations along the coast lines for the warships, and will build a fast charging plane where jet fighters can plug in mid air.

      Instead of bombs they just drop the highly wanted newest iPhone with a remotely controlled explosive battery. But this will be a long court fight with Samsung who claims to be the first with exploding batteries.

    41. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how that war will go between the pacifist liberals and the not so pacifist non liberal.
       
        "Hey! That white CIS man literally slapped me in the face! He has literally hurt my feelings! I ... I ... ", looks over his shoulders where his comrades stare in disbelieve at the CIS, with their mouths wide open, their eyes welling up with tears, their hands covering their ears, and he looks back at the CIS and bows his head, "I ... I will surrender ... I will literally surrender. Please be my new master but please literally don't hurt me again."

    42. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They would pick up the runways and take them with them?

      Moron.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    43. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As per US law they would first be required to help joining newly seceded Californistan with the rest of the country again. Later they may be moving around.

    44. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by ghoul · · Score: 1

      As per the consitution the National Guard reports into the Governor not the President. The President can nationalize them in a time of external war to fight an external enemy. to Nationalize them to fight the host state would be unconstitutional and it would come down to military officers getting a legal set of orders from the Governor and an illegal set of orders from the President and which one they want to obey.

      I get your point about 1 state vs the rest but that 1 state is 13% of the population so its more like 1 state against 6 states and dont see much enthusiasm from other Blue states in fighting a referendum based secession by California.

      I do not know how much percentage of the folks posted in Federal facilities in California are native Californians or identify themselves as so now. That would be a factor. If a large part of the Army posted at San Diego thinks of themselves as Californians than they will not fight to hold California inside the union and would sit in their bases or even help the CNG units.

      Again the point of surrounding the army bases would be to prevent a President Trump from trying to use the miitary. The actual secession will be done through a referendum followed by negotiation with the US.

      Again all of this is possible but not probable. Californians are pretty happy with their lives in the US and except for some short term angst at Trump coming to power unless Trump really follows through on his more cray-cray promises people are going to forget about this and get on with their lives.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    45. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is there is a legal option for Scottish Independence to happen...

      That doesn't exist in the US, the SCOTUS has even ruled on this, there is no means by which a state may leave...

      Wrong. There is, of course, a legal path to independence. Not easy, likely or quick, but a constitutional amendment affirming the principle that a state may leave peacefully and setting conditions for departure would provide a legal path -let's say a referendum with a 2/3 majority and a minimum turnout, plus an obligation to accept a share of the national debt etc. - default terms could be set to be quite unfavourable so states would *really* have to want to leave.

    46. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      As much as I'd like to give the conservative states the green light to succeed ... success has a way of sending the next generation to the left.

      So you'd end up with 2 separate liberal counties in a generation.

      If it were 10 you'd basically have Europe ...

    47. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Xest · · Score: 1

      "What happens when those 12 carriers are blockading California and not allowing any airplanes or ships in or out?

      I think you missed the whole point, the USA could dictate terms at the end of a gun, they have the military forces to do it."

      Well given that California has more than it's fair share of military forces physically situated inside it, that would be an incredibly risky thing to do if you want them. But regardless, such an event simply wouldn't happen in isolation, you're talking about declaring war on a new nation, and committing massive military resources to it leaving your interests elsewhere wholly undefended, you're talking about creating a Syria type situation where even if you win you've done so much damage to the region that it's economy is destroyed and the end result is that it's worthless anyway, but filled with a whole lot of pissed off people that even once the situation is over will be carrying out terrorist attacks against your regime for decades to come. Again, normally, if you're going to have a war, then there has to be a point - Syria happened because Assad had no other options.

      Then there's the international angle it would undoubtedly lead to massive condemnation of the US, it would remove all geopolitical influence the US would have left at that point, and possibly even sanctions. Americas enemies would love nothing more than a civil war, and Californians would likely be sent plenty of help to tie the US up in an ongoing war from covert sources like Russia, and China who want to see it distracted and impotent globally whilst they spread their influence, again, so when the war ends the US is far weaker and far worse off, with far less trade options, far poorer as a result and far more likely to again be unable to service it's debts.

      America would have plenty of other options if California decided to try and become independent than war, and war would quite clearly be a far worse option than the alternatives.

      "I have trouble seeing anything like that happening, since it is illegal for states to leave the USA."

      Again, I'm really not disputing this, I really have no idea about the legal aspects. This is similar to the situation with places like Catalonia in Spain that want independence but can't get authorisation for a referendum from the central government. The legality of it doesn't quell dissent, or do anything to stop serious attempts towards independence however.

      I think you're probably right that it wouldn't happen though regardless, I just see no reason why California couldn't see a serious and sustained push for independence, and that if it did happen I suspect the remaining US and California would still remain the closest of allies, albeit with very different laws. As I understand it one of the guys pushing for this even said his goal is to leave the union, become independent, then rejoin with more autonomy - so effectively what they really want is not necessarily permanent independence per-se, but more autonomy such that if a president, house, and senate they have a huge distaste for is forced upon them, it at least doesn't effect them much legally. I think this in itself is an important factor in it not happening - I'd wager there'd be an agreement for far greater state autonomy to quell suggestions of independence if they became a serious idea and that would be enough to remove large amounts of support for the idea.

    48. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      California has no more right to leave the US than Texas does

      Every? I'm still waiting to hear where it's legally written that the U.S. is indissoluble, even after we fought a war about it.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    49. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by asdfman2000 · · Score: 1

      Sure it does, but those bases belong to that country called USA.

      If California secedes, of course we'll nationalize that land.

      Holy shit you people are retarded. Have you not heard of Fort Sumpter? "Nationalizing" army bases didn't work out so well last time a state tried to secede.

    50. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So tell me how again the President used the National Guard to ensure blacks could go to college during the Civil Rights era against the will of those state governors?

    51. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... they would be required to move or be required to find a new job. Since the military base and equipment is property of the US government you would have to either buy it from the feds, return it, or fight a war to retain it.

    52. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Secession is the right of every citizen. The state's right derives from the right of its citizens.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    53. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/civil war/revolution/

    54. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      What makes you think all the people who work at these places would want to pack up and move to the east coast?

      And what makes you think the eastern side could even enforce it? Instead of just CA leaving, I'd like to see the entire western side of the country secede; notice that tons of military bases are located in the western states. Those people aren't going anywhere, and they're not going to let the equipment leave either. Honestly, the east coast would be screwed if the west coast quit the country. The east coast is an economic drain, esp. the South, and doesn't produce too much any more. The big question would be the heartland states in the middle (which side would they join?), as they do produce a lot of agriculture, but then again so do the west-coast states, probably far more than enough for their own needs, unlike the east. (When I refer to west-coast states, I'm really referring to everything as far east as Colorado.)

    55. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wonder how many of those "citizens" are actually native to California and how many even of those who are would want to stay. Plus all the hardware belongs to the USA and I'm sure they would want their expensive toys back. And since guns are effectively illegal in CA good luck raising a force to stop them.

    56. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Every? I'm still waiting to hear where it's legally written that the U.S. is indissoluble, even after we fought a war about it.

      Then you haven't looked very far, this issue was settled by the SCOTUS 150 years ago.

    57. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      The Supreme Court gave its opinion on the matter. We still don't have anything written in our founding documents or laws on the book saying the same thing as far as I'm aware, i.e. there's no given procedure for seceding but there's also no explicit prohibition on doing so.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    58. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      The SCOTUS it is the same thing as a law, or do you think you can just ignore their rulings?

    59. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Good thing nobody has ever complained about them legislating from the bench before, then. If we want our judges to just create the laws we could save a lot of money by firing all those redundant legislators.

      Their rulings might be legally binding. They may also be wrong.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    60. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming that runways and non-modular buildings would still be there. The big Marine First Division base could become the Oceanside School of Law, where California would train the most feared segment of its population to file intellectual property suits, its largest remaining industrial product.

    61. Re:One itsy-bitsy flaw in this plan by nicklikesfire · · Score: 1

      Nearly ONE IN THREE CALIFORNIANS VOTED TRUMP! Who is enslaving whom exactly you insensitive clod?

      This is simply untrue. Population of California: 39,144,818 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Ballots Cast in California: 9,430,998 - http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns... Only one in four Californians even bothered to vote, let alone voted for Trump.

  10. Then you should of voted for Bernie. by Nyder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You pushed for Clinton, even though Sanders was a better candidate. What did you expect?

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's your opinion.

    2. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3

      You pushed for Clinton, even though Sanders was a better candidate. What did you expect?

      I did vote for Sanders in Michigan, because I wanted to see Clinton lose. I was very glad to see her lose again. That's the good news. The bad news is Trump won, but I have been getting a lot of schadenfreude from the leftists' meltdown.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    3. Re: Then you should of voted for Bernie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't get to see a Clinton lose again, ever (hopefully). I don't think they'll ever trot out Chelsea. Gawd is she ugly.

    4. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

      Sanders? You mean that guy who thought Hugo Chavez was a great leader and Venezuela was an economic model the US should follow? That Sanders?

      When did Sanders ever praise Hugo Chavez?

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    5. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Schadenfreude is an ugly, ugly thing. You should do your best to refrain from gloating. Sometimes today I've had to really work to stifle the occasional giggle though. I've been reading the Gawker sites, you see, and they are absolutely in a snit. I just want to hug myself and smile....

    6. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sanders? You mean that guy who thought Hugo Chavez was a great leader and Venezuela was an economic model the US should follow? That Sanders?

      When did Sanders ever praise Hugo Chavez?

      Sanders mentioned Cesar Chavez several times, and of course to a vast amount of uninformed Trump supporters and dittoheads, they might as well be the same person.

    7. Re: Then you should of voted for Bernie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still 10,000x better than she was in 1992

    8. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter, really. As a self-described socialist democrat and significantly more progressive; Sanders is even more the polar opposite of the Trump people and representation of everything they hate than Clinton is. The only thing Sanders has in his favor, so far as those people are concerned, is his Y chromosome.

      And while I am sure there is some small subset of the Trump people who are only misogynistic, but not racist, homophobic, islamophobic, xenophobic or isolationist; I doubt that would amount to enough defections from Trump to Sanders for the election to have gone the right way.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    9. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      The bad news is Trump won, but I have been getting a lot of schadenfreude from the leftists' meltdown.

      Here's to schadenfreude, by far my favorite picture. You can simultaneously see that she didn't consider even once that she could lose, that she was beat by a deplorable, and will never get to try again. The race was hers to lose, and she nailed it.

    10. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter, really. As a self-described socialist democrat and significantly more progressive; Sanders is even more the polar opposite of the Trump people and representation of everything they hate than Clinton is. The only thing Sanders has in his favor, so far as those people are concerned, is his Y chromosome.

      And while I am sure there is some small subset of the Trump people who are only misogynistic, but not racist, homophobic, islamophobic, xenophobic or isolationist; I doubt that would amount to enough defections from Trump to Sanders for the election to have gone the right way.

      ...People hate Clinton because of a long family history, numerous scandals, and strong ties to other politicians. Which one of these does Bernie have?

      You are right that he's the polar opposite of Trump though. I guess over the next 4 years we'll see whether privatization or government is the right answer to our problems. My personal guess is that this wave will end in much the same way that Mr. Bush's presidency did, but perhaps a little quicker.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    11. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Sanders never praised Chavez and certainly never said Venezuela was an economic model for the US.

      I suppose if you just make things up anything is possible though.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    12. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am SO happy our first woman president will not be Hillary Clinton - SO HAPPY!!!!!!!!

      I want a great, deserving woman to have that honor, regardless of her party.

    13. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is reading between the lines in his own head.
      He have decided in this head that Sanders was a dirty commie.
      What he haven't figured out yet is that Trump is best buddies with the dude who wants to bring back the Soviet union and has already made the election promise to stand back and watch as the same dude brings back country by county under its rule.

    14. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I wanted to see Clinton lose. I was very glad to see her lose again. That's the good news. The bad news is Trump won,

      Isn't that kind of like shooting yourself in the head to spite your face?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    15. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      Sanders is even more the polar opposite of the Trump people and representation of everything they hate than Clinton is.

      Yet, they both agree the current system is really bad. It's how they think it should be instead that they differ.

    16. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG socialism! Stalin! Mao! Pol Pot! Venezuela!

    17. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      During the primaries Sanders beat Trump handily in what-if polls. He did much better against Trump than Clinton did.

      Political positions aren't as uniaxial as that silly eighteenth century French naming convention would have you believe.

    18. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am also from Michigan, and you pretty described how I feel exactly.

    19. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You pushed for Clinton, even though Sanders was a better candidate. What did you expect?

      I did vote for Sanders in Michigan, because I wanted to see Clinton lose. I was very glad to see her lose again. That's the good news. The bad news is Trump won, but I have been getting a lot of schadenfreude from the leftists' meltdown.

      Don't worry, the left (world wide) will be getting a log of schadenfreude out of watching four to eight years of Trump fucking up America.

    20. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      On record as saying he 'supported Castro'.

      Which is close the fuck enough.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    21. Re: Then you should of voted for Bernie. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      She looks just like her dad, Web Hubble.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    22. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Her gender had NOTHING to do with her losing. All claims of such are pure BS and add nothing to the national discourse.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    23. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by Kagato · · Score: 1

      The difference between the republicans and the democrats is the republicans will vote for the party candidate no matter who it is. As Bill Mahr has often said "This is why the democrats lose."

    24. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by dwillden · · Score: 1

      +1000

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    25. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America has the President it deserves as a for the rest of the world we have always had to deal with your morons in office i do not include Kennedy or carter.

    26. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Sanders never praised Chavez and certainly never said Venezuela was an economic model for the US.

      I suppose if you just make things up anything is possible though.

      "These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger." http://www.sanders.senate.gov/...

    27. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Her gender had NOTHING to do with her losing. All claims of such are pure BS and add nothing to the national discourse.

      While I don't think it was the deciding factor, it definitely did have SOMETHING to do with it. Much of public opinion of Hillary derives from Bill's sex scandals and the perception she gained then as being an inadequate woman and a cold-hearted bitch who stood by her man only because she wanted to ride his coattails to power, not because she had a proper wifely relationship with her husband. Had she chosen then to portray herself as hurt and shamed, but demurely forgiving, she'd have retained her "proper womanhood", but given up any hope of being taken seriously as a force in her own right.

      These influences are subtle, but all the deeper and more powerful precisely because of their subtlety. A man in her position, faced with public accusations of infidelity by his wife, would have to walk a fine line but if he did it right could come through it as the strong but loving and forgiving man, rather than the heartless, power-hungry bastard or the weak cuckold. Of course, if the man failed to walk that line he'd have been hurt even more seriously than she was, because men are not supposed to ride their wives' success. I'm assuming that he managed to follow her into the White House without already losing his "proper man" credentials... which itself would be very difficult. Maybe impossible.

      All of the above sounds like quaint, decades-old thinking that doesn't apply in the modern era where men and women are supposed to be equal. But it's still very deeply ingrained, and will be for some generations to come. Lots of women who'd love to see a woman in the White House didn't want it to be Hillary because they don't see her as a proper representative of her sex, specifically because of what she did about Bill's sex scandal -- but there's no way she'd have been more than a first lady if she had acted as a proper woman. Note that I'm not claiming that women weren't also deciding based on her history in office as senator and Secretary of State, but these perceptions of her as a person also played a role.

      Similarly, though it would be even harder to get them to admit -- even to themselves -- there are undoubtedly a goodly number of male voters who are uncomfortable with a woman taking charge in such an important role, because the mere act of wanting such a role isn't in keeping with proper womanhood, which means there must be some sort of character flaw in her. Many of them probably justified that discomfort by looking for something else to pin it on, but it still had a very real role.

      And, when you look at it that way, given how close the election was (it appears she actually won the popular vote) there is a strong possibility that if she had been a man, but everything else (somehow) held equal, she'd have won. In which case your claim of her gender having NOTHING to do with the result is clearly and flatly false.

    28. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Whole election was just plain crazy.
      Sanders should have been the Dem candidate, anybody but Hillary really - with her very rich criminal past and we know she has a criminal past. Well documented.
      Anyone but Trump on the Rep side. There were plenty of guys that would have walloped Hillary a LOT worse than Trump did.

      Fuckin press man. They created this whole mess, they're really stupid. In college, ask about being a journalist. Anyone can be one. It's non competitive so if you're all washed up, really stupid but managed to get into college - you can be a journalist and decide what all of us read and think.

      I suppose there is a bright side. Things can only get better, I hope. Obama has just about destroyed the country. We're in a hell of a financial hole because of him - he couldn't even get a budget passed the entire time he was President. Imagine that, we're running the country on a budget that GW Bush passed. The one with the bailout, we've been paying for that bailout all these years, over and over again.

      Drain the swamp. Find the corrupt people, Dem, Rep, Other, get 'em and lock 'em up!

    29. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Oh, he said some small nice thing about Venezuela's economy before oil prices dropped and their economy went to shit.

      You got me good!

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    30. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by tsqr · · Score: 1

      So I guess "never" doesn't actually mean "not ever". My mistake.

    31. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you got me good! Clearly a comment like that equals "You mean that guy who thought Hugo Chavez was a great leader and Venezuela was an economic model the US should follow? ".

      You sure got me good!

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    32. Re:Then you should of voted for Bernie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Trump Presidency is just the price we have to pay for keeping that bitch out of the White House. Humanity collectively dodged a bullet on that night, as World War III is now on hold for a bit.

  11. Re:Trump calling someone else for not paying taxes by Z80a · · Score: 1

    He don't exactly do that to gain moral ground.
    If anything, on one of the debates if i'm not mistaken, his point was "i know companies do it because i do it".

  12. They are worried about cheap H1B's vanishing by hsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trump would throw a wrench into their cheap labor and displacing jobs. Threatens their business models.

    1. Re:They are worried about cheap H1B's vanishing by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Trump would throw a wrench into their cheap labor and displacing jobs. Threatens their business models.

      That's exactly why Silicon Valley wants to secede and be out of his reach. Without a Thirteenth Amendment to interfere with its H-1B plans, California could build its own fleet of sustainably powered sailing vessels, made of natural woods, to bring in workers who would be hunted and captured in the poorer parts of Asia and then brought home on the trade winds. Airline methods could be used to make this shipping arrangement highly efficient. Imagine how many workers could be accommodated in a vessel with one-meter deck spacing and workers tied down with restraints in a prone position, packed spoon fashion!

    2. Re:They are worried about cheap H1B's vanishing by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      ied down with restraints in a prone position, packed spoon fashion!

      This sounds like a few cubicle layout proposals I've seen lately.

    3. Re:They are worried about cheap H1B's vanishing by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Anyone can sound bad if you make things up!

      How about Red states leach our nation's wealth while Blue states provide it.

      Oh wait. I didn't make that up, that's an actual fact. My bad...

      How about the South (the core of the Red states) only became Republican in response to the Civil Rights Movement?

      Damn, I didn't make that up either.

      I guess I just can't make anything up about Red states that is better than the truth...

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    4. Re:They are worried about cheap H1B's vanishing by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Trump would throw a wrench into their cheap labor and displacing jobs.

      Um will he? I mean people say Hillary is rather close to big business and won't stop offshoring. Trump IS big business and has personally done lots of offshoring. You didn't get Kang instead of Kodos, you got for their boss.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:They are worried about cheap H1B's vanishing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump would throw a wrench into their cheap labor and displacing jobs. Threatens their business models.

      That's exactly why Silicon Valley wants to secede and be out of his reach. Without a Thirteenth Amendment to interfere with its H-1B plans, California could build its own fleet of sustainably powered sailing vessels, made of natural woods, to bring in workers who would be hunted and captured in the poorer parts of Asia and then brought home on the trade winds. Airline methods could be used to make this shipping arrangement highly efficient. Imagine how many workers could be accommodated in a vessel with one-meter deck spacing and workers tied down with restraints in a prone position, packed spoon fashion!

      Is there a version of this election that does not have America or part of it reverting to 18th century standards of living? NO? then those whiney billionaires can GTFO if they don't like it, and I am a democrat who voted for Hillary and have accepted that Trump won. I just hate whiney bitches that think that their whining is more important than real world problems because they have billions of dollars.These idiots need to move on or get the fuck out of the country.

    6. Re:They are worried about cheap H1B's vanishing by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      How about Red states leach our nation's wealth while Blue states provide it.

      While the facts on which that statement is based are true, it's misleading. The 'leaching' is required to keep the value of the US dollar roughly constant across the country (though the spending power of one dollar is still quite a lot more in the middle than the edges). See Greece and Germany what happens when you don't have such a mechanism within a single currency.

      The result of this is that the US dollar is a lot weaker as a currency for the USA than it would be for just the coastal states. This, in turn, helps exports from those states to the rest of the world. Without this mechanism, it's highly likely that the coastal (mostly blue) states would see a sharp downturn in exports and a recession.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:They are worried about cheap H1B's vanishing by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      LOL, if you believe Trump is going to do anything about H1B's then I have a reality-show reject for you to elect as president.

    8. Re:They are worried about cheap H1B's vanishing by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Do you really think Trump will do much about immigrant workers? He built his own empire with their labour, when he could have hired locals if he actually cared.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:They are worried about cheap H1B's vanishing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump promises lower corporate tax. You would expect corporation earning billions would be happy with a lower corporate tax. A company like Apple for example earns billions and has pay a lot of corporate taxes ... oh wait ....

      It just shows that the high taxes doesn't tax the rich, but the working middle class. And yes that working middle class includes small and medium sized business who create the majority of the jobs that would be taxed most by Clinton's "We will get the money where we can get it: from the rich". Ignorant people might think she will get the money from large business like Apple, Microsoft, Boeing, financial sector et al. But we all know this is not true. Those extremely rich didn't pay taxes and will not pay taxes after Clinton was elected.
       
      I don't think it will be different under Trump, but at least Trump says he will lower the taxes for the 'real American' companies who create the majority of the jobs. If this will bring back more jobs to America is still the question. I expect a larger deficit than ever, but hey the stock markets have won after Trump was elected. Maybe there is a positive feeling among those companies and a readiness to hire more people? Just lets hope for the best. At this moment I'm more afraid of the anti-Trump people who can't accept defeat. At this moment Clinton should show why she would have been a good president and step up and ask her supporters to stop rioting and work together with people building up the country instead of tearing it down.

    10. Re:They are worried about cheap H1B's vanishing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the same stuff he was doing before he ran?

    11. Re:They are worried about cheap H1B's vanishing by dwillden · · Score: 1

      You mean in response to the movement that the Democrats resisted until the Republicans pushed forward?

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    12. Re:They are worried about cheap H1B's vanishing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? Trump uses cheap, foreign labor too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYoOPgeTMQc

    13. Re:They are worried about cheap H1B's vanishing by skam240 · · Score: 1

      You mean the Republicans from districts that are all Democratic now? Yes I do.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  13. Re:Trump calling someone else for not paying taxes by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Some of the strictest sheriffs in the wild west were former outlaws. Who better to hunt tax cheats than an expert.

  14. Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time I checked, California barely had enough water for itself.

    I get that you're upset, but it just makes you look like you're throwing a temper tantrum. And this is coming from someone who lives in Texas. We were literally 2 votes away from having the motion to succeed brought before our legislature.

  15. This is gonna be fun by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    I don't like the idea of a Trump presidency, but have to admit I liked the idea of an HRC presidency even less.

    Trump never ran on issues, just biases and fears. Be an interesting 4 years, see what he really does. Especially with his wall.

    1. Re:This is gonna be fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Be an interesting 4 years, see what he really does.

      If he follows through on his promise to cut taxes, we can look forward to another borrow-and-spend administration and skyrocketing debt. You thought $20 trillion was bad?

      Add to that "job creation" of more lower-wage hourly jobs for the former middle class, and nobody but the ultra-rich will have any money to spend. Markets will shrivel. Bye bye U.S. economy...

    2. Re:This is gonna be fun by Serge_Tomiko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1) Restricting immigration such that it benefits American Citizens? Issue.
      2) Renegotiating trade deals and implementing trade tariffs to benefit American workers? Issue.
      3) Rebuilding our nation's crumbling infrastructure and putting American Citizens to work? Issue.
      4) Stopping all foreign wars and provocations of major world powers like Russia? Big fucking issue unless you like getting nuked.

      The list goes on... The issues don't get much bigger than this, except in fantasy land of "climate change" or "white privilege".

    3. Re:This is gonna be fun by skam240 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not trying to be rude or attack you but I just don't understand those claims. I honestly feel a business as usual candidate like Hillary, which admittedly is not my favorite concept, is FAR superior to some one with zero experience, a clear temperament problem, a crush on America's nation state enemies, threatens to sue anyone who questions him while threatening to loosen America's libel laws and thus reign in freedom of the press, and a tax plan that is clearly designed to enrich the wealthy while bankrupting the country.

      I honestly can't think of a more objectionable candidate than Trump.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    4. Re:This is gonna be fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Only benefits American Citizens if you actually believe that them dirty Mexicans took yer jab and that the job didn't just disappear because Chinese workers work twice the hard for half the pay.
      2) Only works if you think that Trump actually can make a good deal. He seems to be able to trick money out of fools. China isn't going to get their panties in a twist over doing business with the great Donald Trump. If he steps back on the current agreement they will give him a worse one and tell him to take it or leave it.
      3) Sure, he can do that, if he raises taxes to fund it or cut down some other expense. It's not going to be the military or law enforcement so he will have to remove something that benefits the poor.
      4) Since Russia have this thing where they like to attack countries like Ukraine unprovoked we will most likely see larger war break out in Europe if the US leaves NATO or even promises to stay out if a conflict were to happen. They problem is that wars in Europe have a tendency to drag the rest of the world with them.
      One of the reasons could be that the US economy heavily relies on Europe being stable.

      The problem with Trumps promises is that it is pandering to stupidity. He has no way to actually make anything he promised happen.
      Luckily we know how Trump usually works so he is a bit predictable.
      For example, if you don't have it in writing he won't hold his promises. That is one thing that is consistent with his business side.
      Another thing that is pretty consistent with Trump is that if he can find a way to screw you over he will unless he thinks he have something to gain from you in the near future.

    5. Re:This is gonna be fun by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between Clinton and Trump. Both want to do things that are obviously against the interests of the majority of the population, but Clinton has the Washington experience to make deals to pass them and make them seem appealing. Trump doesn't. A successful Trump presidency would probably be a bit worse than a successful Clinton presidency, but the likelihood of Trump achieving any of his goals is a lot less.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:This is gonna be fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it's interesting watching this meltdown, I've always maintained that it doesn't change the larger events in the coming shitstorm. It may be a slightly oranger shade of brown, but it's still a shitstorm.

      There will still be riots in every major city in 2018. BRICS will still move away from the US dollar. The year from hell will still begin when Denver is about to fall.

      If I'm doing my back of the napkin calculation correctly, this path to the Stein's gate is about 40% likely. Divergence from my original worldline is currently only 0.52 and still falling.

    7. Re:This is gonna be fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you smoking? The climate's always changed.

    8. Re:This is gonna be fun by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The downside of Trump is he's not gridlocked on day one like Clinton would have been.

      The upside is the Supreme Court won't be stuffed with gun grabbers.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:This is gonna be fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the point. Roughly half of Americans don't want "business as usual".

    10. Re:This is gonna be fun by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      Agree... I was going to vote Johnson until this past weekend when my wife and kids discussed it. Who's worse? Hillary or Donald? As human beings, they're both "deplorable." So it came down to policy decisions. Thinking about terms limits, for example, and lobbying from foreign interests (or banning ex politicians from representing foreign lobbyists)... and then we discussed healthcare. This year was terrible for us - my daughter needed PT to the tune of nearly $3000, all out of pocket thanks to deductibles that are triple what I was paying before, and nearly double the cost premiums I'm paying now. Suddenly the picture started becoming more clear - I don't like Trump. He is misogynist. I don't think he's racist, but I do think he's prejudiced and bigoted (and yes, they are different things - related perhaps, and usually going together, but not necessarily). Targeting ILLEGAL immigration does not make him a xenophobe. So yes, I sadly accept the baggage of his terrible personality BECAUSE it came down to issues.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    11. Re:This is gonna be fun by skam240 · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? While Trump isnt universally loved within the Republican party he is guaranteed far more support then Clinton would have gotten from a Republican controlled Congress. You're being completely absurd if you think Clinton would have a better chance of passing legislation. Just look at the last 6 Obama years after the Democrats lost control of Congress, all Congress did was try to repeal Obama Care 50 or 60 times and it most certainly didn't act positively on any presidential proposals. They even refused to discuss his supreme court nominee even though that's their damn job.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    12. Re:This is gonna be fun by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Even though neither political party is actually trying to take away your gun (unless you're a criminal of course)

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    13. Re:This is gonna be fun by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      Because when you read things from or about him, you likely did a small amount of fact-checking. You didn't accept his words at face value. But a lot of people--millions, it appears--heard him say "I'll bring back/create jobs" and they boarded the Trump Train without reservation.

      What's funny is that Clinton could have given the same lies but with half the heart and probably won the majority of his voters. But instead she ignored this large group of people and their primary concern: their personal livelihood. (At one point on the campaign trail, I think in the primary, she even said something akin to "I will get rid of coal mining jobs"--meaning that she would put more emphasis on alternative energy, and the intention that the miners would work for that sub-industry instead, but horribly worded and a nice soundbite for the opposition. See: "You didn't build that") Trump didn't win because of his various examples of bigotry, but in spite of them (still not good IMO). The same might go for any of the third party candidates, but I didn't see any of them discuss it, either (and I followed personally, so that's not due to the media ignoring third parties.)

      (If only there had been someone available to the Democrats, who not only had a populist message and enthusiasm behind it, but a long record of actually trying to implement it. That person could have retained those Obama-turned-Trump voters (more than a few, apparently) and coaxed over many other voters who were uncomfortable with Trump's rhetoric. But, no, Clinton was the sole candidate in the primary. Oh, well.)

    14. Re:This is gonna be fun by skam240 · · Score: 1

      No, I did plenty of fact-checking which is why I dont buy his bringing back jobs nonsense. His proposals for bringing jobs back wont be implemented in some bizarre political vacuum where there will be no response. Starting trade wars is a lose-lose for everyone involved and if he starts tearing up trade treaties and putting substantial tariffs on imports that's just what he'll have. The types of manufacturing jobs that once employed large numbers of Americans but are gone now will never be back for one simple reason, labor cost (and that's true with or without NAFTA, it just sped up the inevitable).

      The only manufacturing that will return to America without completely destroying our economy in trade wars is that which can be significantly mechanized, which doesnt do a lot to bring jobs back,

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  16. Good Riddance. You will not be missed by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

    The world will go on without you. Maybe Apple could move their operations to their new 'foreign' neighbors.

    1. Re:Good Riddance. You will not be missed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will be happy to not have shitty 80's movie remakes and more comic book movies. I thought that was Caliphornia's main export.

  17. California - That door by mishehu · · Score: 1

    Don't let it hit you in the rear end on your way out of the union! (Talk is cheap, let's see them actually do more than talk.)

    1. Re:California - That door by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      California would be one of the only states that *COULD* secede from the U.S. Hell, one more good earthquake, and it becomes its own island nation in the Pacific. Maybe that's why Colorado legalized weed - They knew they couldn't go anywhere, so they would rather just not worry about anything.

  18. Fuck you, you hypocrits by RichPowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As much as I despise Donald Trump, seeing these haughty Progressives eat a buffet of crows warms the cockles of my heart.

    For the last 90 years, the Ivy League-armed technocrats of the Progressive apparatus have waged a relentless war against state sovereignty in their march to greater political and economic consolidation in D.C. and NYC. Only the "leadership" from the PhDs in D.C. matter, plebs. We'll control your healthcare, collude with the media to control the agenda, concentrate more power in the unelected bureaucracy that grows like a weed in Northern Virginia, and then call anyone who supports states' rights (aka federalism aka competitive sovereignty) a racist or neo-Confederate.

    Fuck you. You made this bed. Now lie in it. Enjoy Trump turning the gun of the federal leviathan you created right in your face. Applauding for Obama's "I'm going it alone" screed when the Democrats lost Congress doesn't seem like a wise precedent now does it? But let's be honest: you only like democracy when it goes your way, otherwise you pout.

    By the way, these same Silicon Valley assholes and California Democrats have made fun of Northern California's "State of Jefferson" secession movement for decades.

    Seeing the Obama elitists go down in flames in Congress and the executive puts a big ol' smile on my face. The next blow against these Silicon Valley fucks will be the bursting of the zero percent interest rate bubble blown by the Fed (another wonderful gift from the Progressives), which will wipe out the GAAP non-profitable bullshit "app" companies in the Valley. (This is probably why they hate Trump, though: he's mentioned that we're in a bubble and it's the Fed's fault.)

    Truthfully, though, the Democratic party and the country would be better off if they did leave. As long as the Dems in the Bay Area foist Pelosi, Boxer, and Harris on the rest of the republic, the party will be repugnant to most of the Rust Belt and places like New Hampshire, where citizens still value freedom and being left the fuck alone.

    1. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to say, but the jokes on you, my friend. Trump will change nothing. If he tries in earnest to reform Congress through term limits and lobbying bans, he will be promptly impeached by his own party. Some of his economic plan is likely to get through, however (after he quickly bails on the "drain the swamp" crusade"), in the form of tax cuts, trade tariffs, and fiscal spending, but these measures will only serve to stoke inflation and thoroughly debase the USD, further impoverishing savers. A truly protectionist agenda will stymie global capital flows and put a severe crimp in the growth of developed economies, hurting precisely the people he aims to help. The best we'll get a short term sugar high from the stimulus, followed by a long descent into stagflation. At worst, the U.S. will effectively lose its status as the world's reserve currency, and all of the privileges that go with it.

      While I understand and sympathize with your distaste for the condescension of "haughty progressives," I do believe you all are about to get a lesson in what it means to "piss into the wind." Best of luck though.

         

    2. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      With you 100%. I must say though, I was just talking about secession here with Bruce Perens, he is under impression that people are not interested in individual freedom because they want to live on handouts. I think everybody should be totally within their right to secede from everybody else, freedom of association is extremely important for private property rights and AFAIC the top rights are: the right to life (government must not deprive you of your life), freedom (government must not deprive you of freedom), property (government must not deprive you of property), everything else is secondary but it follows. The right to free speech means government must not deny you the right to speak freely but this right only is relevant when you have to speak to protect yourself, protect yourself from government trying to destroy your other rights.

      The same concept applies to the right of association, government must not punish you for associating or not associating with other people.

      This is what rights are: protections against government oppression, protections of your individual self, your self-determination. Apparently people are under impression that having a subsidy trumps (can anybody use this word now without invoking the images of this election?) other freedoms. I don't think so, I think people want to be free, they want to determine their own fate and future, they will choose freedom over subsidy.

      Of-course some will ensure subsidy over freedom, but this implies that somebody else has to be made 'not free', somebody else's freedom must be taken away to provide that subsidy and this must not stand.

      My point is that everybody should be totally within their right to secede from everybody else and to associate freely with anybody else. The underlying principle here is that nobody should be ruling anybody else, we are all individuals and we must not be ruled.

      As to Silicon Valley, many there are clearly interested in ruling others and now they are terrified to be ruled all of a sudden. I have no sympathy but I think this is a good lesson.

    3. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even though I'm a liberal (I don't consider myself a democrat but it's semantics because I do vote as one), your sharp witted comment made me smile. Because you're right!

      I feel those that consider themselves the intellectual elite have softly and sternly divided themselves from the rest of the country and would "just wish all these less educated and religious people would shut up and let us do what's good for them." That attitude is as bad as any other evil in history, including what some conservative subgroups are accused of doing to liberal subgroups (like in Indiana with religious people preventing marriage equality for homosexuals, for example). It's just as patronizing, biased, and divisive as how we have thought of you and I am sorry. We had some time in the sun. Let's see what trump can do and if he'll do all these horrible things that I've been told he will. We're all Americans. We were wrong in how we treated you, how we thought of you, and your point was proved. You're in the driver's seat now. I know it's convenient timing for me to be saying this, but please, let us unify. Let us be Americans together. Don't turn on us. Teach us how to treat you by treating us kind when you don't need to. I'm ready for lessons. Let's make America stronger through our unity.

    4. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The underlying principle here is that nobody should be ruling anybody else, we are all individuals and we must not be ruled.

      Ridiculous.

      Governance, for all its faults, provides organization. Without it, we would not have *anything* upon which we now rely. You like plumbing? Paved roads? Cars on which to drive them? Internet? Electricity with which to power your computer? Your computer? Shampoo?

      Anarchy cannot produce *any* of this. This is an historically-demonstrated fact. We lived in anarchy for millions of years, and the height of human technology at that time was fish nets. It wasn't until we could organize ourselves on a larger scale that industry (and science) could exist.

      You want all the benefits of a well-governed nation without the responsibilities.

      The only thing I will say in your defense is that your position seems to be based on ignorance, rather than sloth. You probably believe that person-to-person agreements would be sufficient to get all these benefits in a 100% unruled nation. That's because you are an idiot who doesn't realize how many times that has been tried, and how far it got.
         

    5. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah - you're an anti-semitic twat. Jews helped to make Western Civilization great. The world would be poorer without them, and I'm glad so many of them have graced our nation with their creativity and genius. I say this as a southern conservative and a former christian. Go fuck yourself with a drilling rig you worthless waste of protein.

    6. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Couldn't you have said that, like, ages ago? But no, you couldn't because it was SO satisfying to tell other people that they're stupid and they don't matter. It took electing Trump to get you to listen to reason. NOW you want everyone to be unified, when you spent the last few years doing everything yo could to divide us, especially along racial lines? Good job, assholes.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you. You made this bed. Now lie in it.

      In a vote to piss or shit the bed, it's the pisser's fault the bed smells like shit?

    8. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
      I seceded from reality over 30 years ago.

      Have never been better

    9. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enjoy Trump turning the gun of the federal leviathan you created right in your face.

      And this is guaranteed by which Trump policies exactly?

    10. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by skam240 · · Score: 2

      " But let's be honest: you only like democracy when it goes your way, otherwise you pout."

      What nonsense. Everyone like's it when they win and dislikes it when the lose.

      As for "call anyone who supports states' rights (aka federalism aka competitive sovereignty) a racist or neo-Confederate.", you're spending too much time on the internet. Spend some time in the real world where the vast majority is a moderate of some slant or another.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    11. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Seeing the Obama elitists go down in flames in Congress

      Calling "elitists" the one who wants affordable care for everyone is just bullshit. When only richer can afford cares this is elitism.

      Let's see if the health system improves with Trump.

    12. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      For the last 90 years, the Ivy League-armed technocrats of the Progressive apparatus have waged a relentless war against state sovereignty

      Uh, states aren't sovereign and it wasn't 90 years. It was 4 years from 1861 to 1865 when some states tried to be sovereign.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      While I agree with most of what you say, please could you stop referring to authoritarian kleptocrats as 'progressives' please? There's nothing progressive about these people: they want stronger government intervention where it harms their competitors, less regulation where it helps their interests.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The current federal interest rate is a 'progressive' gift?

      It has fuck all to do with progressive politics. It's a neoliberal gift -- the automatic and essentially inevitable consequence of the 2008 crash, which, I ought to point out, happened in 2008. Not in 2009.

      Neoliberalism suited the GOP just fine. Shut the fuck up about things you don't understand.

    15. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Trump is backlash against the speed of progress. Work is changing, automation and cheap foreign labour has changed manufacturing forever, for example. That can't be undone, the only way forward is to deal with it. What Trump is offering is a futile attempt to turn back time.

      Some other people feel that because gay people can get married, or because women have control over their pregnant bodies, or because more and more people of colour are getting good jobs, or because different immigrant communities than the ones they are used to are growing, things are changing too fast. Republicans offer an easily identifiable group with little power or voice of their own to blame, to hate.

      It's the politics of the degenerates, the white supremacists, the misogynists and racists. People know this, that's why the polls were wrong. They won't admit it to pollsters, but in the privacy of the voting booth they are free to be those things.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      these are libertarians, fool

    17. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 2

      ...the Ivy League-armed technocrats of the Progressive apparatus have waged a relentless war against state sovereignty in their march to greater political and economic consolidation in D.C. and NYC...

      You do realise that the right wing technocrats you vote for went to the same Ivy League schools and if they didn't they are sending their kids there?

    18. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      slant

      Racist!!!

      ...at least that's what I imagine the logic to be like for a lot of these numbskulls protesting. Actions speak louder than words, folks...

      On a related note, it makes me laugh seeing all these "special little snowflakes" having psychotic breakdowns over their own imagined fears. Nothing's changed. There's not going to be a "loss of progress" in regards to civil rights. Nobody is going to be more discriminated against. The sky is not falling. You voted for the most corrupt candidate in the history of our country because you were worried over some stupid things the other candidate said? Key word -> "said". Your candidate actually DID things that caused a lot of real problems for a lot of people.

      People that voted for Trump weren't voting for the dumb mean things he said, they were voting AGAINST the corrupt establishment that has been screwing over the middle class and giving benefits to illegals while our own people lose their homes and starve to death in the streets... all at the same time that the rich keep getting richer. This happened under democratic leadership, snowflakes. Spend less time listening to what they say and more time looking at what they do. It also helps to follow the money trail and see who is funding who or what. But that would require effort and critical thinking... it sure is easy to keep suckling on that gov't teat, isn't it? Problem is, the gravy train has got to end at some point, and the more time you spend dependent on that teat, the less chance you have of making something of yourself and bettering your own life.

      God help us all...

    19. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Ridiculous.

      Yeah, well, so was the thought of Trump as POTUS.

    20. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only idiot I smell is you. Science was stalled for thousands of years under fascists. Do tell me about the complex societal structures or lack thereof of people that lived millions of years ago? The problem is that we don't really know. We believe that they were too stupid to invent things like electronics, or even complex governments.

    21. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Said the neo-nazi.

    22. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      >>> you only like democracy when it goes your way, otherwise you pout.

      and this differs from the other side . . . . how? The Republicans pouted with a vow to put all their efforts into making Obama a one-term president, and spent the remaining 8 years throwing spanners and sabots into the works. The establishment republicans all pouted when Trump won their primary out from under their control.

    23. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The intersection of my views and Nazism is non-empty, I'll grant you that. But taking a critical view of the Jew is not confined to Nazism. In fact, if you travel to parts of the world not wholly under Jewish control (i.e. those countries outside the the white, Western world) you will find that people have a more accurate understanding of the nature of the Jew.

      Just try what I said: the next time you hear somebody in the media expressing anti-white, anti-American sentiment, look them up. If they're not a Jew themselves, then they work for Jews.

    24. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you talking about the the far north of California becoming a separate state, called "Jefferson"? From what little I have been able to gather, depending on where the demarcation line is drawn, that part of California would wither away without support from the rest of the state, essentially it would become so red that it would bleed to death and die. I don't have any numbers to back up this position. I have read that welfare and aid to that part of the state is quite higher than from other regions of the state. From what I hear it is because there isn't a whole lot of opportunity up there.

    25. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by PJ6 · · Score: 1

      As much as I despise Donald Trump, seeing these haughty Progressives eat a buffet of crows warms the cockles of my heart.

      How can you expect anyone to take your point of view seriously when you apparently don't even know what progressive means?

    26. Re:Fuck you, you hypocrits by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Ever think about running for office?

  19. secede with or without water rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much of the Colorado river water southern California would get if Arizona and Nevada had all the Congressional votes that applied? Secede, sure, and be sure to prepare for the ensuing Water Wars.

    1. Re:secede with or without water rights? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Which is easier, building a dam or blowing one up?

      There is a good reason nations don't generally cutoff river flows to their downstream neighbors. It results in a washed out valley on their land.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:secede with or without water rights? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      What if AZ and NV joined CA? It would make more sense for the western states to act together, and free themselves of the east-coast states that are dragging them down (particularly the South).

  20. Well now by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... some high-profile technologists were already calling for California to secede from the United States.

    It's nice to see they've remained well-rooted in reality.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Well now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how Brexit was such a horrible terrible thing for the UK to do when they were not happy with the state of the union they found themselves in, and now all these same people are demaning an exit of their own.

      I guess no matter what it's their way or your a horrible person.

    2. Re:Well now by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Can't they just fix the simulation or something?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    3. Re:Well now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Clinton called Trump Supporters "deplorables" !
      Funny how the "non-deplorables" are so upset they started protests, breaking windows and setting fires.
      I'ts clear now, the ones who are the "deplorables" were the Clinton supporters.
      Grow up !

  21. What could they possibly be thinking? by rjthomas61 · · Score: 2

    The US Civil War was fought to decide this issue. States cannot secede from the US. Investors aren't stupid, so what are they trying to show? That they think we must be? That they'll throw money at anything drawing attention to their displeasure with the president-elect?

    That making a hyperbolic proposition as an opening is just part of the art of the deal?

    --
    Take off, every Hoser
    1. Re:What could they possibly be thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are like spoiled children that have just been told "NO" for the first time. What they are doing is the equivalent of holding their breath until they get their way. It's best to just ignore their tantrum and let them be until they come to their senses.

    2. Re:What could they possibly be thinking? by guises · · Score: 2

      A state can't succeed unilaterally, but in principle if it was a mutual separation, approved by congress... Well that hasn't been tested, but that doesn't seem outside the range of plausibility.

      Of course, congress would never approve such a separation because, as the summary points out, California provides an awful lot of the nation's GDP. It would be a serious economic hit, in addition to all of the other issues that would raise.

    3. Re:What could they possibly be thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad at least one person knows about the civil war these days.

    4. Re:What could they possibly be thinking? by Goose+In+Orbit · · Score: 1

      The US Civil War was fought to decide this issue

      The First World War was supposed to be "The War To End All Wars", and that worked out just fine, didn't it?

    5. Re:What could they possibly be thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      States can secede - just not unilaterally. We can argue about what it would take - an act of Congress, or a constitutional amendment - but it's possible.

      Easy? No.

      Feasible? Probably not likely to be.

      Impossible? No, it's not impossible.

    6. Re:What could they possibly be thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Civil War was fought to decide this issue. States cannot secede from the US. Investors aren't stupid, so what are they trying to show? That they think we must be? That they'll throw money at anything drawing attention to their displeasure with the president-elect?

      That making a hyperbolic proposition as an opening is just part of the art of the deal?

      This is an interesting position. Basically it says 'States can not leave because the federal government has an army'.

      But the question really should be phrased as "Should states have the right to leave if they choose?"

      And that is really the question - and a war where a group of states subjugated another group of states is not really an argument as much as it is an appeal to force.

    7. Re:What could they possibly be thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      States can't secede via violence, no. But they can via the avenues set out in the constitution, which is what this is about.

    8. Re:What could they possibly be thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're just trying to look cool to their friends.

      Those type of people value appearances very much so.

    9. Re:What could they possibly be thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      States cannot secede from the US.

      Heh, that's horse shit. All I need is a contingent of a few sympathetic officers on a boomer sub to airburst a nuke over DC and you'll do whatever I want. Like a bitch.

    10. Re:What could they possibly be thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you assume the eastern half of California wouldn't petition congress to split into their own state (call it "East California")? It's been done before, after all. Not sure how economically self-sufficient the nation of LASF would do without the agriculture and oil industries. You do know that people only half-jokingly call that area "West West Texas"?

    11. Re:What could they possibly be thinking? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      A state can absolutely secede unilaterally. However, the parent country can always invade unilaterally.

      The rather unique problem that the US of A has is that there's only two options for friendly assistance; Canada and Mexico, neither one of which would be likely to simply say 'hell yeah!' and provide military backup.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    12. Re:What could they possibly be thinking? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The US Civil War was fought to decide this issue. States cannot secede from the US.

      Yep, and the country has been suffering with the South dragging them down ever since. Should have just let them go (after freeing their slaves and getting them out of there).

    13. Re:What could they possibly be thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A state can easily succeed with the support of the rest of the nation. At *worst* it would take a new Amendment that would either allow a state to leave or set up a process for a state to leave, which could then be followed. That is the worst case. Best case, it takes a 220 representatives, 51 senators, and Trump's signature to make it happen. The Civil War proved a state can't decide to leave on its own, but we have nothing that prevents it from happening with an act of government. Even if we did, both amendments and constitutional conventions are things.

      Now, letting the 7th largest economy in the world go without a fight isn't likely to happen, especially since all of the "state's rights" republicans really only want a state's right to put down gays, women, and minorities.

    14. Re:What could they possibly be thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. Congress has nothing to do with a potential separation. Numerous court decisions have established it would have to be approved by EVERY OTHER STATE. This is never going to happen, and all the endless discussion about this over the years is a totally pointless waste of time.

  22. I am pro-secession. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But also against idiots like this doing it as a wah wah against Trump becoming president.

    America as a defense pact makes sense. America as a single governing entity hasn't made sense since it was still the 13 colonies, and makes even less sense today between the vehement ideological differences across different parts of the US, the corruption and graft at all levels of federal government. All the pork barrel spending and incompetent programs that have resulted, in large part due to backroom deals to 'make it happen' while driving local industry with component manufacture that should really be consolidated into the same geographical region, etc.

    California or the Cascadia region splitting off into its own state(s)/country could be exactly what this country needs. Cutting off both federal aid to the western blue states, as well as cutting off those states' tax base from the US economy might be a wake up call for both sides over what advantages the other offers, while also helping to shake up a number of issues due to complacency and corruption. Lack of federal spending in California means the interstate highways and other roads will need to locally maintained, something California is entirely capable of, but which has been neglected due to a preference for federal funds (at the expense of other things like drinking/smoking age, which may stay where they are, but were in part raised in order to keep getting federal funding.)

    An added bonus: separation of California from the US could be used to segregate the western and eastern seaboard entertainment industries, whose decline has been in part due to media companies gobbling up industry members on both coasts. If secession takes place and restrictions are put in place, we may see a new influx of creativity in the industry which hasn't been seen since the move west to avoid the patents in the early part of the last century.

    Downsides to it is less trust in the US Dollar, political uncertainty worldwide, and the possibility of Russia/China taking it as an opportunity to project military force while the weakened US is distracted.

    Personally I think it is still worth the risk, especially if California undoes some of the shortcomings the Clinton/Bush era feds did with decommissioning bases in California (notably the entire Sacramento region, which had dozens of army, reserve, and air force bases sold off to private parties. Including all but one in the capital!

    1. Re:I am pro-secession. by EmeraldBot · · Score: 2

      But also against idiots like this doing it as a wah wah against Trump becoming president.

      America as a defense pact makes sense. America as a single governing entity hasn't made sense since it was still the 13 colonies, and makes even less sense today between the vehement ideological differences across different parts of the US, the corruption and graft at all levels of federal government. All the pork barrel spending and incompetent programs that have resulted, in large part due to backroom deals to 'make it happen' while driving local industry with component manufacture that should really be consolidated into the same geographical region, etc.

      California or the Cascadia region splitting off into its own state(s)/country could be exactly what this country needs. Cutting off both federal aid to the western blue states, as well as cutting off those states' tax base from the US economy might be a wake up call for both sides over what advantages the other offers, while also helping to shake up a number of issues due to complacency and corruption. Lack of federal spending in California means the interstate highways and other roads will need to locally maintained, something California is entirely capable of, but which has been neglected due to a preference for federal funds (at the expense of other things like drinking/smoking age, which may stay where they are, but were in part raised in order to keep getting federal funding.)

      An added bonus: separation of California from the US could be used to segregate the western and eastern seaboard entertainment industries, whose decline has been in part due to media companies gobbling up industry members on both coasts. If secession takes place and restrictions are put in place, we may see a new influx of creativity in the industry which hasn't been seen since the move west to avoid the patents in the early part of the last century.

      Downsides to it is less trust in the US Dollar, political uncertainty worldwide, and the possibility of Russia/China taking it as an opportunity to project military force while the weakened US is distracted.

      Personally I think it is still worth the risk, especially if California undoes some of the shortcomings the Clinton/Bush era feds did with decommissioning bases in California (notably the entire Sacramento region, which had dozens of army, reserve, and air force bases sold off to private parties. Including all but one in the capital!

      Errm... you realize Federal aid is going with California, yes? If the east and west segregate, DC isn't going to side with the midwest and south, I think that's pretty obvious. If almost all of the states that are the financial backbone of the federal government leave, and the federal government itself has no connection with those parts of the country, why on earth would it stay behind?

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
  23. Better option... by RyanFenton · · Score: 1

    Just put a indentation stamp into every product you sell, stating "replace the electoral college with actual democratic representation".

    Provide details on why the Electoral college exists, and why it's a horrible idea. Tell how the founders wanted to prevent democracy, and how that has hurt us, and how we're now stunted by our lack of actual democratic representation through equal vote impact for citizens in each state..

    It's more likely to succeed, and if it does, population centers like California would essentially govern the nation from a more progressive stance going forward.

    Secession isn't really a hallmark of modern liberals anyway - they want to make government WORK, and won't really fight to break a government the way modern conservatives will. Instead, they'll tend to only really agree to a fight to defeat profound inequities, like ethnic cleansing or terror - but having their vote not count as much as a rural state might just be enough if it's presented strongly enough.

    There's plenty of counter-arguments against this line of reasoning - but for what you're asking for, seems that's your best choice.
    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Better option... by ezdiy · · Score: 1

      but having their vote not count as much as a rural state might just be enough

      We have the same in EU. The poor countries still have largely same vote weight than the rich ones. How dare they!

      Abandoning electoral college means abandoning the whole idea of federated states - paradoxicaly you need single country for that to work, not an union of states.

      Secessionist sentiments are contrarian and irrational knee-jerk reaction.

    2. Re:Better option... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You know it is up to each state to decide how to apportion their Electoral College votes. Only two states use proportional voting. The other 48 have "winner take all".

      That's what doesn't seem fair, not the Electoral College system itself.

      That said, there is a procedure to change the system, but it involves getting 38 states to agree to start the process...

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    3. Re:Better option... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize this just marginalizes half the country? Right?

      Even Bush Jr said he would have just campaigned in a Texas, Florida, LA, and NY if it was that way. He would not have bothered with anyone else in the country. People who espouse the get rid of the electoral college do not realize what it is and how it was made. The system is *designed* to make sure those people have some sort of say. They somehow think that if it was that way that republicans would still run the campaign the same way they do now and not adjust to the new reality.

      Removing the EC basically doubles down on the first past the post voting. Which actually makes the problem even worse. Remember part of the reason the US seceded from England was because they felt they were not being represented at all. They literally had little to no say on what happened in their hometowns as it was decided on the other side of the ocean by 'responsible people who know better'.

      They also seem to think they would not change their views to match the very people they 'despise' right now. Campaigns are designed as ways to manipulate you. For example the 'hitler'/'trump' thing. That was a designed talking point. It is in the podesta email wikileaks. They had all of this stuff brainstormed up 2 years ago. Sanders was a carefully chosen opponent in the DNC. Normally they should have had 10-15, yet this time it was 3. They had a youth enthusiasm gap with Hillary. They thought it would be an easy flip. For the most part they were right. But they estimated wrong why people picked him and how many would flip.
      They do not realize the whole thing was designed to manipulate. Even the Trump 'pick' was a manipulation from the media. They went from gently ribbing him and talking him up, to 'literally Hitler' in under 2 days once it was properly clear it was Hillary vs Trump. A very well done propaganda campaign. In fact so well done they actually believed it themselves and created their own reality.

      Trump is one of them. It is why he was able to work in their system and use it against them. He knew how to take them down because he is just as much of a master manipulator as they are. He just does not have the extensive media propaganda machine they do. He A/B tests his 'kill shots' and finds out what sticks. The media and the DNC/RNC do the exact same things. He tells them 'slight lies' and lets them correct the record (which they are eager to do) and get his real talking point and finds out their real positions. He literally flipped the pied piper thing on them and did it consistently every few days. Instead of selling you buildings and land they are selling themselves. Trump knows how to do that. They are literally just a different kind of salesman.

      This sort of manipulation has been going on a long time. Think about this saying 'uncle sam wants you'. A bit of propaganda from the 1940s! Yet people born well after that point in time know it. The people who designed that also laid the groundwork for our current political climate. Every once and awhile each party manages to come up with someone who is really good at it. Obama was the DNC's latest version. Hillary was not it. The media and hollywood saw she couldn't do it. So they picked up the ball for her and carried her. The problem is they swallowed their own koolaid. That and Trump was busy pointing out they were carrying her and she could not do it on her own. A clever bit of manipulation on his part there. He baited them into doing it and cornering themselves into the extreme positions when they wanted box him into the ones they didn't like. Once you see it the scope is quite breathtaking.

      Now that the new reality does not match their manufactured one they are angry. That is common when 'reality' does not match what they think it is. For example when someone dies their reality just changed radically. They will go through the stages of grief. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model#Stages This secession talk is a combination of 2 and 3. Watch as many virtual signaling 'SJW' t

    4. Re:Better option... by RyanFenton · · Score: 1

      Agreed, actually - I was just saying for the motivations expressed, the better technique towards the same end would not be secession, but equal vote counting. Easier to accomplish, since liberals don't work in that headspace that would allow breaking away from a common governance.

      Lots of compelling arguments against that, just this approach suits the desires of those same tech guys.

      Ryan Fenton

    5. Re:Better option... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cupcake generation...

      hmm.. if it was proportional Trump would have won by a landslide. Many of us are pissed off with the socialistic path our Country has been on.
      It's time for a change. my state was split. so 1/2 would go to trump 1/2 to that evil shrew known as hillary.

      instead our states vote went to the evil shrew.

    6. Re:Better option... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is a federation of semi-autonomous States.

      At the Federal level, seats in the House of Representatives are distributed proportionately by population in each State, the Senate is distributed two per State, the President is elected by the States (not the popular vote), with more populous states getting more votes.

      That's a very sensible way to share power among members of the federation.

    7. Re:Better option... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the only issue with the EC is the fact that most states don't have laws REQUIRING the electors to vote for the candidate that won in their state.

      proportional voting is basically the exact same thing as popular voting - thus doesn't really help.

      just admit that Hillary's campaign was stupid and made HUGE strategical errors in not accounting for how many people were pissed off that Hillary (and her past) were the candidate and people voted for Trump to keep her out. Had Bernie been the nom, he'd have won, pretty easily.

    8. Re:Better option... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The system may not seem fair, but it's supposed to work that way. The intent was that populous states couldn't just railroad smaller states in every single election. It's the same reason they made the Senate and House of Representative instead of one big parliament. We have a republic, not a democracy. There have to be checks and balances to protect the rights and interests of the minority.

    9. Re:Better option... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      And why would any of the lesser populated states vote to allow California and New York dictate the presidency? That's why it won't happen - the electoral college (rightfully, IMO) retains power for the less populated states, since we're a union of states. I also advocate having state governments - the governors, choose the senators from their states as was the original intent - the senators represent the states, the representatives represent the people. Of course, nowadays they all only represent their respective parties, but that's besides the point.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    10. Re:Better option... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it doesn't. It requires getting states which total at least 270 electoral votes to agree. States can apportion their votes however they choose (as you noted). If states totaling 270 electoral votes each pass a measure stating they'll vote for the popular vote winner (assuming states totaling 270 electoral college votes agree to the same measures), then you're done. It requires like 20 states. And I believe California and New York have already signed on.

    11. Re:Better option... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically true, but politically deader than going proportional voting.

      How pissed would the citizens of a given state be if ALL their electors voted opposite of what they selected?

      What you describe is essentially what the winner-take-all rule provides, on a state-by-state basis.

      If you want a popular vote, we might as well have 50 countries. The USA is too big and diverse to have everyone happy after each election. There are more people in LA county than entire countries like Sweden, Hungary, Portugal, Switzerland, Austria, etc... if some of the smaller states couldn't hack it as a country, they could form their own federation. Of course, expect the "blue states" to be in the same financial straights as Portugal, Greece, etc.

  24. Boooo Hooooo. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in CA and I would not vote for something so incredibly stupid. These fucks obviously don't care about the American workforce and fair wages, so maybe they should operate in the 3rd world countries they harvest for labor.

    Their "puppet-investment" of -- whom was a massive force behind H1Bs -- couldn't win the election even with the corporate America(China, Saudi, Qutar, etc), Wall Street, World Banks, and all of the major media on their side. Now we're dealing ignorant college kids -- who were expecting free college because they're too stupid to realize that their candidate( which was shoved down our throats as the second coming ) is a Congenital Liar -- on the street armed with their learned-ignorance protesting the new president elect. This is their right and I wouldn't want it any other way. But from the outside, it makes them look like complete IDIOTS for anyone that actually fact-checks outside of the mainstream-media. Wake up you brainwashed tards!

    If you want to know why Trump won, watch this video -- it is completely relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:Boooo Hooooo. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best part is we are free of the Clinton and Bush crime familys !
      At last !!

    2. Re:Boooo Hooooo. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly!

    3. Re:Boooo Hooooo. by johanw · · Score: 1

      For the time being that is...

    4. Re:Boooo Hooooo. by dehachel12 · · Score: 1

      Lol ! oh wait, you really believe that ? HAHAHAHAH ! trump is already surrounding himself with people neck-deep in wall-streets money.

    5. Re:Boooo Hooooo. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      True. But at least some new players are getting their share of the graft. Hillary was just trying to be a pig.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  25. An alternative never going to happen plan by Leuf · · Score: 1

    Rather than threatening to pick up our ball and go home when we lose, let's acknowledge that the country is divided on what we should be doing. It's hard to compare the different ideas because we have no control group to compare to when one party's ideas were in use. Comparing different times periods is difficult because the US is part of a global economy and has technological and societal changes.

    So I propose we let the Democrats and Republicans come up with their own plans for taxes, entitlements, health care, and any other parts of the budget where practical. Add in a third non-partisan group of experts for an alternative plan.

    Then we have a referendum with instant runoff voting. Each state gets to chose which plan it wants to implement. In order for a plan to go into effect it must have some threshold of states/population.

    The debt is then split proportionately by population to the groups of states and we let the experiment run its course. Changes to the plans must be approved by the voters in the states currently on the plan. States can change plans on the same schedule as the Senate. 6 years, staggered so that 1/3 happens every 2 years. Continue until only one plan remains.

    1. Re:An alternative never going to happen plan by dehachel12 · · Score: 1

      >t's hard to compare the different ideas because we have no control group to compare to when one party's ideas were in use
      you mean the same ONE solution that wall street gives them ?

  26. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get the fuck out and never come back. Bugs Bunny needs to saw it off and push it out into the ocean like he did with Florida.

  27. Nice Temper Tantrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's beyond ridiculous (yet emminently believable) that Silicon Valley would rather take its toys and go home than be subject to laws and regulations. The inability to innovate ethically says more about California billionaires' failings and personal motives than it does anything else. Best and brightest, my eye.

    1. Re:Nice Temper Tantrum by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      It's not a particularly new proposal. We've toyed with the idea in California in various incarnations for years.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  28. Fine by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    I'm sure you'll do fine without those billions of federal tax dollars

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Fine by Phydeaux314 · · Score: 3, Informative

      California actually pays the federal government more money in taxes than it gets back in benefits, so... it would do fine, actually. It's not a lot more - I think in 2014 California got back 95 cents for every dollar in taxes - but it's still close enough that California could take over paying for federal programs itself without any significant disruptions in services or programs.

      --
      Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
    2. Re:Fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how much money would it take in one all the goods that flows through its borders to the US are taxed?

      Yeah, didn't think about that did you?

    3. Re:Fine by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Once the central valley left CA and rejoined the USA (including the ports of West Sacramento, Stockton, the Sierra Nevada and the entire CA water project)?

      You didn't think about that did you?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who print the money in the first place? Would California be printing their own money, would it revert to a bartering system, or use the US dollar?

    5. Re:Fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh. Where would the country of California get enough volunteers to be soldiers? Where would they put the shipyards to build their navy? Where would they put the factories to build their shiny electronic vehicles? There's a lot of benefits being part of a "team" that don't translate to dollars until you have to pay money to replace them... Land is waay too expensive in California to replace facilities in the emptier states. People are too well paid in California to for enough to volunteer for military service. California will find it's a lot more expensive to go solo. We'll see this as England collapses and attempts to rejoin the EU with the EU paying 10 shillings to the pound.

    6. Re:Fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CA would be fine, absolutely, and arguing otherwise is fucktarded. Norcal is nothing but farmland. There are enough people to man a sizable defense force. And even completely severing ties to the US, California would be a goddamned G20 nation unto itself.

      Red herring.

      The real news here is that Silicon Fuckos are shitting their pants right now, because H1B is going H1Byebye.

    7. Re:Fine by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Are you counting federal subsidies (ala Tesla)? Are you counting water rights (for almond farmers)? Are you counting on the indirect value of the US military enforcing their copyrights/patents/other IP? Are you counting access to US customers for internet applications?

      I mean, honestly, if the rest of the US was pissed at California, it would be easy to modify copyright law to cripple their content industries, put firewalls around their state to deny them most of their internet revenues, cut off the water so So Cal dried up, etc.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    8. Re:Fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Walmart is richer than many countries.

    9. Re:Fine by drsquare · · Score: 1

      What happens to California's tax revenues when their major industries pick up and leave because they're American not Californian companies?

  29. NYC protest is pretty big by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow.

    The protest in NYC is pretty big.

    Regarding California, after it seceeds, where will they get water?

    1. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by kuzb · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Let the liberals whine. They'll eventually get over themselves.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    2. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      HA HA

      TIME TO MAGA

    3. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by skam240 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Um, California doesnt really get water from outside the state to any great degree. It's the California part of the Rockies that provides the snow pack that feeds the water needs of Southern California and the Valley. The rest of the state makes due with its own reservoirs.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    4. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary didn't campaign on hate?

      Didn't she call half the country deplorable at one point? Didn't she try and incite a lot of hatred for Russia?

    5. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by irrational_design · · Score: 1

      What are the protesters hoping to accomplish? Do they seriously think they can somehow what has happened by complaining about it?

    6. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by quax · · Score: 1

      With the money saved on paying for the federal budget you can buy a lot of water desalination plants.

      Just saying ...

    7. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the extremists on both sides who cause the crazy. By not recognizing this, you are part of the problem. Good for you for having your conception of the world provided to you by the political class and news media.

    8. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by slew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, California doesnt really get water from outside the state to any great degree. It's the California part of the Rockies that provides the snow pack that feeds the water needs of Southern California and the Valley. The rest of the state makes due with its own reservoirs.

      I think you need a geography lesson. As far as the maps I'm aware of, no part of the Rockies where the Colorado river originates are within the borders of California.

      AFAIK, In Northern California most of the water comes from Sierra Nevada range. In the central valley, about 1/2 comes from the Sierra Nevada and another 1/2 from underground aquifers. Unfortunately for Southern California, most of their water comes from the Colorado River.

      I used to live in CO, and the issues surrounding the Colorado River Pact of 1922 continues to be a *major* political issue in Colorado. Over the last 50 years, California has been using more that its allocated portion of water (which is allowed by the pact when there is a surplus), but California has also been using its influence in congress to block other states from creating reservoirs to capture surplus for drought years. Sometimes in drought years can get pretty acrimonious, and agriculture concerns in Colorado call out California for conspiring to steal water by blocking reservoir projects.

      If CA were to secede, I'm sure northern CA would be fine, but I suspect southern CA would need to get major concessions to get the "bonus" water they have been relying on from the Colorado river basin.

    9. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Colorado could join the union of pasifica :)

    10. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by skam240 · · Score: 1

      So California, the last state in line in America on the Colorado, is using more then it's allotted share? I'm looking at a map now and that doesnt seem like a problem for anybody but California.

      Please enlighten me if we somehow have some sort of magic that takes water from the Colorado before it hits California because that would be amazing!

      Until then, we're last in line in the US. The only place we're taking water from is a brief spot in Mexico before it hits the Pacific.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    11. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      It's the California part of the Rockies

      Have you ever actually looked at a map of the US??

    12. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read?
      There is a treaty that Colorado is abiding by.
      Use your brain.

    13. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Regarding California, after it seceeds, where will they get water?

      They will a pipeline to the US and get the US to pay for it.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    14. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Colorado River. Ask LA if they want that water turned off, that is a very significant portion of their water supply.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    15. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "Regarding California, after it seceeds, where will they get water?"

      California has an infinite amount of water, if it cares to get serious about desalination. But where is it going to get the large amounts of new energy that would require, larger even than the gigawatt-hours it already imports from the nukes and dams of Arizona?

    16. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by dwillden · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's an issue because CA has blocked up-river reservoir projects that would let the up-river states retain more of their share of the water for their use as guaranteed by the compact. But if CA left the Union, we could reduce the outflow at lake Powell and again at lake Meade and severely curtail the flow of water to CA. At that point the water could go to Nevada or AZ for use, and CO could then go ahead with their reservoirs and thus use more of the water which is mostly from CO UT and WY Mountains. Also AZ could grow more produce with more of the water thus replacing what CA has been growing.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    17. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you aren't aware that California is the biggest user of water from the lower Colorado river.

    18. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget it, Jake - it's Chinatown.

    19. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As somebody who lives in Colorado near the source of the Colorado River who provides large amounts of the water to southern California, please do point out on the map this part of the Rockies that stretch into California. I'll give you a hint, it doesn't exist. The mountains in California are the Sierra Nevadas, not the Rockies. And if Nevada (thanks to the Hoover dam) and to a lesser extent Colorado and Utah decided to cut off Californias water if they left, there would be very little they could do without starting a war.

    20. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, California doesnt really get water from outside the state to any great degree. It's the California part of the Rockies that provides the snow pack that feeds the water needs of Southern California and the Valley. The rest of the state makes due with its own reservoirs.

      California Gets a lot of water from Colorado actually, we divert snowpack from the mountains one way or the other depending on how our state is doing that year.

    21. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by ghoul · · Score: 1

      If you voted for Hilary in the primary go * yourself. Bernie would have won this. Heck I would have won this. Running against Trump to lose is to be a very very flawed candidate

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    22. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuckin solar city powerwalls, man.

    23. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuckin solar city powerwalls, man.

      Those are manufactured in NY. How are they going to import them when the United States blockades their boarders?

    24. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by ai4px · · Score: 1

      What did the black lives matter group hope to accomplish by blocking the freeways? All they did was anger regular citizens who may well have been on their side. They should have picketed city hall, the police stations, state capitals and so on..... as it stands neither the anti-trump protesters nor BLM seem to have direction or think things through very well.

    25. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really isn't big at all, considering it's a metropolitan statistical area of 22 MILLION people.

    26. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Rivers flow between nations all over the world.

      Do you know what happens when upstream nations dam them and keep all the water? Usually the dam gets bombed.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    27. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Yes, let them go. But let's build a big wall between the PRofK and the USA.

    28. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I grew up on a farm in Eastern Oregon. Water usage and water rights are a serious issue out West (in the US). Not all that many years ago California proposed a canal to pull water from the Columbia river to N Cal, which would allow more of the Sierra Nevada runoff to go further south. Oregon and Washington both voted against it.

      Currently i live in Idaho near the Snake river, and there are laws and ordinances that restrict the amount of water reservoirs upstream can retain, as well as how much water is allowed per acre on private land because the folks downstream need water too, and the law allows that.

      As California's population grows, so does it's thirst, and if they were their own country, then the US laws forcing water downstream would no longer apply to them as a state.

      Bombs away, but where is the new country of California going to get their military? The US would not be their for them to attack Utah or Nevada, which would remain in the Union.

    29. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Honestly, the idea would work out a lot better if it weren't just California, but instead a bunch of the neighboring western states all joined in. If CA, AZ, NV, OR, WA, ID etc. all decided to secede together, they *really* don't need the rest of the country.

    30. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by slew · · Score: 1

      Rivers flow between nations all over the world.

      Do you know what happens when upstream nations dam them and keep all the water? Usually the dam gets bombed.

      Quick fact, In 1934, Arizona called the state National Guard and militia units to the California border to protest the construction of Parker Dam and California's diversions from the Colorado River. For a few days, the "Arizona Navy" patrolled the river...

      http://www.usbr.gov/lc/phoenix...

    31. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by kuzb · · Score: 1

      You lost. Get over yourself. I'm already tired of "oh my life is over. I just want to curl up in to a ball and whine like a bitch". Seriously, grow up.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    32. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe they think they can accidentally the whole thing?

    33. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but that's because it is OK to hate those deplorables.

    34. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It depends. Some protestors, like at Dartmouth, are just throwing a tantrum with the wild hope that the tantrum will spread nationwide and somehow prevent Trump's inauguration. Other protestors are just getting some cash from George Soros.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    35. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let em try. As soon as "New California" bombs anything it's civil war baby. Civil war.

      There are plenty of things about Caly that could be "fixed" once they suffer their own version of Reconstruction. Oh yes.

    36. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever hear of the Colorado River? Southern California definitely gets lots of water that originates in from the snow pack in WY, UT, and CO.

    37. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Bratch · · Score: 1

      Regarding California, after it seceeds, where will they get water?

      Northern California, and the Pacific Ocean. We've already stated with Poseidon in Carlsbad, and some local water agencies desalinate brackish ground water. All California needs to do is expand ocean water desalination, which they should, even if there is no CalExit.

      --
      Beware of the Redittor who loans you a Sharpie.
    38. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by corydoras · · Score: 1

      Wow.

      The protest in NYC is pretty big.

      They lost me here.

      There's all this pro-voting pro-democracy rhetoric before the elections. Even hostility towards non-voters. Well people voted. Now they don't like the president elect, and they're protesting... what?

      I think our voting methods are terrible, but this isn't being addressed. And if it were, that's what you should be protesting, not the result of an election you were happy to participate in.

      It reminds me of getting mad and throwing the monopoly board on the floor when we were kids.

    39. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by irrational_design · · Score: 1

      Somehow... how? Presidents can be impeached, but how do you stop a president-elect from becoming president?

    40. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reasonable to assume they'll ball up their little fists and stamp their little feet until we give them some.

    41. Re:NYC protest is pretty big by skam240 · · Score: 1

      You might have a point if applying water magically had the same result regardless of where you applied it. Most of the produce grown in California would fail miserably if it were grown in the states you list. Big agra-business isnt retarded. Land is ridiculously cheap in the regions you describe and quite expensive in California. If they could make agriculture work as well in those states you would see a very different picture in terms of water rights.

      I suppose you do have a bit of a point though about California and water even though the Colorado river clearly flows through California snow pack regions, thus getting quite a bit of water from them. The flip side is that if California isn't America's produce basket anymore then it doesn't need to be so productive.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  30. Been there, done that... by swm · · Score: 1

    buried ~1M war dead...

  31. someone born in iran rpoves trumps point? by johncandale · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Shervin Pishevar, born in Iran. You know going forward with this idea he is only helping to strengthen trump's supporters idea that we are being invaded by Asians, Latinos and middle-easterners that care nothing about our history or country??

    1. Re:someone born in iran rpoves trumps point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add to that the pictures of protestors carrying Mexican flags. Way to represent America.

    2. Re:someone born in iran rpoves trumps point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not invading.

      Do you actually know the history of your country..

      Multiple countries invaded and settled a land already occupied by "native american" tribes, you stole it from people who already lived there and no matter how much you like to forget you are pretty much all immigrants..

      It's just that you all like to pretend your "American"..

    3. Re:someone born in iran rpoves trumps point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What our ancestors did to the Native Americans was a terrible crime. However, I should point out that everyone not currently living in Africa is technically an immigrant, that being the place of human's first evolution from hominins. So let's quit with the "we're all immigrants" line, please - it's quite tired.

    4. Re:someone born in iran rpoves trumps point? by ghoul · · Score: 1

      So how about we send back the PA,WI,MI,NC voters back to Africa as thats what you want to do?

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    5. Re:someone born in iran rpoves trumps point? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      We are all immigrants, including the casino indians.

      Anybody born someplace is a 'native'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  32. Are you joking? by s.petry · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Have you seen the California budget lately? No, CA does not give more than it receives. The state is in massive debt, has massive regulations, and businesses can't seem to leave the state fast enough. Just wait, massive approvals for hundreds of billions more in debt just got approved.

    I thought quite a bit about this because I heard it this morning. Let CA secede, but they need to pay out all of the money they currently owe. They also need to come up with their own currency, infrastructure system and funding, and of course defense forces. Perhaps try to pay the rest of the US to do so for them, but good luck with that. A broke California with no defense will quickly become someone else' territory.

    For the record, nearly 1/3rd of the state voted for Trump and Clinton only received 61% of the vote. I guess the rest of us have no worth or value to these same selfish idiots.

    CA is suffering from the same poor loser syndrome as we have seen in other places. The answer is the same as we told them: Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Are you joking? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have you seen the California budget lately? No, CA does not give more than it receives. The state is in massive debt, has massive regulations, and businesses can't seem to leave the state fast enough.

      Oddly enough, Liberal Jerry Brown changed things a bit http://www.economist.com/news/...

      So anyhow, now that your ideology is in complete control, it's going to sound pretty funny when you still try to blame them damn libtards for every problem. Let em go or kick them out.

      I fully supported Texas seceding, as I do California.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:Are you joking? by naubol · · Score: 1

      http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

      You seem to be wrong. You might say massively wrong.

      --
      Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
    3. Re:Are you joking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Have you seen the California budget lately? No, CA does not give more than it receives." Yes, it does. We're talking Federal tax dollars paid. You're a moron, learn how math works.

    4. Re:Are you joking? by s.petry · · Score: 2

      Paywalled, and written with an intentional bias. Considering we have the highest taxes in the US, a 51Billion dollar budget deficit, at least 400billion in unfunded liabilities, and a 400billion dollar debt, all of the various debt and liabilities from UC. Then you need to you take away the Federal tax funds to the various cities, education, military bases and ports, various science funding and NASA, etc... that Budget goes down by 1/3rd.

      More simply put, tax dollars going to the Federal side from CA return to Government projects in CA. The article is only counting certain types of assistance spending on people.

      You are not paying me to be an analyst so the numbers are rough, but certainly California has great financial issues.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    5. Re:Are you joking? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Have you seen the California budget lately? No, CA does not give more than it receives.

      Yes, California still sends more tax money to the Federal government than it gets back in benefits.

      By government-dependency rankings, it is near the bottom. 2016 numbers:

      https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Are you joking? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the California budget lately? No, CA does not give more than it receives. The state is in massive debt, has massive regulations, and businesses can't seem to leave the state fast enough. Just wait, massive approvals for hundreds of billions more in debt just got approved.

      I thought quite a bit about this because I heard it this morning. Let CA secede, but they need to pay out all of the money they currently owe. They also need to come up with their own currency, infrastructure system and funding, and of course defense forces. Perhaps try to pay the rest of the US to do so for them, but good luck with that. A broke California with no defense will quickly become someone else' territory.

      I'm sure China would bail them out. For a price.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    7. Re:Are you joking? by taniwha · · Score: 1

      You are confusing the state budget with the ratio of federal taxes and money received back from the feds - they are quite different things

      California's budget is deeply hamstrung by Regan era meddling that makes hard to raise money for simple things like schools - it's the main reason why the state's schools used to be rated #1 in the nation and are now at the bottom

    8. Re:Are you joking? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      California does in fact give more than it receives from the federal government. Yes it has debt but it also has a prospering economy and a surplus budget. Meanwhile places like Silicon Valley and the surrounding areas are suffering from labor shortages which hardly sounds like "businesses can't seem to leave the state fast enough". Sure, there are parts of the state that are having a hard time of it (the Northern bits and the Valley) but our job growth out ranks most other states right now.

      Now I don't think California should leave the Union as it would be as dumb as Brexit is but you're exercising pure naivety if you think the 6th largest economy in the world with one of the worlds highest per capita GDPs couldn't make it on its own.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    9. Re:Are you joking? by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Citation? It depends on which metric you're going by. Avg teacher salary, avg classroom size, standardized testing (a hot button to be sure). Many state public school rankings put California in the top 3, and from what I've seen, I agree with that.

    10. Re:Are you joking? by slew · · Score: 1

      You are confusing the state budget with the ratio of federal taxes and money received back from the feds - they are quite different things

      California's budget is deeply hamstrung by Regan era meddling that makes hard to raise money for simple things like schools - it's the main reason why the state's schools used to be rated #1 in the nation and are now at the bottom

      Crazy fact, Prop 13 (which capped the property tax growth which hamstrung tax revenues for schools) was passed back in 1973 when Jerry Brown was Governor Moonbeam for the first time...

      Although Jerry Brown was originally against Prop 13, he flopped and Howard Jarvis (the author of Prop13) eventually supported Jerry Brown's re-election campaign back in the day... Now days Jerry Brown considers Prop13 the 3rd rail of California politics...

    11. Re:Are you joking? by slew · · Score: 1

      You are confusing the state budget with the ratio of federal taxes and money received back from the feds - they are quite different things

      California's budget is deeply hamstrung by Regan era meddling that makes hard to raise money for simple things like schools - it's the main reason why the state's schools used to be rated #1 in the nation and are now at the bottom

      Crazy fact, Prop 13 (which capped the property tax growth which hamstrung tax revenues for schools) was passed back in 1973 when Jerry Brown was Governor Moonbeam for the first time...

      Although Jerry Brown was originally against Prop 13, he flopped and Howard Jarvis (the author of Prop13) eventually supported Jerry Brown's re-election campaign back in the day... Now days Jerry Brown considers Prop13 the 3rd rail of California politics...

    12. Re:Are you joking? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      A broke California with no defense will quickly become someone else' territory.

      If you actually believe that, you are living in a cartoon world.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    13. Re:Are you joking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um, maybe you should read the article you linked to? He adopted Conservative ideals (fiscal responsibility, for one) to fix some of the problems. From your linked article: "Mr. Brown ... has imposed a measure of fiscal discipline on his state."

      Also from your linked article: "Yet California is not cured; it has swapped acute problems for chronic ones."

      And the astounding kicker: "This year income taxes from the richest 1% (including capital gains) may account for one-third of the state’s general fund." Damn those rich people paying for all our socialist wants and desires!!!!

    14. Re:Are you joking? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      um, maybe you should read the article you linked to? He adopted Conservative ideals (fiscal responsibility, for one) to fix some of the problems.

      The problem such as it is, is that those who call themselves conservatives these days do not practice fiscal responsibility. You are talking to a Goldwater conservative, who understands the difference between old school conservative principles and the state of the party now.

      How ironic, when Jerry Brown is a better conservative than the people who call him a liberal.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    15. Re:Are you joking? by Holi · · Score: 1

      And you know, States do not have the right to secede from the Union.

      Texas V White:

      "...the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null"."

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    16. Re:Are you joking? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It doesn't take money to do good schooling, it takes classroom control, not teaching nonsense, and students that speak the English language. With the huge influx of Spanish speakers, California is hamstrung.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    17. Re:Are you joking? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Yes the Civil War confirmed that nicely. How exactly are you contributing to the conversation with that post?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  33. Teargas being used in Oakland by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And reports of teargas being used on protesters in Oakland!

    It's going to be a long night.

    (After weeks of being told to accept the election outcome, anything else is an attack on democracy. Sheesh!)

    1. Re:Teargas being used in Oakland by myid · · Score: 2

      And reports of teargas being used on protesters in Oakland!

      It's going to be a long night.

      (After weeks of being told to accept the election outcome, anything else is an attack on democracy. Sheesh!)

      It seems the teargas was needed. From this article:

      Tear gas has been deployed in Oakland tonight where an anti-Trump demonstration has been declared an unlawful assembly by police after bottles, rocks and firecrackers were thrown at officers.

      The window of the Agave Uptown restaurant, located at 2135 Franklin St., was vandalized by a man with spray paint as members of the crowd urged the vandal to stop.

      Other windows were smashed and spray-painted in the vicinity of Webster and 17th streets.
      . . .
      A number of fires were set on Telegraph Avenue and Broadway, and firefighters were called in to extinguish them.

      (There's more in the article, but I don't know how much I'm allowed to quote from an article.)

    2. Re:Teargas being used in Oakland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let the cops bust some heads, show'em who's boss. Trump 2016!

    3. Re:Teargas being used in Oakland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protesters march during the day, Riotting Thugs destroy at night.

      MLK never organized marches at midnight in cities.

    4. Re:Teargas being used in Oakland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the best part ... Hillary supporters have, for weeks if not months, been saying that those who support Trump will need to accept the outcome of the election. That they will need to come together peaceably and accept the new president and support them.

      Wait, that next president is Trump? Revolution!!!!!!!

    5. Re:Teargas being used in Oakland by micahraleigh · · Score: 2

      Tear gas on protesters is not OK.

      Tear gas on RIOTERS is another story.

    6. Re:Teargas being used in Oakland by myid · · Score: 1

      That's the best part ... Hillary supporters have, for weeks if not months, been saying that those who support Trump will need to accept the outcome of the election. That they will need to come together peaceably and accept the new president and support them.

      Wait, that next president is Trump? Revolution!!!!!!!

      How I wish I could mod this up.

    7. Re:Teargas being used in Oakland by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      hah, read somewhere that protesters were trying to flip a car in one of these protests, until they realized there was someone in it.

      because destruction of random property... that'll show them... something.

      step 1. yell "not my president"
      step 2. burn american flag ....

      profit?!?

      where the fuck is the profit? i don't get whatever message they're trying to send.

    8. Re:Teargas being used in Oakland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you don't understand! It's only democracy if the right people win, if the wrong people win then obviously something must be done.

    9. Re:Teargas being used in Oakland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's always tear gas being used on protesters in Oakland, it's practically a way of life. During occupy days I could smell it on the wind and knew something was going down.

  34. One more thing by s.petry · · Score: 0

    If they do secede they need to pay relocation fees for everyone who wants to leave. I demand relocation fees.

    One more, one more thing.. CA makes a lot of money because it's a port state with refineries and military bases. All that stuff goes with caexit too, so the economy no longer looks so good.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:One more thing by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      CA makes a lot of money because it's a port state with refineries and military bases. All that stuff goes with caexit too

      The federal government doesn't own those refineries, so why should they have to go? You haven't thought this through.

      And since the US government would still need those Pacific-facing bases, they can rent them from the California government, just like they do in Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea and all the places those other foreign bases are located. The US needs California a lot more than California needs the US government. Instead of having to pay for those military bases through federal taxes, they could become pure profit centers for California.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:One more thing by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >CA makes a lot of money because it's a port state with refineries and military bases.

      Actually there are some small industries related to tech and agriculture also. It seem odd to miss those things when talking about California.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    3. Re:One more thing by hawguy · · Score: 1

      If they do secede they need to pay relocation fees for everyone who wants to leave. I demand relocation fees.

      One more, one more thing.. CA makes a lot of money because it's a port state with refineries and military bases. All that stuff goes with caexit too, so the economy no longer looks so good.

      Why would refineries go? California will still have ports and will still refine crude into finished products that other states will be happy to buy. (though most of the fuel refined in California stays in California, so even if other states wouldn't buy California refined fuel, it wouldn't make a huge difference)

      Likewise, the USA would continue to run military bases in California -- they aren't going to give up a huge Naval port, as well as the other large bases that all branches of the military have in California. They'd either pay for the land, or more likely, strike a deal to keep the bases in return for military protection of California.

      A Calexit would never happen, but the economy would keep running mostly as it has... sure some states may choose to limit their trade with the state due to ideological reasons, practicality will win -- no one is going to give up their iPhone because it's designed in California. The iPhone is already made in China, an oppressive communist country that few would call a USA ally, yet few people want to give up cheap Chinese goods just to make a point.

    4. Re:One more thing by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

      The real bottom line is when the Army drives in from the interstates, lands divisions from the other 49 states, and then hangs the leaders for treason, it will be over quickly.

    5. Re:One more thing by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Silicon Valley can just threaten to cut off the US's Netflix, and the whole thing will be over without a shot being fired.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:One more thing by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Actually there are some small industries related to tech and agriculture also. It seem odd to miss those things when talking about California.

      There is also a teensy tiny little entertainment industry which the US depends upon for goodwill from other nations hungry to consume our media. The rest of the world already understands that California is not like the rest of the country. What happens to the USA's reputation if California's not even a part of it any more?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:One more thing by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You misspelled "porn."

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  35. Immaturity levels at record high by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is this what people do now? One thing fails to go their way and they have a hissy fit and hold their breath until they turn blue like a 3-year-old? I don't expect much from leftists, but honestly, this is what they do.

    I have sat through 11 presidential elections, including the elections of notable piles of shit Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and most worthless of all, Barack Obama, and yes, it was disgusting and sickening to me, too, but no one I knew had a meltdown over it.

    A nation of fucking precious snowflake babies.

    1. Re:Immaturity levels at record high by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      ...no one I knew had a meltdown over it...
      You missed the whole Birther thing then?

    2. Re:Immaturity levels at record high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this what people do *NOW*? Are you serious? This is hardly a new thing invented by a bunch of California liberals. Texas and Florida *both* flipped their shit during the Obama elections, and a bunch of other people were announcing their move to Canada when the Affordable Care Act was looming. Try to work out the cognitive dissonance on THAT one. "We hate your proposed socialized medicine so much that we're moving to a country with even MORE socialized medicine".

      If you don't know anyone who had a meltdown, you should have been paying more attention. And that was for a candidate where the only major complaints from the right wing being black and not-Republican.

    3. Re:Immaturity levels at record high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > most worthless of all, Barack Obama
      WHITE POWER !

    4. Re:Immaturity levels at record high by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Yeah... no... the birther thing started before the election. Conflating democracy with our democratic republic aside, the question is why people participate in a democratic process and then protest the outcome? Yes, it happens on both sides - there are always the idiots who complain when the democratic process doesn't go their way, but I still see dozens of protests across the country by people claiming to want their voices to be heard. WTF does that even mean? Isn't the point of a democratic election? You vote... that's how your voice gets heard. Last election I only know of one protest at a university when Obama got re-elected - and, of course, the liberal media used the term "riot" when it was anti-Obama crowd, and now they are using "protest" when it's anti-Trump.

      More than that, however, is the collective vitriol, hatred, intolerance... it happens on both sides, yes, so you can point out counter examples, but the PREPONDERANCE of incidences of liberals demonstrating their childish backlash at democracy, their intolerance for different views, the vile hatred spewed (I've had friends and neighbors shockingly telling friends and family to go fuck themselves if they didn't vote Clinton), and the insane hyperbole about the hell hole they think Trump will create ("What will I tell my children?" "I fear for myself and my children!") is astounding. And sad. I get upset when either side does it... but liberals are once again showing how much worse they are.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  36. Don't think it'll happen by Phydeaux314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anything posted in the immediate aftermath of the election is part of coping, so I take this sort of thing with a great heaping helping of salt. The right wing did it when Obama was elected, after all, and outside some squawking about birth certificates nothing came of it.

    Whether or not it sputters out in this case depends on what happens in the first three to six months after Trump takes office. If he ends up more moderate than he was on the campaign trail, then things will almost certainly continue on as usual (so to speak). We'll probably see some regressive tax policy changes and erosion of various minority and women's rights, but nothing too catastrophic. The poor will get poorer, the rich will get richer, and the environment will continue to get worse at the same rate it is today.

    Alone, those things aren't enough to spur serious action.

    If, however, he manages to convince the Senate and Congress to go along with some of his wackier campaign promises, then there's a very real chance things could get serious quickly.

    - If he trashes too many social support nets, then all bets are off. If you and your family are starving, you'll do pretty much anything to get food, and if it happens in bulk you have the spark of revolution on your hands. Throw a heavy-handed response to rioting and you have martyrs and a circle of escalating violence.
    - If he makes enough blatantly discriminatory changes and gets them through a stacked Supreme Court, he could provoke enough ire to prompt serious nonviolent secession talk. If, for example, he bans all Muslims or Mexicans from entering the country, and his ban survives a supreme court challenge, California will look long and hard at the idea of leaving because there's a large enough majority of people that don't agree with that kind of action here to support that.

    If all he does is chip away at the progress made in the last ten or twenty years, he'll be fine. If he starts taking a pickaxe to things that have been part of America for the last sixty or seventy, all bets are off.

    --
    Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
    1. Re:Don't think it'll happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're a minority, in which case it's everything.

    2. Re:Don't think it'll happen by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Anything posted in the immediate aftermath of the election is part of coping, so I take this sort of thing with a great heaping helping of salt. The right wing did it when Obama was elected

      Yes to the coping mechanism theory, no to the idea that this is some sort of left-right symmetry. There were no riots in dumbfuckistan in 2008.

      The poor will get poorer, the rich will get richer

      Now I think you are just trolling. This is clearly a progressive/democrat ideal, sometimes shared with a small (and soon to be defunct) part of the Republican party, not a conservative ideal. Haven't you been paying attention to the last 8 (or 28) years?

      If you and your family are starving, you'll do pretty much anything to get food,

      Just stop. No one is starving here, and no one is going to start starving in the next 8 years.

      If he starts taking a pickaxe to things that have been part of America for the last sixty or seventy, all bets are off.

      I'm pretty sure that one particular 51 year old law is on the chopping block.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    3. Re:Don't think it'll happen by rand.srand() · · Score: 2

      If all he does is chip away at the progress made in the last ten or twenty years, he'll be fine. If he starts taking a pickaxe to things that have been part of America for the last sixty or seventy, all bets are off.

      This is really the key, and it depends on if you think he'll do what he's said, or continue to do what he's always done. One way and we elected a White Nationalist Party that wants to kick off of the minorities off White-provided subsidies and shut down the border and all international aid while bombing the hell out of the Middle East, the other way we get the brand Trump and he's really mostly like the rest of the current power structure just extremely anti-Regulation and tax and the social issues are really not actually factor.

    4. Re:Don't think it'll happen by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      Will be lots of drama for a while. Happens with every election.

      While Trump has some outlandish ideas, he'll need Congress on board if he's to put any of them in play. Congress is made up of professional politicians who know this game better than Trump does. As such, it's unlikely they're going to go along with anything that will put their own jobs in jeopardy. They are far too self-serving for that. This should keep the crazier ideas in check pretty well.

      They are fully aware of what happens when you piss off the electorate too much. ( Typically results in losing all your seats to the other party. )

      We may see some minor changes, but it's unlikely to be anything Earth-Shattering.

    5. Re:Don't think it'll happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

    6. Re:Don't think it'll happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As we're seeing with the current protests, there is a problem with a "return to normalcy".

      That is, from the protesters' standpoint--how are they going to be oppressed, if they aren't being oppressed?

      They will never let go of the notion that Trump is "banning all Mexicans" or "banning all Muslims", despite the fact he isn't, won't, and has directly disclaimed it, repeatedly.

      The lie is too much of a focal point now, and Trump to consolidated of a target. Noting reality is too damaging to Leftist egos sharing in the oppression of people and situations they have noting to do with, other than by reference to race. Which the actual racists need to maintain indefinitely.

    7. Re:Don't think it'll happen by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Well put. For all the bellyaching about Obama, he did very little to materially harm anyone. Obamacare may (debatable) have increased the health costs marginally to help pay for those people not covered, in practicality for most, nothing dramatic changed fast.

      Trump comes along with the promise that he will throw out religious freedom completely, a founding principal of the country. Deliberately shutting down travel based on religion, and monitoring all those of a religion with security services. What would that lead to?

      Someone said once that there are over a billion Muslims in the world, if they really wanted us dead, we'd be dead already.

    8. Re:Don't think it'll happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't Mexicans and muslims want to live in their OWN countries?
      Why are they so desperate to live around white people?
      Why aren't Mexicans moving to Africa or India in their millions?
      Because they want to live around WHITE people.

      Care to explain why?

    9. Re:Don't think it'll happen by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The poor will get poorer, the rich will get richer, and the environment will continue to get worse at the same rate it is today.

      Right now, the EPA occasionally does something useful. Under President Trump, that's over. Expect the rate to increase.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Don't think it'll happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The poor will get poorer, the rich will get richer

      This has happened regardless of who was in charge since the 80's and most certainly would have been true under Clinton. So using this as a criteria to judge how California will view Trump is strange at best.

    11. Re:Don't think it'll happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So smart. So what happened last time somebody tried to secede?

    12. Re:Don't think it'll happen by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Good points but you're ignoring the biggest dangers from his campaign promises... his proposed protectionist and isolationist policies. And those are going to be hard for him to back away from because they really were the central core of his populist appeal, especially the protectionism.

      Specifically, he has promised to abrogate numerous trade pacts and negotiate "better deals", by which he seems to mean protectionist deals. If he does, the US economy will almost certainly take a huge hit, partly because his better deals won't actually be better, but mostly because the world economy will take an enormous hit. Although globalization has upset a lot of American voters because they believe it injured them personally, they fail to realize just how important it is to the economy as a whole, and therefore how much it indirectly helped them personally. They will learn, if Trump follows through.

      With regard to isolationism, he has mentioned the possibility of withdrawing from NATO and other key alliances (though none is remotely as important as NATO), which has the potential to seriously destabilize the none-too-stable world. Then there are the reports about his belief that we should be more willing to use nukes as part of our standard military offensive toolkit, which is downright terrifying.

    13. Re:Don't think it'll happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, rise up sheep. Put down your phones and grab your guns. Oh wait, no guns, no ammo, was that a text from Bill? I think the revolution you wanted went to other side. How can people talk about equity when they have to trash anyone who believes differently than they do. Maybe just shut up and listen. Maybe just walk away for a minute. Maybe become more involved with fixing the current problems than creating new ones. Maybe a quiet conversion instead of yelling. Maybe consider you might be wrong. Maybe what works for you doesn't work for me. Rodney King asked "Can't we all just get along?" I guess we can't. Remember including people your disagree with leads to some pretty good conversations. Just remember to be polite.

    14. Re:Don't think it'll happen by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      >>> If he starts taking a pickaxe to things ...

      But isn't that pretty much what he PROMISED to do?

    15. Re:Don't think it'll happen by boskone · · Score: 1

      ..." you'll do pretty much anything to get food..."

      except work? Seriously, every business has a help wanted sign out front. Getting food, for someone wiling to work in the US is not a problem.

      housing is tougher, as are other "things" but food is so cheap that it's easy to find a job that'll feed you

  37. State of Jefferson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Correction: It is far NorCal and South Oregon's secession petition. There is a whole article on wikipedia on it and the Cascadia movement in general (NorCal to Southern British Columbia as a single cultural, political, economic bloc.)

    Most of the problems worldwide are due to consolidation. The problem is people are talking about dividing under un-amicable circumstances which would cause problems for future defense pacts necessary to ensure the newfound economic blocs would not get steamrolled by outside parties (notably Russia/China at this time, but also Brazil, the EU, etc in the future.)

    What really needs to happen is a constitutional congress in the us, a redrafting of the US constitution for the current world, as an a side effect of that, a renewal of incorporation for states that wish to, allowing states that thing they can go it alone the opportunity to gracefulyl bow out without the hassles of the current method of secession. Who knows, maybe with the stars freed on the flag the rest of the US could incorporate Puerto Rico and Guam as official U.S. states.

    1. Re:State of Jefferson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > without the hassles of the current method of secession

      There is no current method of secession.

    2. Re:State of Jefferson by ghoul · · Score: 1

      The current metho is war (at least the last time it was tried) Maybe we can try a referendum

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    3. Re:State of Jefferson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no current method of secession.

      Yes there is. A constitutional amendment allowing secession.

    4. Re:State of Jefferson by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is. It's been tried many times in history, including twice in the US's history. The first time was a resounding success, the second time, not so much.... It's best avoided if possible.

  38. Yes Siree, Bob! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The West Cost will Riiiiiiise Agaiiiiin!

  39. Boo Hoo by Mr307 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    *RANT ON*
    Its getting tiring, this shrill end of the world, he/she said something bad so I have to cry now nonsense. I could say something coherent about words not hurting but i'm ranting so another time.

    And then, when I read an article like this all I can think about is 'them'(and if I wasn't ranting I would say all people who dont get their way, not just 1 side or another), saying 'BOO HOO, we didn't get our way so now we are going to kick down the sand castle and take all our toys'.

    Sound like a bunch of smug self righteous children, grow up.

    200+ years of history and not everyone got their way every time, sometimes you have to play the long game and put in the real work.
    *RANT OFF*

    That felt good, thanks for listening.

    1. Re:Boo Hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That felt good, thanks for listening.

      Thanks for speaking your mind.

    2. Re:Boo Hoo by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Holy shit, this isn't about "he said something bad", it's that he is going to massively make real people's life worse. Actually worse. That isn't a good reason to complain for you? What exactly is?

      Muslims, gays, women, blacks, all likely to suffer under the things that Trump has said he wants to do. Who's for no healthcare? Who's for nullifying marriages? Who's for beefing up the already militarised and racist police? Who's for religious profiling?

      Your fatigue must be hard for you. You have my sympathies.

    3. Re:Boo Hoo by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Completely agree - if you want to participate in our democratic republic, then great. If you don't, move to Venezuela. But if you do, then accept the outcome and move on, maybe plan how you can do better next election - that's why we have them every few years, so you don't have to get stuck with someone you don't like forever.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    4. Re:Boo Hoo by Mr307 · · Score: 1

      How perfect, you just gave everyone another example of what I was ranting about 'someone said something bad, the world is ending, dog and cats living together, total armageddon is coming'.

      The practical realities of being president do not mean you get to do whatever you like, there are checks, balances, repercussions.

      For example, ask Obama about closing Guantanamo: He signed an executive order in 2009 to close the place per one of his election promises and its still open. So the President of the country cannot close a government facility let alone unilaterally cause any of the things you claim will happen, he has to work within the system.

      Most people (yes even the narcissistic buffoon Trump) want to do the right things for the right reasons (yes people disagree about what is right), however it is usually the unforeseen or unintended consequences that cause biggest problems, not some preplanned diabolical evil plan.

      Government has been making some peoples lives worse since day 1, this is nothing new, every so often the establishment needs a kick in the pants to remind them who is really in charge.

    5. Re:Boo Hoo by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that the GOP also controls Congress, the Senate, and will be appointing at least one justice to SCOTUS, probably more.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    6. Re:Boo Hoo by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Yes and all those checks and balances are now all controlled by the same people.

      What better way to make sure those people know that you exist and hear your voice, than to make it loud? Sitting at home hoping it will all work out OK is not going to help.

    7. Re:Boo Hoo by Mr307 · · Score: 1

      Yep and thats exactly why Trump wont get to do anything especially stupid while in office, all those people in the Congress and Senate wont let him, no matter which 'side' they are on. To suggest that they all lost their minds and will blindly go along with whatever silly idea he gets hour by hour is just ridiculous.

  40. And here's Seattle by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    5 People Shot At Anti-Trump ProtestAll Are In Critical Condition (video)

    1. Re:And here's Seattle by zapadnik · · Score: 0

      What can we do to ensure there are more ?

    2. Re:And here's Seattle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shooting was unrelated to the protest. The vicinity of 3rd and Pine is a permanent cesspool. Shootings and stabbings here are common.

    3. Re:And here's Seattle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. I'm in Seattle. Completely unrelated. Happened shortly after the march left the area. Shooting at a high crime corner downtown thought to be drug related. This was Reuters hyperventilating over nothing and others picked it up and ran with it.

    4. Re:And here's Seattle by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      5 People Shot At Anti-Trump ProtestAll Are In Critical Condition

      What can we do to ensure there are more ?

      Go to the protest and play the role of 'utter asshole' that you are so obviously good at. There's a good chance somebody will shoot you, then you will have done your part to "ensure there are more".

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    5. Re:And here's Seattle by PCPackrat · · Score: 1

      Had nothing to do with the protest. They were long past before this happened.

  41. Dear Californians by taustin · · Score: 1

    You wish to secede. To do so, you will have to give any water coming from out of state, and let northern California control the rest, and gasoline will cost $25/gallon from now on, plus whatever export tariff the United States chooses to add on.

    Enjoy your avocados and almonds, because all staple foods are grown somewhere else.

    There is exactly as much chance of this happening as there is of Hillary Clinton winning Miss Congeniality as a consolation prize.

    1. Re:Dear Californians by bananaquackmoo · · Score: 1

      In California almonds and avocados ARE staple foods.

    2. Re:Dear Californians by Phydeaux314 · · Score: 1

      The only water California gets from out-of-state is a share of the Colorado River, which runs along its southeastern border. All the rest of California's water originates within the state's borders, due to the fact that the American Cordillera runs along the eastern edge of the state. It's why eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona are all very dry - they're in the rain shadow of the mountain range that runs along both American continents.

      --
      Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
    3. Re:Dear Californians by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and that will work...

      Apple - we'll trade you 100 tons of Washington apples for each iPhone you want.
      Rest of America - we'll use Android then
      Google - the fuck you will - we want potatoes en-masse.
      Microsoft - hey, we have a mobile platform too
      Rest of America - here, have our apples and potatoes.

      I'm joking of course (I personally don't mind Windows phone), but I have a lot of friends and relatives attached to iPhones and they would never use Windows phone and most dislike Android as well.

    4. Re:Dear Californians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another Ignorant Lout speaks on subjects that he knows nothing about:
      " To do so, you will have to give any water coming from out of state, and let northern California control the rest,..."
      Which we currently do; as large as SoCal is, the people of Southern California have very little say on Water issues. The single largest use of water, (~85%), in California is Central Valley Agriculture, growing things like Tomatoes on arid desert land to supply the Dinner tables of Boulder or Des Moines. That and subsidized Rice and Cotton for export to China. Our only other significant source of outside water is the Colorado, most of which also goes to wasteful Agriculture. The problem in California isn't the Supply; in any event, Winters are getting wetter; by 2030 Pacific Hurricanes will start clawing their way up Mexico towards San Diego. The problem is storage and distribution. The Colorado just happens to be conveniently there.
      If we just stopped using the Colorado, both Arizona and Mexico would suddenly be very friendly. (BTW, California Agribusiness is 100% Republican...)

      "...and gasoline will cost $25/gallon from now on,..."
      Huh? California is a net exporter of Gasoline and Petroleum products; we have a bunch of refineries. Nevada, Oregon, and Arizona have none. Now as for the raw product, we have a lot of that too; we're leaving it where it is for now. And I don't see Alaska destroying its fragile economy by snubbing one of their biggest customers. On the other hand, States close to California may just see a wee increase in gas prices...
      "...plus whatever export tariff the United States chooses to add on..."
      We are already paying 18.4 cents a gallon in Federal Taxes on our own Gas; we'll get to keep that. Our new Export Tariffs on our Gas... we'll have to think about that...

      But this is all nonsense, and can be blamed, if it could be called that, on the writer Curt Gentry back in the sixties. In his influential and humorous book, "The Last Days Of the Late Great State Of California", he analyzed just how important California was to the US, and just what would happen if California, for all intents and purposes, disappeared. This was before Silicon Valley, of course. He chose to use an Earthquake, but in the process, examined the many historical Separation Schemes. Many people, most but not all not Californians, have forgotten the California Republic, that existed for 25 days in 1846. (California was the original "Lone Star State" in another Revolution in 1836, Texas "acquiring" the distinction in 1839...) There is this historical precedent for an Independent California, based on contemporary Treaties with Mexico, which occasionally flares up again in North Northern California, where local Hotheads/Potheads scheme and dream of a State of their own, over slices of Artichoke Quiche and chilled Chardonnay, a State carved out of California and Oregon, to be called "Reagan" or Jefferson", or with giggles, "Jefferson Airplane".
      (Gentry can be serious as well; he wrote the chilling "Helter Skelter".)

    5. Re:Dear Californians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In California almonds and avocados ARE staple foods.

      Staples eat food? (Damn! That was easy!)

    6. Re:Dear Californians by turp182 · · Score: 1

      I was just going to mention water rights. To be honest, I think it's the only thing that matters in terms of "oh, we were just kidding" (and CA is already having serious water problems in the central valley, rivers run dry).

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    7. Re:Dear Californians by ghoul · · Score: 1

      California is a large oil producing state. Gasoline is expensive because of taxes to promote non fossil fuel sources not because we dont have enough.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    8. Re:Dear Californians by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Name one central valley river that runs dry? (actually: name one central valley river first.)

      There is no more dry season water available to take. That's not the same as running dry.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Dear Californians by turp182 · · Score: 1

      The San Joaquin river. Could be a dry season issue, but the dry area at the time (link below) was over 40 miles. A guy tried to kayak down the river for CNN.

      Using the CNN link below, page down to mile 187, that's where the river ends. It does start up at a later point. As well, the ground itself has sunk up to 30 feet from aquifer depletion (per Nat Geo link farther down).

      http://www.cnn.com/interactive...

      http://www.nationalgeographic....

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    10. Re:Dear Californians by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      and gasoline will cost $25/gallon from now on

      Where do you think California gets its refined gasoline, you idiot? They refine it all themselves. And oil is sold on the global market anyway, so they'll just buy the crude from somewhere else. In fact, all the states that currently get their refined gasoline from CA will be hurting, plus all the states that benefit from CA's west-coast ports.

    11. Re:Dear Californians by drsquare · · Score: 1

      What if the US tells Apple they have to move to the remaining US if they want to keep using GPS? Or selling iphones in the US without huge import tariffs?

  42. calixit by dmbasso · · Score: 1

    Can't deny that "calixit" has a nice ring to it!

    --
    `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    1. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better plan would be to break California into multiple smaller states (say 10) based on population centers to increase the number of left leaning US Senators.

    2. Re: calixit by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Informative

      A better plan would be to break California into multiple smaller states (say 10) based on population centers to increase the number of left leaning US Senators.

      Can't do that.

      New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States 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.
              Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re: calixit by serbanp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm wondering then why we have West Virginia...

    4. Re: calixit by epyT-R · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes, because cheating is a-ok as long as it enables your preferred outcome, right?

    5. Re: calixit by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Resumably, the remaining members of congress approved it, as well as the legislature of West Virginia, but the legislature of rebel Virginia abstained.

    6. Re: calixit by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As another poster mentioned, it's been done with West Virginia, but I think California would have much bigger shit than the law to deal with if it split off:

      - Most of its essential resources come from neighboring states. Hell, Arizona alone (which Californian politicians often scoff at) provides California with 25% of its electricity. I'm curious how Silicon Valley would deal with that. Perhaps draw more power away from the more rural regions and charge them more money? Speak of which...

      - Most of the landmass of California is in fact very red. They'd probably be able to take the major cities with them, but I can pretty much guarantee that the majority of the residents outside of those areas wouldn't be on board with this. But what do we need all of those rednecks for right? Well, you need farmland and farmers to eat.

      This shit needs to just stop. Every god damn election there's this stupid talk about either going to Canada or seceding, and it's all a bunch of stupid bullshit, and I'm sick of it.

      Besides, Shervin Pishevar is a first generation Iranian immigrant. Coming over here and then just demanding that we split up the country just because he doesn't like its politics is a real asshole move, and it's exactly this kind of asshole attitude that got an asshole like Trump elected.

    7. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems a great idea for California, should do the same on the East coast and let dumbfuckistan in the middle rot in its own stupidity.

    8. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because your middle class ass is OK with the status quo doesn't mean those who are trampled upon should just suck it up.

      You entitled fucking twat.

    9. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't work, as the vast majority of the area in Cali is die hard red.

    10. Re: calixit by jxander · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hell, Arizona alone (which Californian politicians often scoff at) provides California with 25% of its electricity. I'm curious how Silicon Valley would deal with that.

      We'd probably turn the nukes back on. San Onofre has been sitting idle for half a decade now. We'd probably invent new nuclear reactors, too; get some molten salt thorium reactors up and running. Barring that, Mr. Musk lives in Cali, so maybe we'd just get Solar Panels on every roof and batteries in every garage. Or turn to tidal, since we have all that coastline to play with.

      Most of the landmass of California is in fact very red.

      Most of the landmass of EVERY place is very red, because that tends to be the space without any people in it. Either farmers (as you point out) with a single family living on 100+ acres, or far far right conservatives living in the boonies of the deserts or high up in the Appalachian mountains with all the guns they can muster and the nearest neighbor 10 miles away. Liberals tends toward cities and other people, where they make things like computers, medicine, solar panels and interracial porn.

      --
      This signature is false.
    11. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid constitution!

    12. Re: calixit by alzoron · · Score: 1

      Unless you did some heavy gerrymandering you might end up with a few hard left states and a bunch of new "battleground" states. California and a bunch of other states have an agreement that all of their electoral votes go to the state's overall popular vote and it's the larger cities that swing California so far to the left. What you're proposing could very well make things worse overall.

    13. Re: calixit by Alypius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Build nukes. In California. Riiight. Add to the fact that building anything in that benighted state requires ten years of "environmental impact" studies and bribing of the California Coastal Commission...

    14. Re: calixit by slew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm wondering then why we have West Virginia...

      The state of West Virginia (aka Kanawha), was formed when Virginia seceded from the union prior to the Civil war. During that time there were 2 legislatures that claimed to represent all of Virginia. The legislature that didn't support succession voted to approve to split the state and this was approved by the US Congress compliant with Article 4 of the constitution.

      In the case of California, I don't think the legislators that represent the central counties in the CA state legislature, nor do I think the US Congress would approve splitting the state. This comes up in Texas all the time, and the same thing is likely the limiting factor. In any case, it seems totally unlikely that the Congressional representatives of small states would ever agree to splitting a large state to help it gain more representatives in the Senate.

    15. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States 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.
                      Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1

      except Texas. Which can create 3 more states if it so chose

    16. Re: calixit by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 0

      Shervin Pishevar should be tried for treason or his US passport repo'd and his ungrateful ass shipped home to the HiYaToilet.

    17. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they can. They just need people to agree.

    18. Re: calixit by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 0

      ...you forgot transgender transformation.

    19. Re: calixit by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 0

      10 years being the fast track option....

    20. Re: calixit by jandersen · · Score: 2

      This shit needs to just stop. Every god damn election there's this stupid talk about either going to Canada or seceding, and it's all a bunch of stupid bullshit, and I'm sick of it.

      Aren't we all? The thing is, the only way to stop it is by reaching out across the many, many cracks that break up American society and start listening to the views that you disagree strongly with - and start taking them in in some way. And that goes for all sides - the nation is not going to come together, if the angry, white working class won't take in the fact that there are close to 50% of the population that don't agree with them, and the same goes for the libertarians, pro-lifers, gun-lobbyists and all the other, narrow interest groups with extreme views: as long as everybody is uncompromising and distrustful of everybody else, things can only get worse.

      And to be honest, when it comes to California - I can't see how that is much different from Brexit. If UK can go it alone, despite all the very close links to Europe, then so can California. But just as Brexit is a profoundly stupid thing to do, it also won't be a good idea for California to leave the US, because it won't actually solve the fundamental problem: that everybody is going tribal and are (almost) prepared to start killing the others over things that could be solved by compromise. That sort of uncompromising outlook on life is what rips apart nations in the Middle East and other places, and one would hope Americans can at least be better than that.

    21. Re: calixit by frankenheinz · · Score: 1

      No, dumbshit, this matter comes squarely within the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment. In fact, political discourse such as this is the primary reason for which we have free speech guarantees.

      --
      The law is not an ass. No really.
    22. Re: calixit by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      And to be honest, when it comes to California - I can't see how that is much different from Brexit.

      Then you need an history course if you can't see the difference.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    23. Re: calixit by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 0

      Nitwit. You must have missed out on history in 8th grade.

      Wikipedia: "In 1798, President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts"
      This is sedition, plain and simple. A lot of immigrants are also involved in fraud at one level or another. The law has had some provisions that aren't adequately enforced in recent times.

    24. Re: calixit by Calydor · · Score: 1

      "This guy has an idea I don't like! GET HIM!"

      What is this, kindergarten? Oh wait, US politics. So yes, kindergarten.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    25. Re: calixit by frankenheinz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Asswipe, the Alien and Sedition Acts wouldn't speak to this situation. But no one worth mentioning doubts the invalidity of the Acts under the First Amendment. See, e.g., New York Times v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254, 276) (1964) "Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history" (Moreover, the Sedition Act expired by it own terms on March 3 1801.)

      --
      The law is not an ass. No really.
    26. Re: calixit by macmurph · · Score: 2

      By what measure? Landmass? No. Population? No. Economy? No.

      Half the California landmass is blue. That's about the size of Germany right there. The red half of CA can simply be compensated by giving them a tarif to grow food for the blue half. The blue half won't be paying trillions on military and other federal BS so it would be a small price to pay to make the whole state blue. We all know the red half mostly cares about money, so we would give them that for living their agrarian lifestyle. Eventually, the robots will farm for the blue half anyway. The universal basic income will take care of people's needs.

    27. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Literally destroying America isn't "a mean idea I don't like."

      It's sedition. It's treason. People will die if they make a serious attempt at it.

    28. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the exit polls dipshit.

      1/3rd of latinos voted Trump. More women and minorities voted Republican than in any election in history.

      You're a fucking moron who is demonstrably wrong.

    29. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Most of its essential resources come from neighboring states. Hell, Arizona alone (which Californian politicians often scoff at) provides California with 25% of its electricity. I'm curious how Silicon Valley would deal with that.

      While I do agree with your post, you do realize that in Europe we do buy and sell electricity to our neighboring countries all the time, right? California neighbors three US states and Mexico. Plenty of different places to get electricity from in the short term, if some of your neighbors start bullying you and you need to build some power plants. And the same would be valid for any other resource. We're talking about California here, not a poor country with a net deficit...

    30. Re: calixit by dwillden · · Score: 2

      Actually there is a great deal of support for splitting the state out in the red counties. They would love to have their views and votes matter again, instead of LA SF and Silicon Valley ruling the state and running it ever further into ruin.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    31. Re: calixit by DMFNR · · Score: 3, Interesting

      West Virginia separated from a confederate state. It's was definitely a bizarre situation since the Union didn't recognize the confederacy as a legitimate government. I suspect it was simply the pragmatic choice to take territory from a hostile state and a fuck you to Virginia. I hope someone more knowledgeable in civil war history can chime in with some more details. In my opinion, it's a different time and a vastly different situation, and I don't think our incoming government would be too eager to add more blue states to the Union!

    32. Re: calixit by um...+Lucas · · Score: 1

      South Florida has long seemed like a separate state than the rest of Florida, too... But, the Constitution says that states can't be divided up after they've been established.

      If California did such a move, it would essentially guarantee Red leadership for the rest of the country. Or more likely, would cause other Blue states to follow suit.

      Part of me thinks that wouldn't be so bad, but on the other, if we're believing that the election was affected by other countries interfering with our politics in order to produce an outcome that was more desirable, it would probably be a gift beyond their wildest dreams to see the US splinter into two or three different countries.

      Logistically, there's also the problem of Federal debt (among so many other things) - who assumes it?

    33. Re: calixit by um...+Lucas · · Score: 1

      It no more cheating than the gerrymandering the GOP has done (and now, will continue to do), redrawing districts to lump as many voters from the opposing party in the fewest number of districts as possible.

    34. Re: calixit by Zak3056 · · Score: 2

      My heart burns for the oppressed billionaires.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    35. Re: calixit by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Both parties engage in Gerrymandering, so throwing that charge at the Republicans (while true) is telling half the story. Also, we're talking about California here, the Democrats draw the lines there.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    36. Re: calixit by ghoul · · Score: 1

      If California does secede will the Congress support the Central Valley seceding back as East California (it has a different makeup from rest of California and reliably Republican) This would be very similar to West Virginia

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    37. Re: calixit by ghoul · · Score: 2

      First generation immigrants demanding to split the country. Hmmm where have we heard that before? Oh I remember!!!! Remember the Alamo!!!!

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    38. Re: calixit by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Speaking of porn I heard the proposition banning bareback porn got defeated. Californians must really like their bareback porn or really hate their porn actors

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    39. Re: calixit by gnick · · Score: 1

      A better plan would be to break California into multiple smaller states (say 10)...

      There've been multiple calls for splitting it into 2 or 3 (North/South/Bay Area). But since Southern California has the numbers but not the per-capita-income, it doesn't stand a chance at a vote.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    40. Re: calixit by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      Short Answer: Because the Civil War screwed everything up.

    41. Re: calixit by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They would never allow it to split along political lines.

      Coast range and west is liberal. Central valley and Sierra Nevada is conservative.

      Instead they would want S. Cal, run by LA and San Diego and N. Cal run by SF.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    42. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am a Republican in California and therefore I am disenfranchised. Just because some loud rich spoiled brats want to throw a tantrum, I shouldn't have to go along with them.

    43. Re: calixit by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Most of CA's water comes from the Sacramento river. Watershed is 100% in CA.

      About 1/3 of LA's water comes from the Colorado river, which runs through CA. Under water rights laws as they exist the water belongs to CA.

      You might want to look a the geography of CA before spouting off again.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    44. Re: calixit by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Secession never ends well. Just ask any South Carolinian in 1865.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    45. Re: calixit by Talderas · · Score: 1
      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    46. Re: calixit by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      It's like my grandpa used to say "Kid, nobody wants to jack off to condom porn except germaphobes."

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    47. Re: calixit by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The question of whether states have the right to secede from the United States was settled conclusively in 1865. If every dipshit state could leave the Union any time it wanted to because it gets butthurt over some election that doesn't go the way they wanted then this country would have fallen apart a long time ago.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    48. Re: calixit by plopez · · Score: 1

      ANd give TX back to Mexico. If they'll take it. We may have to invade them to force them to take TX.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    49. Re: calixit by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      So you think the people who grow your food, build the things you buy and deliver them to your door ... Those are the people you insult, degrade, and cast out?

      Your pathetic and ignorant ass is alive because those people allow you to eat some of the food they grow. Cut them off, and you'll starve in a week.

      Pretty much the same could be said about the immigrants (legal or illegal) and the Chinese and Mexicans that those people in the rural areas like to complain about...

    50. Re: calixit by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1

      That was pushed for by West Virginia after Virginia didn't follow through with that promise that they were "totally gonna change our name to East Virginia for you guys!"

    51. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you shatter the union, nobody!

    52. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If California secedes, Northern California will not be joining them. You should look at a County by county election map. A large chunk of the state didn't vote for Hilary. So the Sacramento River will remain in the United States a long with a large chunk of the California economy. Second do you think Southern California could survive off only 2/3rds of their water supply?

    53. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's bitztream, the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating Slashdot troll!

    54. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'd probably turn the nukes back on.

      And where are you expecting to get the nuclear fuel from? Californian doesn't manufacture fuel and control rods.

    55. Re: calixit by torkus · · Score: 1

      Build nukes. In California. Riiight. Add to the fact that building anything in that benighted state requires ten years of "environmental impact" studies and bribing of the California Coastal Commission...

      And labeling it as cancer causing.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    56. Re: calixit by dryeo · · Score: 1

      All that was decided was that States can't leave unilaterally. A Constitutional amendment would allow a State to secede. Maybe not likely, but possible.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    57. Re: calixit by jdeisenberg · · Score: 1

      It can't be done without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. If one were to get the consent of the California legislature (the state involved) and the Congress, it would be possible. The probability would be extremely small, but it would absolutely be possible.

    58. Re: calixit by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress

      Yes, we can.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    59. Re: calixit by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, typical lefty. "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

    60. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that you Teddy? You know it was Grandma who always used to say that!

    61. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

      Is the key part of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1.

      If you get a motion passed into the California Legislature and then through Congress, well you'll get your West California. And maybe Ottisvilla while you're at it.

    62. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlimited delicious fresh water from the mighty Pacific Ocean. We have not even begun to touch this amazing supply of life giving goodness.

    63. Re: calixit by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Well, in this case we're talking about radioactive materials. The warning is at least warranted.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    64. Re: calixit by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      California is a poor state with a net deficit. I live there, the state is bankrupt. That is to say nothing of its people, but the state itself lives in a cardboard box under a bridge.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    65. Re: calixit by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      So you think the people who grow your food, build the things you buy and deliver them to your door ... Those are the people you insult, degrade, and cast out?

      Wish I had mod points to mod this back up. As usual, someone decided to mod facts down because they would rather live in their fantasy world.
      The liberal white collars think it would be great if everyone had a basic income so they could all sit at home and paint, write novels, and build iphone apps.
      The conservative blue collars still realize that food doesn't magically appear in supermarkets and lawns don't magically mow themselves.
      For the foreseeable future we still need people to do the jobs that nobody else wants to do and putting everyone on food stamps is not the answer.

    66. Re: calixit by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      Pretty much the same could be said about the immigrants (legal or illegal) and the Chinese and Mexicans that those people in the rural areas like to complain about...

      I have no problem with legal immigrants. I also have no problem with increasing the quota for people coming into the USA. Heck, if we want to, meet them at the border and issue them an ID and social security card on the spot but in order to do that you need to actual vote on changing the laws. Right now the law says you have to have a work visa to work in the USA. I want the laws we have enforced until they vote on them to change. I also have a problem with the people here illegally getting to jump the line in front of the millions of people waiting their turn to legally come into the USA. If we want open borders, fine, let's discuss and vote on it but let's not have a system where it's "illegal" to come here but if you risk your life to sneak across the border and work for below minimum wage as a slave then we'll look the other way. This does no favors to anyone whether you're black, white, a legal hispanic, or an illegal hispanic. I don't want to live in a country where there is a group of untouchables that have no chance of ever getting out of poverty because they aren't considered real citizens. Close off the border, increase the quotas, and make sure everyone in the USA has the same rights as everyone else.

    67. Re: calixit by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      The blue half won't be paying trillions on military and other federal BS so it would be a small price to pay to make the whole state blue.

      How long do you think California would last without a military? Granted we could probably reduce the size of the federal military but if California is
      solely responsible for defending itself against they would likely have to spend *more* than they are currently spending as they don't have the
      economy of scale that the USA has.

      Eventually, the robots will farm for the blue half anyway. The universal basic income will take care of people's needs.

      We are still a long way from robots doing all the blue collar jobs until then you are dependent on the red people to take out your trash, fix your toilets, stock your grocery stores, and all the other stuff that magically gets done for you.

    68. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Texas already has approval from Congress to split. This approval was granted by Congress when Texas was admitted; this approval was reaffirmed some time later in the law that carved off parts of Texas into the current borders of Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico. The only constitutional barrier now is that the Texas legislature would need pass a bill granting its authorization for a split.

    69. Re: calixit by gizmo2199 · · Score: 1

      Because West Virginia broke off from Virginia during the Civil War, and Congress recognized the new state.

      --
      This Sig does not Exist.
    70. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, sure. But what about the South Carolinians from about a century earlier. They may disagree.

    71. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. The left has spent 16 years making fun of normal people and is now surprised when they stand up and say, "Fuck Off!"

    72. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Texas already has approval from Congress to split. This approval was granted by Congress when Texas was admitted; this approval was reaffirmed some time later in the law that carved off parts of Texas into the current borders of Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico. The only constitutional barrier now is that the Texas legislature would need pass a bill granting its authorization for a split.

      With Texas it's complicated. Although they got congressional approval prior to their secession from the US during the civil war, many constitutional scholars openly wonder if that they technically need to seek re-approval because of their re-admission to the Union after the civil war...

    73. Re: calixit by stinerman · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough that happened the last time one or more states wished to secede.

      It is simply not legal and anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves.

    74. Re: calixit by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Why didn't they stick it back together after the war?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    75. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The porn actors i saw protesting it claimed that proposition was badly drafted, leading to stalkers and ambulancecjasers having a field day.

    76. Re: calixit by skids · · Score: 1

      Those people can swap property with democrats stranded in dumbfuckistan and move there.

      I for one would support my state joining in California's new union. So friggin tired of teh stupid.

    77. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better plan would be to break California into multiple smaller states (say 10) based on population centers to increase the number of left leaning US Senators.

      Can't do that.

      New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States 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.

              Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1

      Um, your quote says that you can do that if the California legislature and Congress agree.

    78. Re: calixit by garethjrowlands · · Score: 1

      They could always let in immigrants to do it.

    79. Re: calixit by macmurph · · Score: 1

      Haha you think red people are doing the blue collar jobs in California cities? Come take a look for yourself. We have Mexican immigrants who cannot vote doing those jobs.

      As for military spending we would not be financing boondoggles like the yal-1, JLENS, and ford class carriers.

      California would last an exceptionally long time without a military assuming the rest of the lower 48 don't plan a military invasion. As liberal progressive pacifists, California would be a beacon of hope for all other nations. The trillions spent on military spending would go to education.

      Granted California makes a lot of the overpriced weapons but that's merely a profitable business. New California would just sell those to other countries and pocket the profits. In fact, substantially more money would be made in that sector because there would be so many more potential nation state customers.

    80. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, id go with califorxit

    81. Re: calixit by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

      1798 was merely the first edition, that along with the WWI versions are likely to be mentioned in decent secondary education. These relate to incitement and peripherally treasonous acts. There is a multicentury trend that you want to fail to notice.

    82. Re: calixit by Alypius · · Score: 1

      True, but thanks to Prop 65, businesses are required to have a sign disclosing that products may cause cancer. Since it's turned into a cottage industry for lawyers (kinda like the ADA), literally everything now causes cancer.

    83. Re: calixit by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      As a California citizen, I can attest to the fact that this is absolutely false. We do not yet require the sun to block itself out with a prop 65 warning.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    84. Re: calixit by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      The question of whether states have the right to secede from the United States was settled conclusively in 1865. If every dipshit state could leave the Union any time it wanted to because it gets butthurt over some election that doesn't go the way they wanted then this country would have fallen apart a long time ago.

      The question California needs to ask itself is; "Do I feel lucky?" because with a Trump POTUS and Republican controlled Congress, California might well get little choice in leaving! :D

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    85. Re:calixit by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Can't deny that "calixit" has a nice ring to it!

      I'm sure Hollywood and major music studios/labels would be delighted to give up domestic US Copyright protections and tech/aerospace tickled to give up domestic US Patent protections as domestic US entities and suddenly become foreign entities to the US government. /s

      No, California won't be leaving by their own will anytime soon. With a Trump POTUS and (R)-majority Congress, maybe CA should be more concerned about whether or not they'll be allowed to stay rather than whether or not to leave.

      Then the meme would be "CALBOOT".

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    86. Re: calixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure that initially California would feel the impact of the points that you have listed.

      IIRC, that 25% of electricity is for southern California, and they have been working to bring electricity production in state ever since the "Crooked E" (aka Enron) catastrophe. Other regions of the state are independent from out-of-state electricity suppliers.

      You are correct that most of the rural areas of California are very conservative "red" regions, and that is most of my state, but I have found that it is a different kind of red than what I have encountered in the mid-west and the south. I can't exactly define the difference. Maybe, conservative values but also quite open minded. That is a generalization of course.

      I grew up in a small California farming community where respect for the local natural resources and taking advantage of newer and clean technologies was often found to be more profitable. Although more of an up front investment, the payoff was visible in a few short growing seasons. But that is probably not very interesting stuff for most people.

    87. Re: calixit by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      The only thing that ever brings the US together is a major external threat. Humans, by their very biological nature, can't help but "go tribal". It's built into our very DNA. We're not nearly as bad as our primate relatives, but the impulse of "you don't look like me so I don't trust you" is still encoded. If we count the actual numbers of voters, it's more like 25% vs 25%, with the other 50% not caring enough to even bother engaging in the "conversation" that is voting.

      Personally, I didn't bother voting. I live in Oklahoma, so it was guaranteed 100% for Trump. The Democrats could nominate Jesus himself, and the Republicans could nominate Cthulhu and Oklahoma would still vote Republican as long as Cthulhu promised to eat the souls of Muslims and immigrants first. The way I saw it was Hillary=proxy was with Russia and Trump=trade war with China.

      The only real cure is a more representative system, something more akin to a Parliament and proportional governance. The current system was designed when we only had 18 states and a far less diverse population. The country has evolved, the system not so much. We really need a 4th branch of government that is comprised of a coalition of various parties that get X seats for Y number of registered voters of that party that then the party itself votes on who to occupy the seats.

    88. Re: calixit by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      The EPA in it's current form wouldn't exist in the California Free State. There are many safe, low-waste reactor designs. But yeah, there are quite a few "back to nature" eco-nuts in CA that would oppose anything like that...

    89. Re: calixit by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      A better plan would be to break California into multiple smaller states (say 10) based on population centers to increase the number of left leaning US Senators.

      Can't do that.

      New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States 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.

              Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1

      California and British Columbia Canada touch. Perhaps California can join Canada as the 11th Province. Just think of the benefits.
      No Donald, universal medicare, low cost education, great skying, fishing and hunting, large educated population.

      But Californians would have to give up their assault weapons and probably your small arms too.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    90. Re: calixit by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      I'm given to understand there were two governments of Virginia: the one recognized by the CSA and one recognized by the USA. Guess which one approved the creation of West Virginia?

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    91. Re: calixit by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Bigger problem: They would have to make their own international agreements because they would be their own, new country--and that would really add to their water problems since they likely would get nowhere near the amount they do now. (On the bright side, this will be better for the environment: we now know that the original agreement used a wet period; the 'drought' is actually what normal rainfall looks like for the region.)

    92. Re: calixit by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Somehow, I don't think VA was in the union when WVA was created.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  43. Reminded of Forgottonia by technosaurus · · Score: 1

    Forgottonia was a rural area in western Illinois that "seceded" and declared war on the US only to immediately surrender out of protest for being left out of many infrastructure projects.

  44. Here's an idea by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just give California back to the Mexicans.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just give California back to the Mexicans.

      Send Texas back while you're at it.

    2. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just give Mexico back to Spain!

    3. Re:Here's an idea by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      Just give California back to the Mexicans.

      Give Texas back to the Mexicans as well and you have a deal.

    4. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just give California back to the Mexicans.

      Why would we even? Mexico is ran by the white elite.

    5. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And make Dickhead's wall 50% longer?

      Who's going to pay for that? Mexico?!? LOL!!

      You fucking people make me laugh.

    6. Re:Here's an idea by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      If you did that in 5 years Texas would be dominating the rest of Mexico. In 15 years Mexico would be marching across the Red River. In 25 years the Canadians would be building a wall to keep Mexico out.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    7. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just give California back to the Mexicans.

      If you have visited California in the past 10 years you would notice that California is already half Mexican.

      So the process that you propose has already started and is around 50 percent of the way to completion!!

    8. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Since 1 out of 7 Mexicans already lives in California, they pretty much took it back already. Might as well change a few squiggly lines on the map to reflect that.

    9. Re:Here's an idea by faedle · · Score: 1

      Or at least give LA back to the Tongva.

    10. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YESSS... and good riddance

  45. Anonymous response is pretty funny by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    This image from Anonymous was pretty funny, with the caption:
    "Guess whats going to happen tomorrow #TrumpProtest DONALD J TRUMP will still be President Elect!

  46. Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can't believe what gigantic babies they are. What, did they expect that for the rest of their natural lives, that they would win every single election, ever? Apparently so.

    And now, that their side lost, instead of moving forward, they are bawling like infants and want to quit. We saw this with Brexit as well. Highly educated people, professionals, and they just pitched a shit-fit because they lost. I couldn't believe the rage that Ph.D's were capable of. But they sure can lecture everyone else about how we have to accept it when things go their way.

    Democracy is awesome.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Phydeaux314 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think it has a lot less to do with losing - the left has lost before, after all - but with who it lost to and what that person has indicated he wants to do to the nation.

      Both sides have to deal with losing and the pain of seeing one's own view of what the nation should be ignored or overruled. That's part and parcel of politics, and has been for... well, as long as there have been opposing views. I see a lot of people worried that the changes Trump wants to implement will result in their direct loss of life and liberty.

      If, for example, Trump follows through with his promise to deport all illegal residents, the fourteen year old sister of a friend of mine will lose her mother. She doesn't have Mexican citizenship, and her mother doesn't have U.S. citizenship. If he follows through with his campaign promises to roll back LGBT rights, then some of my friends may no longer be counted as married. If he follows through with his ban on Muslims, several of my classmates that are here on scholarships may be forced to return to their countries of origin instead of applying for citizenship like they planned on doing. If he stacks the supreme court and overturns Roe vs. Wade, many women will die due to seeking unsafe and back-alley abortions. If he repeals Obamacare, I will lose health insurance, and as a type 1 diabetic that's kind of a big deal for me.

      So it's not just losing, its the very real possibility of having families broken apart, futures ruined, and lived destroyed. That's why many liberals and centrists are appalled at Trump's victory.

      --
      Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
    2. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      If, for example, Trump follows through with his promise to deport all illegal residents, the fourteen year old sister of a friend of mine will lose her mother. She doesn't have Mexican citizenship, and her mother doesn't have U.S. citizenship.

      I didn't (and don't) support Trump. But presumably she's in this position because her parents entered the U.S. illegally and she was born in the U.S., thus granting her U.S. citizenship by birth? The remedy in her case is:

      • For her parents to fill out the paperwork to give her Mexican citizenship. Children born of a Mexican parent while outside of Mexico automatically qualify for Mexican citizenship.
      • Or if the friend of yours is an older sibling and over 21, for her to fill out a I-130 Petition for Alien Relative visa for the mother, which is the first step to getting a Green Card and eventual citizenship.

      These things have a procedure you're supposed to follow before you're supposed to enter the country. Just because she finds herself screwed because she (or her parents) tried to cheat and violated that procedure doesn't entitle her to a sympathy waiver when others are all required to follow the same legal procedure. It's disingenuous to try to blame the system or Trump for being cruel to her situation, when her situation is entirely her parents' creation.

      Nearly my entire extended family was granted green cards and eventually U.S. citizenship via the latter process. Took a few years, but this is one of the more accessible means of obtaining a green card. She's fortunate that she even has U.S. citizenship. The U.S. is one of the few countries which grants citizenship just because you happen to be born on U.S. soil. Yes her mother will have to leave the U.S. while she waits for the visa application to be processed. No that is not the fault of the U.S., since she wasn't supposed to be in the country in the first place. Immigration is a stickler about this - even U.S. citizens who get married and apply for their spouse to get citizenship are required to have the spouse first leave the country and wait until the spouse visa application is approved.

      I don't have a problem with illegal immigrants as people. One of the hardest workers I've ever met turned out to be in the country illegally. But it makes little sense to have more lenient rules for obtaining citizenship for people who entered the country illegally, than for people trying to enter the country legally and following the proper procedure. That would destroy any motivation to even try to follow the legal procedure.

    3. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has the world learned nothing from Brexit? We must not run from reality but work with it.

      The one thing our country needs now more than ever is to solve our divisiveness and unify as one country. The election went as it did because there are a large number of people who are being left behind by the system, while many americans are living in a bubble (including the media, the democratic party and the mainstream republican party, and the far-left and far-right).

      Please please as a californian democrat amidst the bay area tech craze and someone who voted for Clinton, let's accept the outcome of democracy and move forward as best we can. We *all* need to stay here in the US, not flee to canada and not try some absurd notion of leaving the union, and let's fight for what is right for *all* americans. We're all on the same team here.

    4. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they couldn't possibly be pitching a shit-fit because of this specific candidate, and the near certainty of rise in racism, sexism, and every other -ism that makes life shitty for non white males.

      It's really all just sour grapes because of the loss. Honest.

    5. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Every country deports its illegal residents. How did someone even stay here for 14 years illegally? Where on Earth was the enforcement? Moreover what was the mother doing, putting her family at risk like that? Mexicans are proud of being Mexican, and as we all saw, they hate Trump and most Americans. The rallies made that quite clear.

      Allowing more Muslims to live in America is just going to result in more violence against gays. It doesn't benefit Americans, why would we do that?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? So if your friend's sister' mother held up a store and went to jail would you expect her to be pardoned? Why should "marrage" be defined by government? It's a contract no more or less and states can pass their own laws allowing it along with abortion. Federal laws on both of those don't exist (abortion for sure I'm not sure on marriage re: DOMA) Roe v Wade overruled state laws prohibiting abortion, nothing says a state can't have a law allowing it.

      The point is that you give too much power to the Feds...THAT is what has always been the Democratic problems...u live by the sword and die by it. Take power from the Fed and give it back to the state where it belongs.

    7. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing to do with 'losing even once'. This is about the dismantlement of all the progressive advances from decades of work in the past, for a generation.

      This is not a football game, dumbass.

    8. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I couldn't believe the rage that Ph.D's were capable of.

      Who are you talking about?

      Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, ... Most of these guys haven't got a Ph.D. Having a Ph.D. or not is unrelated.

      Just Shervin Pishevar
      >While driving the cab, Abraham Pishevar, who already held a Masterâ(TM)s degree, studied for and received a Ph.D. in Mass Communication at Howard University.

      But from cab to Ph.D. to CIO, is that not the American dream? What makes the America great?

      Are frustrated/jealous of not having one?

    9. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What - you mean lots of non-whites will no longer be able to live around WHITE people? How awful for them.

      That is what you're saying, isn't it?

      Or is the USA a better country than whatever third world hellhole all your friends originate from because of MAGIC?

    10. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "even U.S. citizens who get married and apply for their spouse to get citizenship are required to have the spouse first leave the country and wait until the spouse visa application is approved. "

      Nope. I'm a immigrant spouse from elsewhere, I didn't have to leave, and I now have permanent resident status. I'm also white, FWIW.

    11. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is different. The current state of affairs is the end-point of a systematic poisoning of the voter base to push a far right agenda. You may or may not be happy with this - your posting history indicates your antipathy towards a liberal mindset. Your leader is a man who cheats and steals; he's quite possibly a rapist. He lies more or less constantly - it's a natural act for him and he doesn't really care whether the more intelligent people in his audience are aware of this because the bulk of the rabble really doesn't care.

      Once upon a time you were gradually, step by faltering step, moving towards evidence-based policies and a world-view born of the Enlightenment.

      You threw that away, though, and what you have in its place is a good candidate for the New Mohamedanism.

    12. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only people I've heard him say he would deport is law breaking illegals. If her mother is an illegal and a criminal (besides just coming into the country illegally), I'm not sure I should feel bad that she is being deported. If she isn't a criminal, its not likely she will be deported and you are reacting to fake news put out by CNN. If that is the case, perhaps you should be upset with CNN for lying to you instead of Trump.

      As for LGBT rights, I believe he said it should be decided by the states not DC. Again, you should be mad at CNN for lying to you. He said the same thing about abortions as well (specifically he said repeal Row v Wade and leave it up to each state)

      Sounds like you are upset by lies told by CNN about Trump. I think your anger is misplaced.

    13. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What rage? I've seen disappointment and disbelief but not rage. This is only a couple guys of minor note that are talking succession. They both seem attention grabbers so I guess they just can't neglect this opportunity to get in the news.

    14. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because they lost to ignorant asshats on issues that should not even be being debated in the first place.

      Democracy is nonsense when ignorant people get to vote.

    15. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "One of the hardest workers I've ever met turned out to be in the country illegally."

      Then surely they are desperately needed in their OWN country, not the one they invaded?

      Or aren't there enough white people in their own country for them to magically 'get a better life'?

      Why aren't millions of white people moving to Mexico, Africa, China and India every year, if we actually WANT to live around non-whites so much?

    16. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably this woman also had the 14 years after she gave birth in the US to apply for a green card and citizenship.

    17. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > That would destroy any motivation to even try to follow the legal procedure.

      If coming to the country illegally were as simple as taking the bus, that would be true. But it isn't. Entering the US illegally is extremely risky. Coyotes abuse the shit out of people, many of them die in the process. And that doesn't even begin to address the risks of living here illegally - no police protection because you can't call the cops, people using your status as leverage to take advantage of you "give me a blowjob or I report you to INS," the only jobs available to you are the shady kind paid under the table and poorly.

    18. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      these are libertarians. their side lost when the fundies and tea party took over the gop.

    19. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      I think it has a lot less to do with losing - the left has lost before, after all

      I disagree. The "left" has lost before, but not the current batch of millennials. You can go back nearly 12 years since the last election won by GOP. Thus any democrat younger than 30 has never voted in a presidential election that they lost, and if they were under 18 then they likely didn't have political convictions of their own anyway when Bush last won.

      So yes, I think this has a lot to do with losing. Especially the way that generation is being raised and educated, in a conflict-free, competition-free environment where they do not "win" or "lose", and thus simply have not learned how to accept defeat and move on.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    20. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      'Lawbreaking illegal' is redundant.

      All we need is a system of work permits/identification that works. Like Europe already has.

      In Germany a Syrian refugee without papers just can't find work. Because the fines for hiring one are very high and employers do get caught (that and the Germans are neurotic law abiders/rule crazy, I digress).

      In America, anywhere near the Mexican border all construction (jobs very much wanted by Americans) is done by illegal immigrants. INS could easily stop this but they choose not to.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    21. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Her mother has had 14 years to apply for and become a US citizen, and it's Trump's fault?

    22. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Kagato · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I bet you don't like BLM either.

    23. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once

      Hmm, but that's perfectly acceptable behavior for our new Supreme Leader?

      Why the double standard?

    24. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they deport all the illegal immigrants, the service industry will come to a grinding halt.

      There might be some token deporting, but let's face it, this just ain't gonna happen.

    25. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're all on the same team here.

      We're really not, and that's become increasingly obvious. Maybe it really is time to examine ways to separate the two halves.

    26. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Good post - we need to stop conflating immigration with illegal immigration (Trump is not a xenophobe), and push people to follow proper channels. My wife is nationalized, we've helped other people come here legally and become citizens; we don't support illegal immigration... conflate it as much as you want, it doesn't change the simple fact that we have laws and processes regarding immigration, and we have them for a reason.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    27. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works both ways. Hillary would get rid of guns and ruin my business. I couldn't help destroy the feral pigs and wild deer tearing up the forests and fields. My friends will go hungry because we have no food because we can't hunt or grow crops (see feral pigs). My friends lose their jobs because the company they work for outsources over seas. My friends cannot afford the spiraling costs of the health plans they have to pay. More taxes remove what little money I had to use for fun. More regulations cause businesses to close. I could go on but you get the idea. Every rule or change effects everyone. Don't ever think you have a lock on hard times.

    28. Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once by PJ6 · · Score: 1

      I can't believe what gigantic babies they are. What, did they expect that for the rest of their natural lives, that they would win every single election, ever? Apparently so.

      And now, that their side lost, instead of moving forward, they are bawling like infants and want to quit. We saw this with Brexit as well. Highly educated people, professionals, and they just pitched a shit-fit because they lost. I couldn't believe the rage that Ph.D's were capable of. But they sure can lecture everyone else about how we have to accept it when things go their way.

      Democracy is awesome.

      You have a strange view of other people.

      It's not who's team won or lost - why don't you take a step back and look at who just got elected.

  47. We also have Lawrence Livermore Labs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..which was started by the University of California. So we have a partial claim to it. As for defense of California, let me present former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Arnold?
    Ladies and gentlemen....We have da bomb.

  48. Spoiled Silicon Valley Plutocrats by sinij · · Score: 4, Funny

    If Texas didn't secede after Obama got elected, I am sure a bunch of spoiled silicon valley plutocrats won't either. They should buy more electric cars or whatever is far-left equivalent to guns&ammo.

    1. Re:Spoiled Silicon Valley Plutocrats by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Missiles and planes? Jocks sure dont build any. These are designed by far left geeks and built by machines built by far left geeks powered by power plants designed by far left geeks... See where I am going with this?

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    2. Re:Spoiled Silicon Valley Plutocrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Texas was never going to go through with it because it's dependent on the federal government. It'd go bankrupt within a couple of years. It was all smoke and no heat for them. As for Cali, they're in a very good position to do a Singapore and go solo.

    3. Re:Spoiled Silicon Valley Plutocrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Participation ribbons then.

    4. Re:Spoiled Silicon Valley Plutocrats by sinij · · Score: 1

      The resulting much-more conservative the rest of US will have zero problems tariff-ing them into the ground. This is assuming that every business would stay in Cali instead of, for example, moving to NY.

  49. You're being manipulated by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you supported Trump kindly go fuck yourself, and I'll take the moderation results of this post. If not then I apologize to you, but not the man who decided to run a campaign based on sowing as much hatred as absolutely possible.

    This is what happens when you run that kind of campaign.

    We didn't protest when Barack Obama was elected. Twice.

    Here's some observations about the protests:

    • Pre-printed signs,
    • Cash to pay protestors
    • Crowd Warm-up pro
    • Professional inciters
    • Alert media to get it all on TV

    You're being manipulated.

    1. Re:You're being manipulated by EmeraldBot · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you supported Trump kindly go fuck yourself, and I'll take the moderation results of this post. If not then I apologize to you, but not the man who decided to run a campaign based on sowing as much hatred as absolutely possible.

      This is what happens when you run that kind of campaign.

      We didn't protest when Barack Obama was elected. Twice.

      Here's some observations about the protests:

      • Pre-printed signs,
      • Cash to pay protestors
      • Crowd Warm-up pro
      • Professional inciters
      • Alert media to get it all on TV

      You're being manipulated.

      One
      two
      three
      There were quite a few protests in 2008 and 2012, and they had the above list in effect.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    2. Re: You're being manipulated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ones I see here in Portland are hand written on poster board. Not a preprinted sign in sight.

    3. Re: You're being manipulated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ones I see here in Portland are hand written on poster board. Not a preprinted sign in sight.

      I hope they aren't blocking Kearny. I just sent my wife out to get some of the weed that is legal here.

    4. Re:You're being manipulated by skam240 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      That's an impressive list!

      Why not make up more stuff like molest children (everyone hates that!) or abuse the elderly? I'm sure if you try hard enough you can make up a waayyy better list than that one.

      Real quick question. If all of the poles and the Democrats were all firmly convinced that Hillary was going to win, why would they have done all that prep work?

      A second question. How about some real data on your clearly fabricated list?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    5. Re:You're being manipulated by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      You're being manipulated.

      By whom?
      For what reason?

    6. Re:You're being manipulated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We didn't protest when Barack Obama was elected. Twice.

      Please do not lie. Obama was not running on fascist agenda.

    7. Re:You're being manipulated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We didn't protest when Barack Obama was elected. Twice.

      LOL. The right never ceases to amaze me. Texas and Florida *both* have had this same half-witted idea when Democrats have won, and that was for a candidate who was qualified for the office other than being a little blacker than they'd like.

      Maybe the right should take a little bit longer look at Trump if they really don't understand why over half the country is a little nervous.

    8. Re:You're being manipulated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're being manipulated.

      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

    9. Re:You're being manipulated by GoChickenFat · · Score: 2, Informative

      I guess none of the moderators clicked on your 3 links because none of them are even remotely equivalent to what is happening right now. A verbal protest at a college and chair hanging in a tree? Really, you see that as the same as what is happening now? Link some video news stories from 2008 or 2012 of the mainstream media pushing for a riot like I'm seeing tonight on ABC, etc. The MSM meltdown live on election night should be evidence enough that we are being manipulated by their propaganda.

    10. Re:You're being manipulated by EmeraldBot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I guess none of the moderators clicked on your 3 links because none of them are even remotely equivalent to what is happening right now. A verbal protest at a college and chair hanging in a tree? Really, you see that as the same as what is happening now? Link some video news stories from 2008 or 2012 of the mainstream media pushing for a riot like I'm seeing tonight on ABC, etc. The MSM meltdown live on election night should be evidence enough that we are being manipulated by their propaganda.

      Of course the mainstream media wasn't pushing for a riot because the mainstream, which happens to be the majority of people by definition, didn't want to riot. Their candidate won in 2012. There still were riots though, and with the feet dragging and the refusal to evaluate a nomination for justice, the statement "Republicans accepted Obama" is highly misleading to say the least.

      Secondly, as a question of curiosity, who do you consider to be the mainstream media, exactly? There's no malice here, I'm genuinely curious what the Trump supporter's side is. If you don't read mainstream media, then why would you feel like you're being manipulated? And if I evaluate both sides, and then side with the mainstream media, does that also make me manipulated?

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    11. Re:You're being manipulated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She did win. She got more votes than Donald Trump or any other candidate. This has occurred twice in the last twenty years. It was previously much rarer.

    12. Re:You're being manipulated by LaughingRadish · · Score: 1

      So, it means nothing to you that DNC operatives were caught on camera admitting to stirring up shit to make it look like Republicans are violent?
      I'll just leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    13. Re:You're being manipulated by dwillden · · Score: 1

      One and two were the same event. Where, wait for it. A campaign sign was burned and two people were arrested.

      Versus mass vandalism and rioting.

      And three a single racist individual versus
      massive protests and riots in multiple cities across the nation.

      Yes there will always be the occasional idiot that goes too far, no political view is free from idiots. But the given examples of sore losers on the right do not even begin to compare to what we are seeing from the sore losers on the left.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    14. Re: You're being manipulated by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      The ones I see here in Portland are hand written on poster board. Not a preprinted sign in sight.

      Maybe they were pre painted? I mean I'm sure they all technically were pre printed or painted, you don't do that shit when you get there. Just not by the people holding them.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    15. Re:You're being manipulated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh for heaven's sake. We're *all* being manipulated, though there's a huge difference between Obama's style of manipulation and Trump's. Trump's rose to almost the level of inciting violence, maybe even crossing over the line a few times.

      Some people are angry. They're allowed to protest that even if their ideas are silly. That's part of freedom and liberty. Trump is a bigot and a demagogue but he's a legitimately elected one, just like Putin, Chavez, or Duterte. Contrary to the claims of his own deluded campaign before the election, there's no sign of significant voting irregularities, as expected. Let him proceed to screw things up, let people protest the ways in which he has screwed things up, and let other people who think he hasn't screwed things up get angry about the protesters. Then everybody will be equally unhappy about the people at the top still screwing everyone else over.

      Slightly short of a majority of the country voted for this crazy experiment. You have to respect that and see what happens. There's no point in protesting the outcome because there's no basis for legitimately questioning it. Wait til Trump does something stupid, which probably won't be long.

    16. Re:You're being manipulated by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The signs in the photos are all hand written.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re:You're being manipulated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, leave the Polish people out of this.

    18. Re:You're being manipulated by GoChickenFat · · Score: 1

      Secondly, as a question of curiosity, who do you consider to be the mainstream media, exactly? There's no malice here, I'm genuinely curious what the Trump supporter's side is. If you don't read mainstream media, then why would you feel like you're being manipulated? And if I evaluate both sides, and then side with the mainstream media, does that also make me manipulated?

      Since I cut the cord a decade ago my only TV news media is the main networks - ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX...and also PBS. These outlets SHOULD be the last beacon of unbiased, fact based reporting, but that ship sailed long ago. They're mainstream simply because there are no other TV choices on the "free" antennae networks. The news on these channels are primarily local news stations and they are all massively absent of any depth of reporting on any topic, local or national. It's especially sad when they frequently use facebook and twitter as sources for their reporting?! They're basically TV versions of news aggregators with the cheap product being zero depth reporting of others opinions. That means by proxy I'm getting the junk being produced by New York Times, Huff Po, WashPo, AP, etc, and occasionally the local newspapers who are also sourcing their news from the previously mentioned. This is a massive problem because you only need to poison one or two source outlets for the poison to be dutifully spread by the local news products - which don't necessarily align politically with their national counterparts.

      So what I got to see on election night were these 5 primary outlets bringing in their "A" team from there national news products. FOX was simply boring with Sheppard Smith talking about map math and for some reason the picture had a yellowish hue to it...I didn't spend much time there - probably 10 minutes total. I watched ABC for most of the night, switching over to CBS and NBC occasionally with a quick stop by PBS. What I found is those 4 were absolutely losing their collective minds that Trump could win. They couldn't find a positive thing to say about Trump or anyone that possibly supported Trump. All night long "Trump is winning with uneducated white male voters" which continued to be expressed with intensity throughout the night as a rally call to divide us. At one point they showed a stat that had Trump with 30% of the Hispanic/minority vote compared to Romney's 19% and McCain's 18% and one of the commentators said "do they know what they were voting for?" Basically ABC, CBS, NBC could do nothing more all night long than look dumb founded and spew the very hate they pretend to be above. They couldn't come up with any reason why Hillary was loosing other than the country must be full of dumb white male bigots and sexist. There certainly was not "we go high" happening on election night from these outlets. Interesting that you think I'm a Trump supporter simply by my calling out blatantly obvious media bias were one should expect a more neutral, fact based position. This issue should be concerning ALL of us from BOTH sides...and too bad we have to call it sides in the first place. No longer are we uniting on issues...only behind people and parties as if we're picking our favorite football or baseball teams.

      I won't go into details about where I find my news...I'm struggling like most that really want to find details to make educated decisions so I'm basically out there scraping and aggregating my own experiences with online research and once in a while relatively benign podcasts from the likes of John Batchelor that at least give me ideas of what to look into; especially on world issues. I realized long ago that these networks and talk radio are just poison. The broadcast TV propaganda is not limited to their news and talk products either as they're also inserting their views in the nightly drama's and sitcoms. When I visit my folks (retired boomers) who watch MSNBC and FOXNEWS all day and its very apparent that their only view of the world and what to care about are whatev

    19. Re:You're being manipulated by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      If you supported Trump kindly go fuck yourself, and I'll take the moderation results of this post. If not then I apologize to you, but not the man who decided to run a campaign based on sowing as much hatred as absolutely possible.

      This is what happens when you run that kind of campaign.

      We didn't protest when Barack Obama was elected. Twice.

      Did Obama call white people murderers, drug dealers and rapists? Did Obama get to be president when somebody else won the popular vote? I'd say these people have ample cause to protest that Trump is not their president which is their constitutional right .

      Here's some observations about the protests:

      OK, let's have a look.

      • Pre-printed signs,

      Microsoft Word, Open Office, Pages... combine those with a laser printer and the options are endless. Does not prove any malfeasance.

      Cash to pay protestors

      [citation needed]

      Crowd Warm-up pro
      Professional inciters

      You don't need to be a professional to lead a protest and give a speech. All you need is to not suffer from stage fright and know how Facebook/Twitter/WhatsApp/SMS works to summon your fellow protesters. This is protesting 101, not evidence of an anti-Trump conspiracy.

      Alert media to get it all on TV

      Again, that's protesting 101, alert media, what kind of protest organiser does not alert the media? Not that I've ever know newshounds to take more than a few minutes to sniff out a good story... and please don't try to tell us that protest organisation is evidence of an anti-Trump conspiracy. Political parties and non partisan groups organise protest all the time and right wing groups are no exception.

      You're being manipulated

      No we are not. Now please show us some evidence that these people are paid mercenaries or stop bothering us with your conspiracy theories.

    20. Re:You're being manipulated by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      You posted 2 articles about the same college campus protest (2 arrests, no injuries or vandalism), and one about someone's protest display in their yard.

      Meanwhile, the protests last night featured hundreds of arrests, several injuries, tons of property damage and vandalism of public and private property in many cities all over the country.

      It's pretty clear which side is the one that turns violent when they don't get their way. The Clinton campaign was so full of hyperbolic fear about a Trump election that they now have people frightened into thinking that inflammatory rhetoric was actually true.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    21. Re:You're being manipulated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mainstream does not denote the majority of people. mainstream media just denotes the basic network of broadcasters and media groups. considering the overwhelming number of these broadcasters and media groups are owned by a small group of corporations, thinking they may be co-opted by their ownership in order to frame the narrative is not a far fetched idea.

    22. Re:You're being manipulated by fropenn · · Score: 1

      Not from TV, although PBS does offer some international news programs which focus on U.S. events from a very different perspective. If anything, Trump should be thanking the main news networks (both over the air and cable). They gave him thousands of hours of free coverage of his rallies, events, speeches, and even hours spent "waiting" for Trump to "do something." No other candidate even came close in free coverage.

    23. Re:You're being manipulated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting that so many could be organized the day after the election but so many of them stayed home during it. This all feels terribly staged.

    24. Re:You're being manipulated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come now, you know the rules.

      1. A street protest against Clinton is anti-democratic astroturfing funded by evil shady billionaires.

      2. A street protest against Trump is grassroots pro-democracy activism, generously funded by non-profit foundations.

    25. Re:You're being manipulated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course we didn't protest when Obama was elected because Obama wasn't Trump: a raging fucking lunatic, a retarded clown of the sort Bush could only aspire to be. A joke of a person. Are you goddamn serious?

      Fucking look at Trump, look at the retarded and downright dangerous shit he says and does, and tell me that's really a fucking equal comparison with Obama. NOBODY WITH HALF A BRAIN CAN SAY THAT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE.

    26. Re:You're being manipulated by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Secondly, as a question of curiosity, who do you consider to be the mainstream media, exactly? There's no malice here, I'm genuinely curious what the Trump supporter's side is. If you don't read mainstream media, then why would you feel like you're being manipulated? And if I evaluate both sides, and then side with the mainstream media, does that also make me manipulated?

      The meme is so strong now that you'll see people on MSNBC or in the WSJ criticize 'mainstream media,' rather oblivious to the fact that they themselves are the mainstream media.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    27. Re:You're being manipulated by kuzb · · Score: 1

      The popular vote is not how elections in the US work. They've never worked that way. Go back to school and learn something about how the electoral process works.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    28. Re:You're being manipulated by kuzb · · Score: 1

      Neither is Trump. You're just whining so loud you can't think objectively about any of it.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    29. Re:You're being manipulated by kuzb · · Score: 1

      Did you even read any of the DNC leaks? You're DEFINITELY being manipulated.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    30. Re:You're being manipulated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you supported Trump kindly go fuck yourself, and I'll take the moderation results of this post. If not then I apologize to you, but not the man who decided to run a campaign based on sowing as much hatred as absolutely possible.

      This is what happens when you run that kind of campaign.

      We didn't protest when Barack Obama was elected. Twice.

      Here's some observations about the protests:

      • Pre-printed signs,
      • Cash to pay protestors
      • Crowd Warm-up pro
      • Professional inciters
      • Alert media to get it all on TV

      You're being manipulated.

      Go ahead, and leave the rest of the US. We will have a lot more beach front territory after California falls into the ocean. Oh, wait, how will they get federal aid for all of their disasters? Seriously, this is a crazy idea.

    31. Re:You're being manipulated by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Mainstream media is CBS, ABC, NBC and their television networks and partnerships, Time magazine, and the bestselling newspapers in the big cities. In the same philosophical bent are PBS and CNN.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    32. Re:You're being manipulated by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      >>> We didn't protest when Barack Obama was elected. Twice.

      Yes, some of you did. And your representatives in government spent 8 years doing NOTHING but gamesmanship, So now that it's almost exactly an even split of the population - with your guy winning even though he LOST popular vote - let's count up how much "alert media to get it all on TV" your guy got. (One must admit, even admire, his talent in the publicity fields; how he convinces people that he is at the same time an elite billionaire and an anti-elite little guy is beyond me.)

    33. Re:You're being manipulated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was part of the protests. I didn't get any pre-printed signs. I certainly wasn't paid; where do I get my cut? It was definitely grassroots. Some professionals would have been helpful, but that wasn't a thing. We did alert the media, though. We have long-time activists, some with media background, that know how to release press releases geared to catch the attention of the incredibly lazy reporters. We do take advantage of that.

  50. None of these guys are progressives by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    they just want cheap foreign labor in the form of easy Visas. They're afraid Trump is gonna take that away. They're stirring up trouble to try and get him on their side. It won't work. He's bloody nuts.

    Progressives didn't create that leviathan. It's always been there. If you allow a weak central government you just get robber barons on a national level filling the power vacuum you just left in your mad dash to freedom.

    Also, what they hell is wrong with 'elites'? What's wrong with people who take their work seriously, study and learn the optimal approaches while constantly striving to improve? That's an elite. If you don't like being talked down to then crack a book, study up and learn enough about politics, economics and policy so that you're _not_ being talked down to. The rest of us sane people like experts in a field.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:None of these guys are progressives by RichPowers · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with hard work or studying. I'm reading Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" right now, so stop assuming I'm an idiot bumpkin, or even voted for Trump. And the only ones being talked down to right now are the Krugmans of the world who were too busy smelling each other's farts to see what was happening outside the glass towers of NYC.

      FYI, this class of people brought us the Iraq War (great job guys!), the financial crisis (brilliant!), the bailouts (rewarding morons - perfect!), Obamacare, and a million other inflationary, broken policies & programs that engender moral hazards and limit freedom. In case you haven't guessed, I want these people to go away and let the states do their own thing. They all need real jobs that don't involve sucking on the federal tit.

      In fact, the arrogant cluelessness displayed in your post is everything the Trumpers rallied against. You either get it or you don't.

    2. Re:None of these guys are progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >FYI, this class of people brought us the Iraq War (great job guys!), the financial crisis (brilliant!), the bailouts (rewarding morons - perfect!), Obamacare, and a million other inflationary, broken policies & programs that engender moral hazards and limit freedom. In case you haven't guessed, I want these people to go away and let the states do their own thing. They all need real jobs that don't involve sucking on the federal tit.

      You're being incredibly vague here, a "class" of people brought you... a bunch of stuff mostly done by people who make decisions.

      Well no shit, of course the people who are in charge are the ones making decisions.

      You're saying people with economic policy like Krugman is to blame for the financial crisis and the iraq war? No? Thats because you're just throwing up random policies and names with no real correlation or causation between policy and person.

      For someone who purports to be speaking down to others, you sure sound like someone who has nfi about the large scale differences in economic policy that Krugman has compared with the policies currently implemented, and instead prefers to lay into the massive burlap sack you're throwing literally everyone into.

    3. Re:None of these guys are progressives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for elevating the idea that you are an "idiot bumpkin" from its status as an assumption to an established fact.

  51. No. NO! by ichthus · · Score: 1

    How about this: you don't want to live in the United States of America anymore? Then, get the fuck out, bitches.

    --
    sig: sauer
  52. I second this notion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seeing as 25% of their power and 30% of their water comes from other states and their fiscal condition is rated poor (http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/16017-FR-Dashboards-v2-CA.jpg), I second this movement.

    Let them go, and we can buy them back in a few years for pennies on the debt dollar.

    1. Re:I second this notion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      don't forget the amount of money we save from not having to provide disaster assistance when the fault finally explodes.

  53. So much for democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sore losers.

  54. Just like Florida! by Chewbacon · · Score: 2

    Florida wanted to do the same thing after the last election. Yeah, go ahead, and send Cali into an even deeper financial crisis. Property values will crash and your currency won't be worth shit. On the east coast, look at property values of the south compared to that of the north and you'll see the south is STILL paying for trying to secede from the union. Clearly Cali has been smoking weed longer than it's been legalized.

    And quit your bitching. You all rallied behind Hillary waving signs that said "stronger together." Put your fucking money where your mouth is and heed the advice coming from that liberal-Jesus Obama when he says support the Donald. It is done. Likewise, Donald stood on stage and said he wants to be president for everyone - call him on it.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    1. Re:Just like Florida! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ...look at property values of the south compared to that of the north and you'll see the south is STILL paying for trying to secede from the union.

      That's not why property values in the Southeast are low and its people are poor.

      Property values are low and its people are poor because there is no significant heavy industry, no significant tech industry outside of Atlanta, GA, and Huntsville, AL, property taxes are fantastically low, in some states _significant_ percentages of the state are _given away_ to paper companies to induce them to set up shop in the state, and the Southeast is _very_ sparsely populated.

    2. Re:Just like Florida! by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, because California would no longer need to financially support the red states, the lower taxes will encourage people to live in California and that means higher property values.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    3. Re:Just like Florida! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call him on it? He'll just deny he ever said it.

    4. Re:Just like Florida! by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      On the east coast, look at property values of the south compared to that of the north and you'll see the south is STILL paying for trying to secede from the union.

      As a Southerner, I have a hard time seeing how it's a bad thing to pay on average $36 less per square foot than people in the Northeast do.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re:Just like Florida! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Florida wanted to do the same thing after the last election.

      I think the majority of Americans would support nuking Florida, let alone permitting it to secede.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  55. Sure, if they pay for their own wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should let them go if they pay for their own wall first.

  56. Liberals are NUTBALLS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes I said it. Extreme liberals have lost their mind.

    1. Re:Liberals are NUTBALLS by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      History will show it was the right that turned the world into a Mad Max hell-hole, and it really started, right around now.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  57. May want to check your math and rethink this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    California pays more to the feds than any other state and is ranked seventh or fifth (depending on year you look at) for being least dependent on federal tax dollars. If any state can actually go it alone, it's California.

    On the other hand, California would become the 8th largest economy in the world and suck out 14.5% of the US GDP, probably sending the US into a recession and into default on the debt it carries.

  58. Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it's been done and the last time we hung the perpetrators.

    Now if we could sell California to the ChiComs for several trillion and let the Cali left wingers live under a one party rule I would support that.

  59. Re:Trump calling someone else for not paying taxes by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Informative

    That's rich.

    Why, because he and everybody else use the carried loss provisions of the tax code? If you made enough running your own several hundred businesses to actually have a small army of accountants preparing YOUR taxes following the collapse of revenues in one of those areas (a bad year for everyone in Atlantic City, etc)., you'd be getting professional advice to do exactly the same thing when circumstances warrant.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  60. Grow the fuck up you damned babies. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, I get it. You don't like Trump. I don't like Trump either.

    There was a lot of bluster and bitching but Texas didn't really try to secede from the Union when Obama was elected or re-elected and they dislike Obama as much as you dislike Trump.

    Stop throwing a fucking tantrum and grow up.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:Grow the fuck up you damned babies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Throwing tantrums won a shyster the presidency. Why not throw tantrums? People like them. They're entertaining.

    2. Re:Grow the fuck up you damned babies. by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      There was a lot of bluster and bitching but Texas didn't really try to secede from the Union when Obama was elected or re-elected and they dislike Obama as much as you dislike Trump.

      Your selective memory is laughable. ("the petition for Texas garnered the most signatures, quickly garnering the 25,000 necessary to trigger a response from an Obama administration official.")

      Stop throwing a fucking tantrum and grow up.

      Stop lying and fuck off.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Grow the fuck up you damned babies. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      A bunch of people signed a petition. No one really tried to secede.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    4. Re:Grow the fuck up you damned babies. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A bunch of people signed a petition. No one really tried to secede.

      They did exactly as much about it as has happened in California so far — complaining and proposing. Your double standard is pathetic.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Grow the fuck up you damned babies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get it at all. They do what's in their best interests. If they went through with this it would be at a huge cost, and they'd only do that if Trump's plans would be a larger (ie. disastrous) cost.

      What you're saying is like telling Jews that the Nazis were elected legally and they should just accept it and quietly make the most of it even if they personally don't like Hitler.

      If Americans had always quietly accepted it when their government didn't represent their interests, there would be no America in the first place. America wasn't formed because of dislike of one person, it was because of the actions of a government that directly affected them.

  61. Mass arrests in NYC, and... by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    Reports of mass arrests at the Trump hotel in NYC.

    Also... looking at the images people are tweeting during the riots is pretty interesting.

    I didn't know there was such a thing as a Trump sex doll.

    TIL

    1. Re:Mass arrests in NYC, and... by msauve · · Score: 0

      Why weren't there any liberals defending Donald's right to his "safe space" zone?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  62. There's always this one idiot... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    Sure, it's like hallucinations of self aggrandizement fueled by moronic tech upstart CEOs who apparently knows shit about politics and governing will magically solve all the problems that divided the US in this election and will make for a better world tomorrow for all american citizens and the rest of the world.

    Look, I understand people are frustrated with Trump being elected. Worse, there are democrats and republicans frustrated by it... we don't even have a clear party line of supporters and non-supporters anymore.

    But dividing the country further is just exactly the worst possible choice, and it can only come from megalomanic sociopath CEOs like this guy, who clearly thinks his state is superior (more like he is superior to everyone else of course) just because it aligned with his own ideology or political sense in a democratic election with two candidates that clearly had their own problems.

    Sorry if it hurts your sensibilities, but if Trump being elected is to be seen as a bad thing, it's as much fault of it's supporters as it is the fault of Hillary supporters or Trump haters. You haven't done enough, Hillary couldn't fight off doubts and accusations, and this is just the end result.
    If you are going to cry and go running back to your house everytime a defeat like this happens, there is no future for a seceded California. No one would take a state like that seriously. And it's not only about the rest of the US that will look upon you like spoiled kids, it's also about the rest of the world.

    The best people who absolutely hate Trump can do right now is monitor his actions and the government from now on, and make sure it stays in line.
    You wanna see a scenario even worse than it already is, you just secede your state and wait for the next major crisis... specially with stuff like Hyperloop and Uber that are relatively new and dependant on international relationships. I'd like to see Hyperloop failing and not going anywhere just to see what this moron would do.
    Things will go down hard and fast, and coming back begging to be a part of the rest of the US won't look good afterwards.

    It just seems that every country apparently has to have their own share of idiots like this guy. Here in Brazil it's people from Southern states blaming all the problems of the country on northern states, as if most of the corruption schemes that are currently plaguing the country didn't originate in southern states. Man the f*ck up, admit that your country voted for the wrong guy if that's what you believe, and work for it not to affect the country too much, and do better on the next election.

    If you can't live in a country where people have different opinions than yours, and you can't be bothered to fight the government back when it decides to pass something you don't think is fair, go live in a cave by yourself in some isolated island. You'll do both yourself and society a favor.

  63. Look around on twitter by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 0

    The ones I see here in Portland are hand written on poster board. Not a preprinted sign in sight.

    I agree there are lots of hand-painted signs, but look around at the images on twitter. lots of pre-printed ones.

    1. Re:Look around on twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree there are lots of hand-painted signs, but look around at the images on twitter. lots of pre-printed ones.

      You mean people have access to computers and printers in this day and age? The shock of it! The shock!

      What next, will people be able to communicate with some sort of invisible electron wave, you think?

      PS.

  64. Maybe the wall should be built by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe Canada Builds a wall and Mexico builds a wall. Then we just let all the states shoot it out between themselves Civil War style.
    We would have to sell Alaska back to the russians tho....
    oh well

  65. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "....more....raciacially diverse than large swathes of central U.S."

    Why this constant obsession with race? Seriously, this is all the left talks about anymore. Just look at their rhetoric, it is almost like they don't want to live next to "those people" anymore.

    Can we PLEASE get away from permanently fixating on race?! This is making EVERYTHING worse!

  66. Thanks by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    Um, California doesnt really get water from outside the state to any great degree. It's the California part of the Rockies that provides the snow pack that feeds the water needs of Southern California and the Valley. The rest of the state makes due with its own reservoirs.

    Thanks - point taken.

  67. Welcome to the DUS! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    Desunited States!

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  68. So would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So would that mean Colorado could have its water back?

  69. Free Trade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are all very smart people, I am sure they have taken into account that trump might impose tariff on doing trade with US they will heavily eat into their profit margins...

  70. Education. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the education is such in California that they do not teach that the Civil War was about succession. My how education has fallen since I graduated high school in California.

    1. Re:Education. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I guess the education is such in California that they do not teach that the Civil War was about succession."
      Indeed, the South never succeeded in their "Succession".

      "My how education has fallen since I graduated high school in California."
      Let me rephrase that for you. Word order is important:
      "How my education has fallen since I graduated high school in California."

  71. 6th ranking economy it will not be for long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The main reason California is 6th economy in the world is because it is part of the USA. If it splits, and will no longer be protected by the 'mainland', it will rapidly degrade and be absorbed into Mexico within a decade. Agriculture cannot compete with other countries' cheap labor, and hi-tech will not last long without huge military orders, and access to Wall Street capital. California is doing great not because of, but despite of 'management' by its ruling class

  72. Hey by JamesRing · · Score: 1

    Everybody just calm down already.

  73. Most of CA's money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... comes from the US Gov't in the form of defense (and, to a lesser extent, space) spending (and let's not forget the military bases in CA.

    If New California comes to be, there will be NO MORE MONEY from the US Gov't. No more subsidies for highways.

    1. Re:Most of CA's money... by johanw · · Score: 1

      But they can save money on not spending so much on offense and try not to be an empire.

  74. MayTec California OW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Predicted 10 years ago in the SSDD webcomic: California, Oregon, and Washington seceded to form the independent nation of California OW, which was for all intents and purposes owned by the MayTec corporation.

    Divided States of America, comic link, sorry it's a Flash animation.

    Looks like Uber would be the real-life MayTec if this secession ever happens. Which is funny because MayTec was originally introduced 15 years ago as some company that builds engines.

    [And yes I am aware that there are no SSDD readers here, WTF am I talking about, dude, STFU and GTFO, whatever.]

  75. Maybe by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    Yeah, there were people on twitter reporting on the protests from the beginning, but it's been pushed down the list and now I can't find it.

    (There's a *lot* of activity on twitter right now!)

    Look at some of the images, you'll see a lot of pre-printed signs (and a lot of hand-drawn ones).

    We'll have to wait for tomorrow to see if the MSM reports people ginning up the crowd, or whether there are paid instigators, or whether they were alerted ahead of time and told what to look for.

    Just like they did during the Trump rallies.

    1. Re:Maybe by skam240 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Printed signs in the span of a day? You're right, that's some sci-fi stuff right there! There's no way 21st technology could make a printed sign in less than a weak!

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    2. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Printed signs in the span of a day? You're right, that's some sci-fi stuff right there! There's no way 21st technology could make a printed sign in less than a weak!

      Designed, printed, and distributed in less day a day is a bit suspicious though.

    3. Re:Maybe by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      It means it's not an "organic demonstration." It's just more Soros thugs.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Design - Um thats as easy as increasing the font and typing the down with trump message. None of these signs would take a precocious 5th grader more then an hour to "design"
      Printed - You can find people selling your message on a yard sign 100 signs for a 100 dollars. If they are cheap they are fast.
      Distribute - Um easiest of all. Show up to the rally with box o signs and pass them out.

      Seriously? Comon people.

    5. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the logistical plausibility that is being put into question, but rather the uncommon logistical efficiency for a supposed grassroots protest. What GP is saying is that the protest is rather well organized for being spontaneous and on such a short notice.

    6. Re:Maybe by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      you'll see a lot of pre-printed signs

      Have you ever used a Kinkos?

    7. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George Soros certainly has.

    8. Re:Maybe by skam240 · · Score: 1

      There were pesticides involved!? Oh my!

      There is literally nothing pointing to these protests being pre planned. Once again: why would you pre plan protest if every polling organization and your own party thought you had the election in the bag? This "pre planned" nonsense is the very definition of a conspiracy theory.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  76. Daughter of a Mexican, Mexican. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If the 14 year old is daughter of a Mexican, the Mexican Constitution says she's Mexican, it doesn't matter where she was born.

  77. A more credible proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would be if they planned to uproot their businesses from the US and move to another country. And that might be a necessary step if the government started leaning on them to 'cooperate' in surveillance schemes.

  78. Better Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about instead they secede from the Democratic party and instead support a truly progressive and democratic party.

  79. Here's one by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 0

    Here's the start of the one in West Seattle.

    These protests aren't spontaneous - they're being organized and funded.

    1. Re:Here's one by skam240 · · Score: 2

      A picture of a guy and a megaphone is indicative of massive pre planning? /me shakes his head.

      I honestly don't know what to say to some one who makes that claim. I don't think there's anything I can say that will refute your conspiracy theories in your mind.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    2. Re:Here's one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I honestly don't know what to say to some one who makes that claim.

      How about, "I do not believe your circumstantial evidence is sufficiently strong to arrive to that conclusion"? You don't have to go in with the disingenuous knee-jerk reaction when you have an entirely legitimate rebuttal available.

      I don't think there's anything I can say that will refute your conspiracy theories in your mind.

      We have irrefutable proof that the Clinton campaign disrupted Trump rallies and tried to demonize fellow Democrat Sanders in the process. I fail to see why you find it so outlandish that they would pull off something like that in light of their actions so far. There is no "conspiracy" here, the fact that both camps have been actively trying to portray their opposition in bad light is not exactly a secret. We know who is doing it, we know how and why they are doing it, and they aren't hiding the fact they are doing it. Worst conspiracy ever, 0/10.

  80. Re:Trump calling someone else for not paying taxes by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

    So, Trump's tax adviser will be sheriff, then. Because Trump is not even remotely a tax expert, despite his claims. His own tax adviser said he literally just signed his returns after they were prepared for him without any involvement at all. (Citation: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/05/...)

  81. The Bubble Bath by Tom · · Score: 2

    The echo chamber is strong in this one.

    Look at a county map of election results. Oops, there are parts of California where Trump got 50%, 60% or 70% of the votes.

    Go and Cexit, it'll be spectacular to watch.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  82. Re:Trump calling someone else for not paying taxes by gweilo8888 · · Score: 0

    So it's OK when Trump does it, but because Trump believes that Jeff Bezos might have done it too, that's just wrong? Sorry, double standard. Trump has no grounds to be calling out anybody else on taxes, any more than he has grounds to declare himself a great businessman when he could have simply invested the huge sum of money Daddy gave him, then sat back and done absolutely nothing for decades without earning a cent less.

    He's a moral coward, a hopelessly bad businessman, and soon will be the worst president in the history of the United States.

  83. Our culture by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just because your middle class ass is OK with the status quo doesn't mean those who are trampled upon should just suck it up.

    You entitled fucking twat.

    Here's what he was talking about.

    And yes, I'm an entitled fucking twat for thinking that immigrants shouldn't change our culture.

    1. Re:Our culture by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      And yes, I'm an entitled fucking twat for thinking that immigrants shouldn't change our culture.

      I can understand, given what white immigrants have done to your beautiful native American culture.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Our culture by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only culture the US has is an amalgamation of the cultures of previous immigrants. Like every culture, basically, because immigration is not a phenomenon of modern times or certain places. It's a force of nature as much as tectonics.

      Hell, America basically eats more Pizza than Italy, you write basically in greek letters and you count arabic numbers. Your medicine is based on latin words as is law. The primary religions in your country have their origin in Germany as does your beloved beer, wven though you perverted that ad absurdum.

      Preserving culture is like trying to keep the flu virus from mutating...

    3. Re:Our culture by Joviex · · Score: 1

      Preserving culture is like trying to keep the flu virus from mutating...

      If I had points++ but it is fun to watch intelligence anguish down here.

    4. Re: Our culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Different AC, if your going to play the native American card then you can be first to pack your shit and gtfo. Lead by example you little shit or stfu.

      I'm of Irish decent, my ancestors came here during the civil war and died fighting in a war that they were forced into.
      Where are my reparations?

      How many sports teams use my heritage for mockery as their mascots?
      Happy saint Patrick's day my ass, you are all a bunch of racists shitheads, especially you brown and black fuckers.

      If you don't like being the minority, then guess what? There's a whole continent full of "you people of color", it's just a plane ticket away. No one is stopping you, fucking leave already.

    5. Re:Our culture by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You mean the warring tribes that slaughtered and enslaved each other over resources?? That beautiful native American culture?? The ones whose properties are littered with trash and run-down homes among the few well-kept ones?? That one???

      What bullshit. The American Indian is no more entitled to land they couldn't hold onto after migrating to North American than anyone else.

      Or .. In the words of a failed president ... we won .. get over it.

      That goes out to both the Indians and Hillary supporters.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    6. Re:Our culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Christianity came from Germany? Please elaborate.

    7. Re:Our culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protestantism, as derived from Christianity, did have its beginnings in Germany, with the actions of one Martin Luther.

      While historically, you may think that they come from the Middle East, philosophically, their underpinnings are radically different from that origin, or even that which developed in Italy, that is, the Catholic Church, which if you remember your American history...was not considered acceptable for a long period of time.

    8. Re:Our culture by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Lager beer came from Germany? GP is a fuckwit.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Our culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      you write basically in greek letters and you count arabic numbers.

      It seems you have never seen Greek letters or arabic numbers. You could argue Russia uses basically Greek letters, but we write latin letters, the ones used in ancient Rome.

    10. Re:Our culture by Kokuyo · · Score: 2

      No, Christianity did not. But the reformation was started by Luther. A German. In Germany.

      Or do you wish to tell me that the primary Christian religion in the US suddenly happens to be Catholicism?

    11. Re:Our culture by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      Lager happens to be a Germanic word. But hey, let's see what Wikipedia has to say...

      Hmmm...

      First findings in mesopotamian culture... then Celts.

      Let's see about Celts then: A people that developed between east France and Austria. Which happens to be south Germany and Switzerland nowadays.

      I think my point stands.

    12. Re:Our culture by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      My point was that everything we have today developed from all over the world.

    13. Re:Our culture by Chas · · Score: 1

      Preserving culture is like trying to keep the flu virus from mutating...

      What he's talking about is preserving a culture of acceptance and assimilation from people who simply want to import their former culture and keep it alive in ghettos (just with THEMSELVES in positions of authority) without ever assimilating in the least.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    14. Re:Our culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is the breakdown of Christianity in the US according to Wikipedia: link
      26.3% (Evangelical), 22% (Roman Catholics), and 16% (Mainline Protestant)

      The majority of Christians in the US are Baptist, which is heavily influenced by the English separatist movement a century after the Protestant Reformation. So while Luther started the reformation, he did not create the particular brand of Christianity that is primarily practiced in the US.

    15. Re:Our culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, those are percentages of the US population that identify as those denominations.

      Here is the actual proportions of those denominations: "All Protestant denominations accounted for 51.3%, while Roman Catholicism by itself, at 23.9%".

      The breakdown of Protestant denominations is still accurate, with Baptists comprising a little over 25% of Protestants. However, Catholics do make up the largest single denomination within the United States.

    16. Re:Our culture by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Martin Luther was German and considered the father of the protestant movement.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    17. Re:Our culture by avandesande · · Score: 1

      It's easy to claim that Protestant Christianity was most prominent in the culture of colonial America. No need to mince words here.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    18. Re: Our culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, have you never heard of Lutherans and the Protestant Reformation?

      Martin Luther is widely acknowledged to have started the Protestant Reformation with his 1517 work The Ninety-Five Theses.

    19. Re:Our culture by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Says the older white male, grasping at the life his father had. Killing himself slowly with cigarettes, booze, and other "legal" narcotics. The war is lost, this is basically the battle of the bulge.

    20. Re:Our culture by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Wait, are we talking about White, Protestant America now?

    21. Re:Our culture by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You're right about the Greek letters but Arabic numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 0. Don't know about you but those are the same ones I use.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    22. Re:Our culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We write in the Latin alphabet, and despite the name "Arabic numbers" are actually from India.

    23. Re: Our culture by iivel · · Score: 1

      When I wad in Dublin (and surrounding areas) for St Patrick's day, or in Munich for Oktoberfest, or any of the other cultural centers for a holiday && they had the same types of shenannigans as the US going on ... were they mocking us mocking them? That could get confusing. In truth, immigration in the US change both cultures. Sometimes it is fast, sometimes it happens slowly. In the great American experiment that's part of the point. Where do you think the melting pot analogy comes from? It's an exchange and mix of many traditions and ideals adopted in varying degrees, by varying subcultures, across a great land mass. Only because of the ease of travel, and modern communication systems are we so keenly aware of it happening. Why do you think that, unlike many other nations, we don't have a language requirement for immigrants to become citizens? We swear alligence to the US, and not to our individual state of residence, etc. etc. The very roots of our nation are built on controlled change in such a way that there is a single US identity made up of a mix of continuously evolving cultures. We are not a nation of conformists, and static cultural norms. We are a nation of rebels, of radicals, and freedoms thad drive us towards constant progess, and of change. Sometimes the change is good. Sometimes not. We will find a way to solve the problems caused in either direction, to strike balance, and then to move on again. I'd suggest that people that don't like change are living in the wrong country.

    24. Re:Our culture by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Jesus was a German? Interesting!

      I never knew that ancient Sumeria (the history of beer) was also German, and just now learned that Germany has existed for over 3,900 years.

      The US has over 5X the population of Italy, so we eat more of everything than Italy.

    25. Re: Our culture by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      German kids are starting to drink Jagermeister as booze instead of as a stomach tonic.

      Because American kids don't know it's a stomach tonic.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    26. Re:Our culture by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The word you are looking for is 'plurality'. Largest segment, not majority.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  84. If Cali, OR, and WA all seceded together they could form the country of COW. It has a nice ring to it.

  85. They're just middle-men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It isn't their culture or their laws that makes them prosperous, it is their geographic location (closest to the cheap Asian resources and labor they love to claim to be against exploiting). If they left the union, we could choose one of the other west-coasters, or even mexico, to be the new middle-man.
    We could pressure them to do anything we want them to using our other 49 states to sanction them; applying our world governance strategy locally.

  86. Financial elites hate Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No news here.

  87. The irony ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real irony is that if any "non-western" country elected a leader that caused as much dissent as Trump's election, the US would be falling over themselves to fund a "color revolution" !
    The US media would be showing all dissent as though EVERYONE was totally opposed and PROOF that the election was RIGGED.
    The US would be channeling arms to "rebel" groups fighting for "freedom" and when that government's police where shot at and then shot back, it would be "proof" that they were a totalitarian "regime". (Syria anyone ?)
    The US spent over $5B to undermine the elected government of Ukraine.

  88. Michael Moore: Trump's Election Will Biggest - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Michael Moore PREDICTED this. I dont like Michael Moore's blind love for the Tammany Hall democrats but Christ he nailed it.

    These _fucking_ billionaires are low life greedy scum where the middle class would still be wage slave in debt fucked over worms in their New Californis state.

    Michael Moore: "Trump's Election Will Be The Biggest Fuck You Ever Recorded In Human History"

    Some fascinating comments from the overtly liberal, Hillary-supporting Michael Moore, who in a recently leaked speech comes perilously close in a speech explaining why on November 8, what is left of middle America will look to cast its vote for Donald Trump.

    I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump and they don't necessarily agree with him. They're not racist or redneck, they're actually pretty decent people and so after talking to a number of them I wanted to write this.

    Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives and said "if you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I'm going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody's going to buy them." It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - the "Brexit" states.

    You live here in Ohio, you know what I'm talking about. Whether Trump means it or not, is kind of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting, and that's why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump. He is the human Molotov Cocktail that they've been waiting for; the human hand grande that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them. And on November 8, although they lost their jobs, although they've been foreclose on by the bank, next came the divorce and now the wife and kids are gone, the car's been repoed, they haven't had a real vacation in years, they're stuck with the shitty Obamacare bronze plan where you can't even get a fucking percocet, they've essentially lost everything they had except one thing - the one thing that doesn't cost them a cent and is guaranteed to them by the American constitution: the right to vote.

    They might be penniless, they might be homeless, they might be fucked over and fucked up it doesn't matter, because it's equalized on that day - a millionaire has the same number of votes as the person without a job: one. And there's more of the former middle class than there are in the millionaire class. So on November 8 the dispossessed will walk into the voting booth, be handed a ballot, close the curtain, and take that lever or felt pen or touchscreen and put a big fucking X in the box by the name of the man who has threatened to upend and overturn the very system that has ruined their lives: Donald J Trump.

    They see that the elite who ruined their lives hate Trump. Corporate America hates Trump. Wall Street hates Trump. The career politicians hate Trump. The media hates Trump, after they loved him and created him, and now hate. Thank you media: the enemy of my enemy is who I'm voting for on November 8.

    Yes, on November 8, you Joe Blow, Steve Blow, Bob Blow, Billy Blow, all the Blows get to go and blow up the whole goddamn system because it's your right. Trump's election is going to be the biggest fuck ever recorded in human history and it will feel good.

    Originally posted by Michael Moore on October 25 2016.

    1. Re:Michael Moore: Trump's Election Will Biggest - by dehachel12 · · Score: 1

      >Wall Street hates Trump. are you sure about that ? I think it is "those people think wall street hates Trump".

  89. North and East problems by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    The centrist North and East won't vote to go along with it, because without CA, there wouldn't be enough left-leaning votes to prevent GOP presidents, and the remaining USA would turn right-wing.

    In short, we'd be sticking the poor suckers with Tea Party types. They'd thus join the battle to prevent CALEXIT, and maybe try to secede themselves if the battle fails.

    1. Re:North and East problems by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This is why these regions need to come together and vote to kick out the South. The country as a whole would be much better off with the South evicted.

    2. Re:North and East problems by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Lincoln made a fatal mistake. He should be removed from Mt. Rushmore.

  90. Getting a Head Start by peterofoz · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the Silicon Valley group was getting a head start on California Prop 64.

  91. No key! by jondeanmack · · Score: 0

    "Trump would be a disaster for innovation.". You can't innovate if you don't have a proper key! Lying = dying. For example, rhetorically, how was the magnetic field created? Those 145 classified themselves as liars by opposing my decision. The message really is as simple as it appears, do as I tell you or die horribly.

  92. CA a country? Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CA can take a % of national debt equal to their population with the USA. Then, as a country, the 49 remaining States in the USA can cut off all fresh water.

    CA blossoms because of the other 49 States provide assistance (fresh water, electricity, food, defense). Make no mistake about it.

  93. Oh ye of small and shallow mind by tuxgeek · · Score: 2

    California's agricultural crops are not the full picture, or not as you may think. from TFA: "California is also the biggest economy in the US and the sixth largest in the world with a gross state product of $2.496tn for 2015, according to the IMF."

    Your fancy "grain fed cows" and amber fields of grain aren't really squat compared to the ~$2.5 $$ Trillion $$ GSP $$ of California now, don't ya think?
    I think Calif would be just fine as it's own sovereign nation without being sucked dry by the new 3 ring shit show we just got handed.

    --
    "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    1. Re:Oh ye of small and shallow mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much of that 2.5 Trillion comes from the entertainment industry (music, movies, tv)? That could get washed away pretty quickly.

    2. Re:Oh ye of small and shallow mind by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      I'm just here to correct a statistic that was obviously wrong and the perception that California 'feeds the world'. If living somewhat close to other people who are successful makes you feel special I might be a little sad for you, but that's your business.

    3. Re:Oh ye of small and shallow mind by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      California's agricultural crops are not the full picture, or not as you may think. from TFA: "California is also the biggest economy in the US and the sixth largest in the world with a gross state product of $2.496tn for 2015, according to the IMF."

      Your fancy "grain fed cows" and amber fields of grain aren't really squat compared to the ~$2.5 $$ Trillion $$ GSP $$ of California now, don't ya think? I think Calif would be just fine as it's own sovereign nation without being sucked dry by the new 3 ring shit show we just got handed.

      A lot of that comes from Hollywood and the music industry. What happens when California secedes and now has to pay import/export duties for their film and music exports? Importation duties to the US for all those crops California grows? Oh, and all that power an electricity that California imports from the Pacific Northwest and the Southwest? International import duties! Oh, and good luck taking care of the 38 million+ people on welfare. Or are you like all the Brexit people and think that California could just leave but still keep free access to now international markets without any levying of duties?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:Oh ye of small and shallow mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because major international firms are headquartered in California and report their results in California doesn't mean that anything of actual *value* is produced in California. Maybe look up where all that manufacturing is done?

    5. Re:Oh ye of small and shallow mind by sabbede · · Score: 1

      If Cali wasn't part of the US, it would be cut off from the rest of the economy and fall right apart. Completely apart, just take a look at the electoral map (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/california) and then you can tell me how California seceeds when half its territory and a third of its voters went for Trump. Where would LA get it's water from?

    6. Re:Oh ye of small and shallow mind by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I almost forgot - doesn't most of California's agricultural output come from those red districts?

    7. Re:Oh ye of small and shallow mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't really eat that 2.5 Trillion though, can you? City folk always forget how important it is to have farmland. And also, something else city folk tend to forget is that if you look at a heat map of California, the farm land wasn't much of a Hillary supporter. They may not be so willing to leave as the coastal folk.

    8. Re:Oh ye of small and shallow mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, Trump said he's going to renegotiate a lot of those horrible trade deals anyway, so it seems like a mute point.

    9. Re:Oh ye of small and shallow mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California exports nothing that is essentially to anywhere else.

      Port of Los Angeles? Who cares, port of Houston moves more goods
      Hollywood? I think the rest of the world can live without leftoid-political-propaganda-disguised-as-entertainment
      Tech startups? Oh no, how the world will suffer without facebook v420000
      Avocados? Well, I guess I do like guac...

      They may have a high GSP, but everything that comes out of their is SO FAR UP on maslov's heirachy of needs that talking about their GSP is disingenuous.

    10. Re:Oh ye of small and shallow mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That $2.5 trillion is basically all Hollywood.

      If you think the entertainment industry can exist in a vacuum then I've got a bridge to sell you.

    11. Re:Oh ye of small and shallow mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing we'll miss are the ports and west Tahoe skiing. Fortunately, we'll get an amazing amount of revenue for the water you're stealing. Further, we're not actually losing a significant manufacturing capacity. We'll still be able to pirate movies, so that's a wash, at worse. You've banished all manufacturing from the state, so that's not a big concern. We'll lose some mining, but not much, since again, you've banished that from the state.

      Basically, all you create is bullshit and idea. Hell, Austin is better at that.

    12. Re:Oh ye of small and shallow mind by msauve · · Score: 1

      Hell, 47.7% of California is owned by the federal government.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    13. Re:Oh ye of small and shallow mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      moot

    14. Re:Oh ye of small and shallow mind by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      _All_ of it does.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    15. Re:Oh ye of small and shallow mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GSP?

      If you want to be your own country, perhaps start by learning basic economic concepts, then increase your taxes by 30 points to make up for the defense and infrastructure shortfall. Do you really think China wouldn't start playing hardball if Silicon Valley wasn't backed up by Uncle Sam?

    16. Re:Oh ye of small and shallow mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California's agricultural crops are not the full picture, or not as you may think. from TFA:
      "California is also the biggest economy in the US and the sixth largest in the world with a gross state product of $2.496tn for 2015, according to the IMF."

      Your fancy "grain fed cows" and amber fields of grain aren't really squat compared to the ~$2.5 $$ Trillion $$ GSP $$ of California now, don't ya think?

      I think Calif would be just fine as it's own sovereign nation without being sucked dry by the new 3 ring shit show we just got handed.

      I would be absolutely fine to have all the blue states secede. Hopefully all the little snowflakes would move to those and the rest of us would not have to listen to their whiny screeds any longer.

    17. Re:Oh ye of small and shallow mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet California thrived under Bush, has thrived under republican congresses and senates. Is this maybe just a little premature "the sky is falling" attitude?

      Do we really need to have an argument about how great California is and how much the United States would miss California? Let's just be honest ... it would be beneficial and detrimental to both sides. The story is not nearly as simple as people are laying out, ie: California is the biggest economy in the US and 6th largest in the world. That doesn't tell you that all will be rosey for California after leaving the union. Obviously, given your stat, there are countries that thrive with a lot smaller economies.

    18. Re:Oh ye of small and shallow mind by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Please, feel free to leave. But don't expect to stay in the American military orbit.

    19. Re:Oh ye of small and shallow mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean to tell me that with all these slick, super-hip silicon valley companies and juggernauts like Apple and Google you only make it to 6th? Huh.

      Even so, yes, you make soo much money. And I'm sure you imagine your tech $ will let you buy food. Except you'll be trading with other countries now. You'll either have to deal with the US as a foreign nation, Mexico, or get things shipped across the Pacific. So trade might become interesting for you.

      And let's talk the one thing Californian liberals don't like to discuss. Military action. Because, as a sovereign nation, you'll have a hostile power on 2 of your three sides, with ocean on the far side and Mexico. Think we won't be hostile? If you're half as important as you think you are, then why wouldn't we be pissed about all these things being taken from us? And by the way, we have the world's largest and best-equipped military. And most of the facilities for building and running that military are scattered across the country or concentrated on the OTHER coast. By the way, how many Californians join the military? Because I'm willing to bet the bulk of recruits come from midwest fly-over farm land. So, assuming we don't just steamroll you in civil war 2, we can just blockade the west coast with the world's largest navy, pen you in on the east with ground forces, and let you try trading with Mexico (hint: they're a deeply-corrupt 3rd world country) until you decide to grow back up and rejoin the adult table. Better do so soon, though. Every month without California is a month another part of the country discovers a use for some of it's unemployed that used to be fulfilled by their former countrymen. Wait out the embargo long enough, and we might not even need you anymore.

  94. As the minority voice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those Trump supports can be relocated out of California to places more ameniable to their ideology, like the whole rest of the united states :)

    People always bitch about what a horrible liberal place California is. How about we just finish the job and make it the liberal shithole all the conservatives like to hate on, so the liberal types can get on with their lives (or not) in their own little SJW world.

    Seems like a win win win to me.

    Unless of course you're an authoritarian asshole and prefer to lord your shitty government (whether R or D) over everybody else for 4 years regardless of it it represents them socially, economically, or culturally.

    1. Re:As the minority voice... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      More likely CA east of the coast range leaves CA and rejoins the USA.

      Which would leave the new nation of CA without water.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  95. Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by raymorris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This secession talk is a wee bit childish. Here's what Hillary Clinton had to say this morning about a Trump presidency:

    "Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead."

    I hope her supporters take a cue from her and start behaving with some class and dignity.

    1. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope her supporters take a cue from her and start behaving with some class and dignity.

      Just as soon as the president-elect manages to do the same (or, really, anyone from the right wing).

    2. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, class and dignity. Just like Obama's opponents for the last eight years?

    3. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As he did in his speech at 3 AM announcing that Hillary had called him to concede. And those aren't Pro-trump riots, protests and the like around the country. Right now the onus is entirely on Hillary's side to act mature.

    4. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just how many protests and fires have they started in the last eight years in opposition to Obama again? I think I lost track, but the last I counted it was ZERO!

    5. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think Trump would be behaving similarly if he lost? Given that he said he'd only accept the results of the election if he won, I very much doubt it.

      Funny isn't it? The same people who support that tantrum throwing toddler now insist that their opponents supporters are acting childish?

    6. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Xyrus · · Score: 1, Informative

      This secession talk is a wee bit childish. Here's what Hillary Clinton had to say this morning about a Trump presidency:

      "Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead."

      I hope her supporters take a cue from her and start behaving with some class and dignity.

      Class and dignity? Coming from a Trump supporter that's rich.

      Trump deserves nothing but contempt. He ran a campaign on lies, ignorance, and hatred. He's a bigot, a misogynist, and a racist. Many of us know what kind of person Trump and his "friends" are, and they deserve neither trust nor respect.

      --
      ~X~
    7. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by ghoul · · Score: 1

      I hope her supporters take a cue from her and start behaving with some class and dignity.

      California was mostly Bernie supporters. Many were even Grumbling that they would rather vote Trump than Hillary so yeah Hillary's concession speech does nothing for them. If Bernie makes a public statement supporting Trump then they might quiet down a bit

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    8. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Pieroxy · · Score: 0

      He ran a campaign on lies, ignorance, and hatred.

      Open your eyes, your mind and realize the same can be said about Hillary. She even paid people to create riots at Trump's rallies, so I'd say she deserves this sentence even more than Trump. But hey, freedom of tought...

    9. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is as dumb as when people in Texas wanted to do the same thing when Obama got elected. You Democrat and Republican sycophants at exactly the same, you just don't realize it because you are too busy drinking the koolaid. You are perfect for each other.

    10. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He said he would accept the results if they were clear, demand recounts etc if they were not. Just like every other candidate.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      California did not vote for Bernie in the primary.

      Granting the nuts on the streets now are mostly left-tards, at least half are there just to get laid, the rest are just morons.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      Zero protests against Obama? Count again.

    13. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Muros · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Open your eyes, your mind and realize the same can be said about Hillary. She even paid people to create riots at Trump's rallies, so I'd say she deserves this sentence even more than Trump. But hey, freedom of tought...

      I hadn't heard that particular claim before, so I googled it. I found this gem. http://abcnews.com.co/donald-t...
      I really enjoyed the big part on snopes, "a website known for its biased opinions and inaccurate information they write about stories on the internet in order to generate advertising revenue", something which purported to be an interview but which the author obviously pulled out of his arse. If that is the kind of "news" site that is making the claim that Hillary was funding riots, I'll take it as evidence she did not.

    14. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Granting the nuts on the streets now are mostly left-tards, at least half are there just to get laid, the rest are just morons.

      Wait..you can GET LAID doing this somehow?!?!

      Shit...if that's the case, I might need to dig out an old flannel shirt and torn jeans and make my out onto the streets for a while tonight....

      I didn't vote for Hillary, but I do like getting laid...hehehe.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While the DNC is discusting for a lot of things, you have to admit that Trump during his rally's was pumping his supports in a way that could lead to violence. People are stupid and could have easily twisted his words to a call to arms in a few speeches. But that still plays out way better than having a candidate who can't build real enthusiasm when it comes voting time.

      The majority of the vote wasn't pro Hillary or pro Trump. The majority of the vote was anti Hillary and anti Trump. For the clueless, it isn't the pro Hillary people that would initiate a secession. Get your heads out of your butts.

      Trump burned a lot of bridges with various groups during his accent using his own words. A lot of those groups are in California. If he is going to have a successful presidency he's going to need to figure out how to rebuild trust with some of these groups.

      He is learning to be more careful with his words over time. His last debate was his best one. His acceptance speech was heartening. But a lot of people will be watching him with leary eyes.

    16. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its just too bad they're always the ones who end up running things.

    17. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or...you know, people can grow up and understand that this whole "my group" mentality is what causes the problem in the first place.

      Just this Trump supporter's opinion though I think it's fairly common: Nobody dislikes immigrants. What we dislike are immigrants who come here in violation of our laws and those who refuse to even try to adopt the culture and language of the land they seemed to want so badly to be in. We especially dislike it when those same groups demand that we adopt and accept their ways and don't want to reciprocate.

      Heritage is great. Your background is Irish, Mexican, Chinese, whatever...it's all good. You have different ways you celebrate things and do stuff, great. Bring it on. There are a lot of things to celebrate about all cultures and that's why this country is so great--but ultimately you need to be Americans and have that in common with everyone. Trying to remain separate and apart and then demanding things of the rest of us does not work. Running around California flying the Mexican flag at a protest while stomping on the American one pisses us off and will get you little support.

      That's just immigration. I can say the same about lots of subgroups. Try being people and not a stereotype of your own making. Try not letting your group identity define the whole of who you are.

    18. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/19/two-democratic-operatives-lose-jobs-after-james-okeefe-sting/

    19. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Many of us know what kind of person Trump and his "friends" are, and they deserve neither trust nor respect.

      His friends? Oh, you mean Bill and Hillary Clinton? They were best friends before the campaign and were starting to warm up to each other again in private before the campaign even got over. I hope I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that we'll all find out that Trump is just more of the same.

    20. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You going to back that up with... I dunno, maybe some evidence? Or are we just taking you at your word because you're just sooooo trustworthy?

      I got an idea.
      How about you do us all a favor and stfu.

    21. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank god you're here he who can see the future and tell us what would have happened without any biased opinions because that would just make you another liar...

    22. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Timsie · · Score: 1

      If that is the kind of "news" site that is making the claim that Hillary was funding riots, I'll take it as evidence she did not.

      So if there is a parody of something, that means the something doesn't exist? Try googling bird dogging, Scott Foval, and Rob Creamer. They literally paid people to incite violence at Trump campaigns. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    23. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lies - Hillary has lied more in the past 8 years than Trump has his whole life.
      ignorance - It's Hillary. She's a dumb bitch who has money.
      hatred - you mean like Hillary has for the normal citizen beneath her? The only reason she courts women and minorities is because, like all Democrats, they finally realized they need those votes to have any chance.
      racist - lol - supporting BLM....racist. The KKK was created by Democrats and Trump didn't want their "support". Funny - ever ask yourself how Trump, before he started the run for the candidacy, was never called a racist, yet, once he put his hat in the ring, Hillary, Bernie, and all the Dumbocrats started calling him a racist?

      Hillary deserves nothing - but her supporters chose to ignore all the bad things her, her husband, and her family, had done in the past.

      Many of us know what type of person you, and Hillary, are, and deserve neither trust nor respect.

    24. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by SScorpio · · Score: 1

      If they are then how did Hillary win the primary there?

    25. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Muros · · Score: 1

      If that is the kind of "news" site that is making the claim that Hillary was funding riots, I'll take it as evidence she did not.

      So if there is a parody of something, that means the something doesn't exist? Try googling bird dogging, Scott Foval, and Rob Creamer. They literally paid people to incite violence at Trump campaigns.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      The site I linked above had no obvious disclaimer saying it was a parody site. It claimed to be a news site, and was using a domain similar to that of an actual news company. As for your suggestions to google Rob Creamer and Scott Foval, I did, as I had never heard of either of them. What I read about Scott Foval was that someone released a heavily edited video of him to make it appear he said certain things. Googling Rob Creamer turned up a single result on the first page that was an article by a news company.... owned by Donals Trump's son in law. I stopped there.

    26. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, therec was a fucking lawsuit to determine if he was the textbook definition of racist that he SETTLED, 30 years ago.

    27. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      There was a single protest I read about when Obama was re-elected. Of course, the media calls what's happening now (even in my area - Atlanta, as well as all across the country) "protests." When conservative students did it, it was labeled "riot," and it was at one campus. And what do the liberals claim they are protesting for (an oxymoron, actually)? That their voices be heard. Because that's not what elections are for, apparently.

      And while I don't use facebook anymore, my wife does - and I don't recall any conservatives "unfriending" liberals for voting for Obama (although I'm sure there were). The vile hatred spewed by liberals this time, however, is astounding - including one "friend" who said if you voted for Trump, Johnson, or abstained, then go f--- yourself. Another "threatening" to unfriend anybody she even suspects voted for Trump, including family. This is the epitome of liberal "tolerance."

      And the hyperbole of "how do I explain this to my children?" How about as the democratic republic in action? If you actually fear for yourself or your children because of Trump, you're a complete idiot. Liberals are the most intolerant, hateful, spiteful people in politics - and that comes after recognizing the number of idiot conservatives who are also quite bad, hateful, and spiteful - but who pale in comparison.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    28. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      The only thing wrong with Hillary is the 25 years of lies and misinformation she's been saddled with.Granted, the Democrats should have seen that, but even with this handicap she was a shoe in until the FBI bullshit.

    29. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm the poster you responded to, and actually I'm an independent (or at least I was prior to this election...I've pretty much had it with the right at this point. If they ever get a clue maybe I'll reconsider but I'm not holding my breath).

      The major difference is that Texas' (South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, and all the rest) big objections to Obama were that he was black and not-Republican, and then a bunch of paranoid bullshit about not a US citizen, a Muslim, etc., etc. He was a perfectly qualified candidate whether you liked him or not. I wouldn't have liked Jeb Bush winning the election this year, but the man was at least fit for the office.

      Concerns about Trump are for things that he ACTUALLY SAID he wanted to do, and from the fact that he clearly does not have the temperament to lead a country. "Why can't we just use nukes?" Seriously?

      You want to talk about acting like an adult? Let's start with a Congress who refused to confirm Supreme Court nominations because the appointment wasn't made by their side. They were already talking about just letting the court roll forward with only eight justices if Clinton had won this year. Let's talk about a candidate calling for election fraud BEFORE THE ELECTION EVEN HAPPENED, on top of the whole "I'm not going to concede" nonsense (as if it mattered).

      Compromising with crazy and trying to meet them in the middle simply doesn't work, and a lot of people are sick of trying.

    30. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're sure he's a Trump supporter?

      How is Hillary so truthful? What bigoted remarks has Trump made? What racist remarks or actions has he taken? Post one. I'll wait. You're using those words as insults and a cudgel to hit someone who doesn't believe absolutely everything you believe. You're not only looking like a blowhard but you're devaluing those words for when they're used to describe someone who actually is bigoted and racist. Misogynist is thrown around everywhere these days. It's already a worthless word.

    31. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "how did this happen" question I have to explain to my teenage daughter is "how can our country elect someone who treated people just like you so badly? Do most of the people think that's OK?"

      It's not an attempt to question the legitimacy of the election.

      And it's a question worth answering. What I said was "I believe most people who voted for Trump don't think grabbing women's privates without her consent is Ok, but were willing to let it slide because they really feel the way the country is going is leaving them out"

      Was I wrong? Did asking the question make me intolerant?

    32. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      The same things happens every election - someone who was completely demonized as being the devil incarnate by the opposition wins. It might be worse with Trump - he is sexist; I don't believe he's necessarily racist (but definitely bigoted and prejudiced - and no, they aren't all the same thing); he's also not xenophobic by wanting to deport illegal immigrants and building a wall. He's also not likely to accomplish anything that takes away anyone's rights, because he's not a dictator. That's why we have elections. So explain to your daughter that people took the baggage that Trump brings because they disliked Clinton more... because that's what happened. It's what happened in every election in my lifetime - the lesser of two evils is still evil. In this case, more people disliked Clinton (and the establishment - both republican and democrat) than disliked Trump's annoying personality and nonsense. I'll say it again - anybody who is actually "fearful" of Trump is an idiot.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    33. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know Correcting The Record isn't paying you anymore right?

    34. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This secession talk is a wee bit childish. Here's what Hillary Clinton had to say this morning about a Trump presidency:

      "Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead."

      I hope her supporters take a cue from her and start behaving with some class and dignity.

      I'm sure all 1000 of her supporters are. The rest of the people who hated her but hated Trump more... well... maybe not.

      If she had more supporters than the country wouldn't be in the state it is now, now would it?

    35. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things will calm down when Trump sends all the afro-american immigrants back to Africa.

    36. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look! Squirrels!

      You do realise that a lot of people reckoned that Clinton was worse? Or is she "untouchable?"

    37. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by aberglas · · Score: 1

      Obama should have done everything in his power to help the Texan's realize their dream of independence.

      I do not know why Americans like Lincoln. Fought a bloody war to keep the ugly part of America when it was keen to go. (No, the war was not actually about slavery.)

    38. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people in every election vote as a vote against an 'evil' it happens every time.

    39. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enuf getting fukced over by clintin, bank collapse, loan defaults, and Obama, 16 Years! and u want Clinton again no f'g way! . Hillary you are Fired!

      Get the fuck out all of you greedy pigs including fienstein and crooked no name spouse educator the defense arms dealer...

    40. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No more of the Electoral College disliked Clinton. As of today she is still leading in the popular vote.

    41. Re:Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by MercTech · · Score: 1

      And a month ago they were all "deplorables" those who would consider voting for Trump.

      --
      NRRPT/RCT
    42. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Offhand, I'd suggest you tell her that our major candidates were an honest bigot and a closet bigot, and the voters decided that well since we're stuck with a bigot let's have the one with the gonadal fortitude to get out of the closet.

    43. Re: Instead of all this, Hillary said we should by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Um, there's several fake news sites that do that, to the point that Snopes has a section devoted to listing the damn things. (Useful if you want to also see specific stories taken apart.) Most seem to be out to get clicks.

  96. Curious by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

    Are these not the very same people who were losing their shit over the fact that candidate Trump refused to definitively state that he would accept the results of the election?

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  97. Better plan: #OCCUPY_{TINY_STATE} by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    #OCCUPY_MONTANA and #OCCUPY_WYOMING = Hostile takeover of small state elections by peaceful, Democratic means.

    The plan: We send a total of 300,000 Democrats from California to establish residence Montana and Wyoming for 6 years.
    Net result: +8 senators, +4 representatives, and +12 EVs in the next presidential election.

    1. Re:Better plan: #OCCUPY_{TINY_STATE} by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #OCCUPY_MONTANA and #OCCUPY_WYOMING = Hostile takeover of small state elections by peaceful, Democratic means.

      The plan: We send a total of 300,000 Democrats from California to establish residence Montana and Wyoming for 6 years.
      Net result: +8 senators, +4 representatives, and +12 EVs in the next presidential election.

      If you're going to be sending Californians to Siberia (or the american equivalent of it) you'd better find some damn good incentives for them to accept the mission.

  98. We have a number of independence movements gaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The New Hampshire independence movement is being spearheads by the migration of liberty minded activists who are migrating to New Hampshire from across the United States (and around the world). New Hampshire has since attracted a number of BitCoin start-ups, tech companies, and attracted similar liberty loving companies focused on decentralizing and minimizing government. From Cell 411 to ThinkPenguin. Keene, NH also has the greatest number of brick and mortar stores accepting BitCoins in excess of the most BitCoin friendly city Sans Francisco (Keene doesn't show up only because it's a town of 24,000 people so it wasn't counted). Go check out http://www.freekeene.com/ for regular reporting on New Hampshire liberty news and the New Hampshire independence movement. There have been several protests since the Brexit pre-dating this election.

    Besides NHExit there is also Texit for Texas Independence. I say we should all get together to push for a breakup of the United States.

  99. The complacency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Silicon Valley is buoyed by the FED's cheap money and the Feds' unwillingness to curb off-shore capital hoarding and tax avoidance.

    Remove that by secession, and the people of California will take matter into their own hands. See how that goes for Silicon Valley

  100. Well he did say by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    Well he did say "This will be Brexit Plus Plus Plus"

    1. Re:Well he did say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When he said that he just meant that his America would support class structures and inheritance.

  101. Fantastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bye.

  102. Classical liberal concepts by dumky2 · · Score: 1

    It's good to hear a resurgence of interest in classical liberal concepts like secession.
    Here are a few more that maybe people should think about: division of powers, limited and decentralized/local government, non-interventionism, nullification.
    I wish it didn't take Trump getting elected for people to take those seriously.

    --
    These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
  103. So uh... by DMJC · · Score: 1

    What happens to Silicon Valley/California when China starts dumping cheap Sunway CPUs onto the world market? Without the Market protection of being in the USA (which already might not be enough) How will California protect itself from agressive Chinese moves into the tech market?

  104. Truth stranger than fiction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Popular Science ran an article back in 2003 about a theoretical secession, Proposition Angry Bear, where California tries to secede from the union due to excessive taxation to support the rest of the country, and loses.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=5bKyC4K5tMwC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=%22popular+science%22+california+secede&source=bl&ots=Si2XpRBNcK&sig=H0zFID627Yq-KR68E-XXIYb9LLI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrzorJ3p3QAhUKE5QKHaqeBHoQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=%22popular%20science%22%20california%20secede&f=false

    Timeline is off, but the reasons will probably be right. With that whole Simpsons episode from 2005 eerily predicting the election, I guess Proposition Angry Bear is next...

    Electrosphere

  105. Proposition Angry Bear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Simpsons episode eerily predicts election, next is a 2003 Popular Science article about a California secession due to excessive taxation starting with Proposition Angry Bear, that fails.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=5bKyC4K5tMwC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=%22popular+science%22+california+secede&source=bl&ots=Si2XpRBNcK&sig=H0zFID627Yq-KR68E-XXIYb9LLI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrzorJ3p3QAhUKE5QKHaqeBHoQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=%22popular%20science%22%20california%20secede&f=false

    Truth stranger than fiction.

    CAPTCHA unarmed

  106. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The rest of us have been waiting for San Andreas to sink them into the sea. Well make sure to build a wall around them too. President Feinstien will have a fun time with her dystopian hunger games nightmare of overpriced tech zones surrounded by impoverished milions of Mexican slave labor.

  107. Silicon valley investors should secede from the US by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

    The whining, crying and pointless protesting over someone you didn't like winning is more than a little pathetic.

    You all knew the stakes and rules of the game going into it. How many of the whiners did anything meaningful to build consensus for different candidates? How many of them even bothered to mingle with commoners long enough to vote themselves?

    I spent election night rooting for Trump to lose. Now I find myself laughing at the chorus of entitled "dumb fucks" who have the guts to publically bitch about Trump wanting to moderate their own spigots of cheap labor.

  108. It's 1 guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 Iranian crying about his candidate losing and calling for all other retards to support his anti-US idea. THIS IS F**KING NEWS ON /.? Seceding from the union is about the most Anti-USA thing you could do yet he claims to be for the USA? Get your heads out of your asses and stop listening to sensationalist bullshit ideas let alone posting them as news.

  109. Silly by admiral+snackbar · · Score: 1

    Why would you want to secede? Far more productive to call for maximum state rights with a Republican president, House and Senate. Should be difficult for them to resist that, seeing how they have been champion for 'state rights' for so long, and if you defund the federal government to the point of it becoming non-functional, California gets nearly all the benefits of independence and little of the acrimony that a secession would cause. Just ask for: - end of federal medicare, medicaid, education. - End of federal criminal law - right for states to determine who gets to live there (Republican states want to ban muslim refugees from coming in, why not ride that wave and claim a right for every state to allow or disallow any immigrant for any reason.) You could call them the 'Right to Live here' states, like you have the 'right to work' states. And of course, a corresponding drop in the federal tax rate if they don't have to fund all that stuff anymore. Accomplish that, and California is as good as independent (just like all the other states), without any of the nasty talk about actual secession and civil war and stuff.

  110. oh noz! by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    So he called out corporations and their leaders for shady crap that they are in fact actually doing then they responded with lies about innovation and other bullshit to cover it while acting like 2 year olds throwing a tantrum. Yes, California's overtaxed, hyper-liberal welfare state and its massive debt should get the hell out of the USA. Then we'd never have a democratic president ever again. Great idea.

  111. Proper labels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The campaign for independence -- variously dubbed Calexit, Califrexit and Caleavefornia..."

    Folks, if we're going to start throwing names around, please refer to Mexifornia by it's proper name. Oh, and please speak Spanish when making these requests. It helps the illegals cast their vote for this.

  112. Win win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Silicon Valley Investors Call For California To Secede From the US After Trump Win

    And then what? Rejoin Mexico?

  113. What 'shock' victory? Look at the rally sizes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody with a pair of eyes can go back and watch all the rallies and see how Trump had 10,000 people and more at most of his rallies, whereas Clinton had around 1,000, and did far fewer rallies. It's only the controlled media that has LIED to us constantly about the 'polls being 50/50', because they were hoping to rig the election results (with Soros' electronic voting machines), but the Trump support was so high that they knew they couldn't possibly get away with it.

    Let them secede - most WHITE Americans have left California anyway (or rather, been driven out by illegal immigrants...)

  114. Please let this happen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please please please leave the US! CA is the least supportive of the US and the Constitution.

  115. Rule 36 of the Internet by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

    "No matter what it is, it is somebody's fetish. No exceptions". He probably just likes sweaty women.

    --
    Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
    1. Re:Rule 36 of the Internet by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      If you're not making them sweat, you are doing it wrong.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  116. Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On behalf of Canada, I'd like to invite California to join us.

  117. Fight Back by JimSadler · · Score: 0

    I suggest that every person in the nation that is not a right wing lunatic simply fight back. Snub them, fire them. Make their personal lives a living hell as long as you don't break the law. Drive their kids off of sports teams. Put temptation in their paths and get them on film in their wicked deeds. Use every tactic that the right has ever used but put that tactic on steroids. How many investigations can democratic congress people launch on the Trump administration. Impeach Trump before he takes the oath of office. Honk your car horns every time you pass a republican's home. Cancel business contracts and starve them out. Do not hire relatives of the right wingers. Beat this scum into the dirt !

  118. No Trump like entities in Canadian politics by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Just a bunch of non-entities with all the charisma of a boiled potato.

    1. Re:No Trump like entities in Canadian politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't sound so bad.

  119. Won't work by Kjella · · Score: 1

    CA-LI-FOR-NI-A! CA-LI-FOR-NI-A! CA-LI-FOR-NI-A!

    Too many syllables. Also the lameness filter is lame because now I have to write some more.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  120. Innovation at making Wallets Thicker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean like providing cheaper labor, so that the C Level Executives can have thicker wallets and portfolios, all while the US Citizen who is looking for work loses their house due to these same companies extorting lacking labor laws in other nations to provide lower wages to lower skilled workers?

    Give me a break bring jobs back to American Soil, and forgo the VISA Working Programs for Illegals and allow those who are eagerly awaiting in the legal process to become legal US Citizens to gain work and experience.

    GO TRUMP Bring these companies to their knees, as they have been extorting poor labor practices overseas to thicken their own wallets.

  121. Secession worked for the South by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    Yeah, this whole secession thing worked really well for the Confederacy, so there's no reason at all it won't work well for California.

    Seriously, are these guys expecting that Hillary will be declared Dictator-for-Life if they just make enough "But we HATE The Donald" noise? Sorry, not going to happen.

    And just because the EU is telling the UK "buh-bye" doesn't mean that California is going to be allowed to leave the USA....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  122. Nuke 'em ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hope "the Donald" nukes the bastards :)~

    That'll learn 'em.

  123. Texas v. White by kantos · · Score: 1

    The case Texas v. White settled this over a century ago. No state in the union has the right to secede. Talk of secession is itself in violation of Title 1 of the Smith Act: Sedition as the only way to secede is via the violent overthrow of the United States government.

    --
    Any and all content posted above may be ignored, considered irrelevant, or otherwise dismissed.
    1. Re:Texas v. White by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The Smith act, then is Unconstitutional. Free expression, especially political speech is constitutionally protected.

      Just because secession is not a state-recognized right does not mean it cannot happen.

      First a state can pass laws and restructure its affairs causing it to "virtually secede" in some ways.

      Second, there is nothing to say that a secession cannot happen if approved by a resolution passed by the US House and Senate, then signed by the president ---- in other words, secession under terms approved by congress.

    2. Re:Texas v. White by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Texas v. White, states and territories may secede as part of a multilateral agreement but may not secede unilaterally. This process was vetted by the Philippines.

  124. I am so tired of defending a guy that I don't like by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

    I'm serious - I am tired of defending Trump but I'm so tired of lies and the lying liars who tell them.

    He also thinks Amazon CEO "Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post to exert political power

    There's no other reason to buy a dying newspaper.

    and avoid paying taxes,

    And it's probably decent for tax writeoffs as it's unlikely to be making money.

    and claimed that Mark Zuckerberg's push for specialist immigration would actually decrease opportunities for American women and minorities.

    He's absolutely correct. There's a reason that Facebook founders were willing to throw $20M at Hillary at the last minute to try to get her elected. By the way - remember the timing of that? When everybody thought Hillary had it wrapped up? Given the rampant collusion between Clinton, big media, and big business it seems pretty clear that she and her team knew she had a loss on her hands a couple of months ago and hoped an extra 8 digit slush fund would help.

    I'm sure Lessig was just *furious* when he found out about it <eyeroll>.

  125. Civil War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should have let the South secede back then. We'd have skipped the Civil War and they would be on their own with their own culture.

  126. Just like 1860? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has happened before, in 1860... People lost an election, had a fit, and tried to secede...

  127. Thank God! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    I'd rather have California as an option to emigrate to than cold-as-fuck Canada.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  128. Share the liberals .. by abrotman · · Score: 1

    They could instead push satellite offices to battleground/red states and send liberal-minded folks to live there, take up residency, spread the gospel, all that stuff. Influence the vote that way. That would help with the housing problem in the bay area as well.

    Seems just as likely.

  129. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide from Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at the electoral map. Vast swaths of Cali are Trump territory, and they are armed. The hipsters can only lay claim to tiny enclaves which could easily be overrun by the red states in the event of war.

  130. Democrat really are children at heart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now you know how serious the "hyperloop" is.

    A bunch of whiny millennials who didn't get their way.

  131. If you have experienced the immigration process... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...Then you should be familiar with something called "Moral Turpitude."

    If it's been a while, then let me catch you up. Every US immigrant, before entering the country, has to file a DS 230 with the State Department. On the form is a checkbox asking you if you've ever committed an act of Moral Turpitude. The expression "Moral Turpitude" is a fancy legal way of encompassing anything and everything that is morally wrong, all the way from 1st degree murder to eating meat on Good Friday. It is the government's easiest way of barring you from entry into the country, because, let's face it, we've all done something wrong in our lives. (And therefore, it's also the easiest way to kick an immigrant out of the country; all the government needs to do is find evidence of something you've done wrong in your life, then add to it lying on a government document, and then put you on a one-way plane trip back to where you came from.)

    Anyways, entering the country illegally certainly qualifies as such. By declaring that, momma could be barred from re-entry for up to 10 years. There -are- ways around that, though they all require strong legal representation, which, let's face it, the vast majority of immigrants can't afford.

  132. SCREECH! Is that the Gravy Train I hear? by bwanagary · · Score: 1

    I guess that the wall street greed gravy train has screeched to a halt. Wall street and Washington D.C. have been in each others' pockets for so long and now they fear that they can't just buy all rulings to be in their favor and conduct themselves sans accountability. The greed of the few just isn't as lucrative as it was before if the Washington swamp gets drained. It will still be the most lucrative tech economy on the planet, just not as obscenely so. Investors; grow up, stop whining and have a dram of couth toward the common man - at least, let them have the crumbs of your table.

  133. The Civil War settled that question by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2

    And it did so permanently. Once you become a state, you can't "unjoin", secede or leave. End of story.

    Now if the government would actually start charging people with treason for saying this kind of crap and prosecute them and make them look at real jail time in a real prison, that might just put an end to it. Even former Texas governor Rick Perry was talking succession smack talk for a while. The state of Georgia passed a law 4 years ago that the current governor signed that says if the state legislature votes to nullify a federal law or executive order because they decided that it wasn't constitutional, the citizens and the state of Georgia don't have to obey said law or order. That's not succession but it's close. And the Obama administration didn't even threaten anybody over that.

    1. Re:The Civil War settled that question by ghoul · · Score: 1

      But Ah California was an Independent Republic before it joined the USA (for all of 20 days I guess). Like Texas it does not have to secede, it merely needs to pass a law invalidating the act of accession on some technicality and the situation prior to accession comes back into force. Unlike other new states who were US territories before they become states. Their accessions were passed under the US constitution so any challenge to them will go to US Supreme Court but as California and Texas accession were passed by sovereign nations their judicial review goes only till California Supreme court and Texas Supreme Court respectively. Even During the Civil War the North was OK with letting Texas leave but not the southern states.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    2. Re:The Civil War settled that question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well a state CAN leave, but perhaps not by the legal term SECEDE, (as that's apparently against the law, and we all know laws can make said thing impossible to do, right?). Nevertheless, leaving is possible, and such a maneuver would be by warring itself out. So yes one 'can' leave.

    3. Re:The Civil War settled that question by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      And it did so permanently. Once you become a state, you can't "unjoin", secede or leave. End of story.

      No, what the Civil War settled was that you can't secede if the rest of the country is willing to go to war to stop you. Are we? I'm not so sure we are, these days.

      Also, while I don't know if this applies to California, some of the later states to join the union actually did so under contracts that specified various requirements that the union had to fulfill. In such cases, if the union violates its side of the bargain, it seems like the state in question has a perfect legal right to secede, based on recognized federal *and* international contract law. There was a lot of talk a few years ago (before the DC vs Heller decision) about the Wyoming state legislature debating secession on the grounds that it appeared the federal government was violating right to keep and bear arms provisions in the contract under which they entered the union. The Heller decision mostly ended that discussion.

    4. Re:The Civil War settled that question by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      No, what the Civil War settled was that you can't secede if the rest of the country is willing to go to war to stop you. Are we? I'm not so sure we are, these days.

      After reading goodmanj's post just below, and all of the excellent points he raises which I had never considered, I take that back. I'm absolutely certain we'd be willing to go to war over all of the issues that he raises.

    5. Re:The Civil War settled that question by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      ... Now if the government would actually start charging people with treason for saying this kind of crap and prosecute them and make them look at real jail time in a real prison, that might just put an end to it. ...

      It's not illegal to talk about it, only to -do- it.

      Until the group has enough meetings to be a conspiracy, I suppose ... ;-)

  134. California, you can secede by mysidia · · Score: 1

    But only if you take on all the debt. And acquiesce to continued US administration on all matters of international trade.

    California: you have to take responsibility of your fair share of the national debt By paying Income tax on all current
    and future Net incomes, And your fair share as a percentage is the average of the 3 percentages :
      Your state's population Divided by the country's population Plus

        The sum total federal dollars spent in or on matters related to your state over its entire lifetime divided by the total federal dollars ever spent by the Federal government

      PLUS your state's annual economic output divided by the country's annual economic output.

  135. Re:Trump calling someone else for not paying taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, how is a person supposed to cheat on his taxes if everyone else does? Someone needs to pay the bills.

  136. Crony of "God Soros" still crying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Hahaha, unbelievable! Have some dignity & lose with grace, losers.

    * Libya/Benghazi liar & law breaker Hillary (Comey the crony sycophant too) who had no clearance to have classified information @ her home deserved to lose (if not go to jail which she probably will) - serves her right.

    Serves you crying bitches who supported her right too. Justice, for once, HAS been served.

    APK

    P.S.=> What's the matter? "God" SOROS (loon that thinks he's a God & wants to destroy the USA, + led his OWN KIND into Hitler's prisons too like the psychotic loser he is) couldn't pull it off w/ more than TWICE what the Trump campaign spent & your "puppet master" is STILL telling you to go on crying like this? Please - make me laugh some more, losers... apk

  137. It's been done before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One time was a great party, worked great, they still celebrate it every year.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic
    It's a great way to blow off steam and get a better perspective.

    The other time, not so good, folks are still grumpy about that one.
    There's not much to recommend doing that again.

    There is a robustness issue with the economy which needs to get fixed, or even Si Valley won't survive.
    I'm hoping Trump is smart enough to not try to make anybody do anything.
    That path is a dead end. (Try it with a teenager sometime.)

    A better path is to adjust the game so that folks do what's necessary because it's good for them.
    Trump is not without success in operating this way.
    Instead of forcing Apple, setup a situation where they want to build stuff here because it's the best place to do it.
    Instead of building a physical border wall, build an economic one by figuring out a way to eliminate the economic incentive to come here illegally.

    A new Republic of California revolution party sounds a great idea.
    The question for debate at party is how to do this.
    The last 8 years gave us more a zombie than a robust situation.
    Just like Cuba, it's time to try something else.

  138. e mail marketing by Disparo · · Score: 1

    e mail marketing Turbine suas vendas com e-mail marketing e potencialize suas oportunidades de negócio!

  139. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Northern Cal would secede from Southern as they have always wanted and likely stay with the rest of the country. Meaning all the good Emerald Triangle Weed leaves as well. Oh and the water... could be diverted by them before reaching the South. Turning SoCal back into the desert it once was.

    SoCal hates weapons, so it would be taken back by Mexico quickly. Meaning all the illegal labor would likely jump back to the US as well.

    Of course they would control the Western Port, but being that the East has the other two and the US could control costs via tariffs, not a problem.

    I guess the new Hollywood would likely go to Florida, where it was planned originally any how.

    and on........

    Cant we all just get along...

  140. Good, go by gnuhost · · Score: 1

    Sooner, better

  141. Can't secede, America is fractal by goodmanj · · Score: 2

    Okay, looks like it’s time to dust off my post-election-day secession rant.

    The dividing lines in this country are as clear as a jigsaw puzzle. But like a jigsaw puzzle, the pieces are so tightly interlocked that there’s no way to pull it apart without wrecking everything.

    Let’s start by ignoring what the Constitution says: if somebody’s splitting off from the US, its laws are not theirs to follow. Never mind legality or morality, let’s just ask, can parts of the US secede without killing millions and impoverishing us all? Those are the stakes.

    Borders. Let’s take the Northeast as an example, from Maine to New York. Solid blue states, easy enough to make a nice country out of. Well, except for most of New Hampshire. And upstate New York. And central Massachusetts and inland Maine, and Staten Island, and the town I live in near Boston... if secession is on the table, what’s to stop these regions from seceding from their states? Suddenly your country looks more like a federation of city-states, surrounded by hostile rural territory. America’s internal border is fractal, from the national level right down to individual bedrooms. If you insist on contiguous state borders, what are your options? Call out the state militia to occupy rebellious Staten Island? Partition and forced emigration? Ask India and Pakistan how that worked out.

    But let’s suppose you get the territory bit worked out. What about the national debt? If a breakaway republic leaves the US without taking its fair share of the national debt, it’s effectively stolen trillions of dollars. If it gets away with it, everyone else will break away too, the debt will be abandoned, and every T-bill on the planet will become worthless. That’s $18 trillion of investment wiped out, a scale of debt write-off at least times worse than the mortgage crisis of 2007, a hundred times worse than Greece. This is your social security money, your pension, wiped out instantly. And if a breakaway republic *does* take its share of debt, a small young unstable nation isn’t going to be offered the same interest rates the USA gets. It'll immediately find itself in a Greek-style debt crisis.

    The federal government owns a lot of stuff, and some of it is hard to move. What happens to the mineral rights, national parks, military bases, federal buildings, and post offices in a breakaway republic? Will it pay the US fair market value for them? Because they can’t afford to. If they seize them by force, is the US justified in reclaiming its property violently? Speaking of violence, what happens to the aircraft carriers and F-22s? Who gets the nukes? I don’t want them, but if I’m going to share a continent with a bunch of nuclear-armed belligerent xenophobic nationalists, I might need some.

    With this much to fight over, it’s clear that two divided Americas would be hostile to each other, possibly at war, but each would have lots of citizens who sympathize with the other side. The history of minority groups who sympathize with the enemy is long and bloody. Iraqi Shias. Japanese-Americans during World War 2. Rwanda.

    Dividing a country turns its internal conflicts into external conflicts. Internal conflicts can be solved through politics, but the main way nations solve external conflicts is through economic and/or literal war. It’s naive to believe that partition would be peaceful: civil war, forced emigration, or global economic collapse are pretty likely. Maybe you think the risk of these is low enough that it’s worth a shot. I don’t.

    1. Re:Can't secede, America is fractal by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      No one would want to succeed if we stopped making everything a national issue. If California would have implemented universal health care for the people in their state then there would never have been this huge fight over obamacare. Same with a host of other issues. The only reason Trump won was because Clinton has lost touch with reality and Trump supporters are fed up with the federal government forcing things on them.

    2. Re:Can't secede, America is fractal by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      If California would have implemented universal health care for the people in their state then there would never have been this huge fight over obamacare. Same with a host of other issues.

      This is absolutely true, but there's a big constitutional stumbling block. Or, more precisely, a big practical stumbling block imposed by a constitutional requirement: the Privileges and Immunities clause of Article IV (not to be confused with the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th amendment. Note the conjunction).

      Any state that implements its own universal health care must provide the same privilege to all citizens of all states that it provides to its own. It's well-established that this doesn't mean California would have to provide services to people living and being treated in Delaware, and it probably doesn't mean California would have to provide free health care to Delaware residents visiting California, but it absolutely does mean that a Delaware resident who moves to California and becomes a resident of California must be eligible for free health care.

      If all states implemented something roughly equivalent that wouldn't matter. But if California did it alone, it would immediately become a magnet for the nation's sick people. There would be an incentive for people to even plan their lives that way: "I'm gonna live where taxes are low while I'm young and healthy and if I ever get a chronic illness or just get to where my medical expenses are rising, I'll move to California". So California's costs would go through the roof since they'd end up footing the bill for much of the rest of the country as well. That wouldn't work.

    3. Re:Can't secede, America is fractal by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      If all states implemented something roughly equivalent that wouldn't matter. But if California did it alone, it would immediately become a magnet for the nation's sick people. There would be an incentive for people to even plan their lives that way: "I'm gonna live where taxes are low while I'm young and healthy and if I ever get a chronic illness or just get to where my medical expenses are rising, I'll move to California". So California's costs would go through the roof since they'd end up footing the bill for much of the rest of the country as well. That wouldn't work.

      Obamacare was modelled off something that *was* only done at the state level in Massachusetts and regardless, plenty of other countries have to deal with having better health care than their neighbours. The simplest solution is to exempt preexisting conditions for people moving into the state but there are likely other solutions. There are enough countries with universal health care now that it would be easy to look and see how other countries handle situations of migration. The word state used to have a different meaning. People have forgotten but the word State is synonymous with Country. It was really supposed to be the United Countries of America. The United States of America was designed to be more like the European Union where each sovereign state managed their own affairs. If we moved back in that direction and let the states do what the federal government does now then this whole talk of succession would stop because what is done at the federal level would be insignificant. Instead, the way we have it now, what is done at the state level is insignificant because everything is handed down by the federal government exactly backwards from the way it was designed to be.

  142. Re:Trump calling someone else for not paying taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is "do as I say, not as I do". Sure sounds great from someone in power!

  143. Yet another broken promise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Promises promises. I don't believe them. But I wish it was true. Think how much better we'd be if we didn't have to put up with the BS from California.

    And who is going to hold the 15 hollywood "stars" that said they would leave if Trump got elected to their promise?

    Don't let the flag hit you in the ass on your way out.

  144. New California? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Newer Mexico would be a more apt description.

  145. Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please DO IT. Have fun speaking Russian without the help of the United States military.

  146. It's a bummer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and disconcerting when you kiss ass to the wrong politicians.

  147. It's their choice to stay or leave. by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    States joined the union by having their state legislatures ratify The Constitution, thus agreeing to the terms which grant the federal government its powers. According to the Bill of Rights, Amendments #9 and #10, the federal government has only those powers specifically delegated to it in The U.S. Constitution. There is nothing in that Constitution which states that the decision to join the union is irreversible. There is likewise nothing in that Constitution which grants the federal government the authority to use military force to coerce states into remaining in the union. Had those provisions existed in the document, none of the original states ever would ratified The Constitution until the offending text had been removed. In fact, when the Virginia legislature ratified The Constitution, they simultaneously passed a bill which clearly stated that they were doing so only with the understanding that their legislature could reverse its decision at any time.

    This issue was not "settled" in the 1860s simply because the North was able to use brute force to subjugate the South. Lincoln was wrong(and an evil bastard) and the SCOTUS was wrong in its "Texas v. White" decision. The South was right.

    The idea of CA liberals wanting to secede from the union is nevertheless hilarious. Movements who seek to restore state sovereignty as well as groups advocating outright secession have generally been right-leaning and are met with total condemnation by the political left. Still, if their state government votes to withdraw from the union and form a sovereign country, they have every right to do so.

  148. "It's the most patriotic thing I can do" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's the most patriotic thing I can do" ... it's also among the most seditious. Will any prosecutor press charges against these traitors? Perhaps a WeThePeople petition is in order? That will become fun when Trump gets in office.

  149. 6th biggest economy today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    6th biggest economy today. Tomorrow, they get to pay for their own armed forces, negotiate their own trade deals, issue their own visas and passports, mint their own currency... yes, this is a brilliant idea, please California, I cannot possibly imagine this having a negative effect on your economy.

    Then again, you remember what the last Republican to have states secede on him did, right? Right.

  150. still no birth certificate^W^W tax returns by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    I hope his supporters take a cue from her and start behaving with some class and dignity.

    TFTFY.
    ouch. awkward.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re: still no birth certificate^W^W tax returns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah how dare his supports make the leftist spew all those racists remarks online like fuck white America!

  151. Re:Trump calling someone else for not paying taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you really think that invest a million bucks while being totally passive is going to make you as much money as being directly involved in hundreds of business ventures as the owner and director of those businesses ... you've never had anything to do with running a business.

  152. fun and games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They cannot pay their own bills. Seriously - as a nation they would sink quickly. They take more money from other states work, really taxes on the lives and lifespans of other humans, than they give.

    Let them cede. And re-discover for the first time the field of "economics 101" and the truth of "the wealth of nations" by Adam Smith. Also - let them provide for, or pay for, their own ballistic missile defense from China or Russia in the event of a first strike.

    1. Re:fun and games by plopez · · Score: 1

      There are only 2 states which get more money fro DC than send back in taxes, WY and AK. Both red states.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  153. Re:ad absurdum by Dareth · · Score: 1

    ad absurdum

    Is that Latin for "funny commercials"?

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  154. Different sets of laws by jmv · · Score: 1

    Sounds like what you guys need is different sets of laws for cities and rural areas. Have universal health care, gun control, legal abortion and legal pot in cities and have the opposite in rural places. Then everyone's happy. Then you elect two "vice-presidents" that take care of most of the non-national stuff. Not really serious, but it almost seems like it would solve a lot of problems.

    1. Re:Different sets of laws by g01d4 · · Score: 1

      what you guys need is different sets of laws

      We already have that to some extent at the state, county and city level. California (CA) just authorized legal pot. One issue is there can be too many jurisdictions that can easily cause confusion, especially in our 'modern age' where mobility is much easier than in the past. I recall on business trips to Alabama where it was indeed confusing whether one was in a dry county or not (counties are typically smaller there than in CA). Another issue revolves around rights and such, where here I'm thinking of the states rights arguments used by the right and racists during the 50's and 60's.

  155. Oh no that sucks! by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    No. Stop. Don't.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  156. Please do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please do. The Entire west coast can secede and we would be soooo much better as a country. Most of Americe would be glad to see you crazy people gone.

    1. Re:Please do by plopez · · Score: 1

      The US would lose the 7th largest economy in the world, not the nation, the world. Bad move.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:Please do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US would lose the 7th largest economy in the world, not the nation, the world. Bad move.

      A significant part of the economy is from agriculture. You may want to gander at the election results from those areas. Northern California will remain in the United States cutting that "7th largest economy in the world" down a few pegs.

  157. Please secede, California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then we can hang silicon valley like all treasoners should be.

  158. like they made a diff in NV or OR. by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Funny

    O'bummer better quit dilly-dallying, only 70 days left to take our guns!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  159. They have no clue about the impact. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If California succeeds do you have any idea of the impact ?

    #1... All Federal money and Services -> terminated (no federal assistance fighting fires, no EPA).. all road, bridge, and infrastructure will be responsibility of the state.

    #2. No support from the Navy, Army, AirForce, Marines. Mexico can drive right up and take over. (LOL)

  160. USA, the final season by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Obviously this is all a plot by Obama to declare an emergency, declare Trump unfit to lead and install himself as permanent dictator. Then finally he can get around to taking our guns. It's the only way Hillary is going to stay out of prison.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  161. Chicken little much? Idiots... by yodleboy · · Score: 1

    The Trump-phobia is ridiculous. Trump and the Republican establishment have a shaky relationship. Why would you think the Republican party, that was at great pains to distance itself from Trump's ideas and policies, would suddenly reverse course and support them? With Republican control of House, Senate and likely another conservative on the Supreme court, they have all the tools they need to stop Trump from doing anything extreme. Rest assured they WILL use those tools because to go to far out there would be political suicide and these people expect to be in power long after Trump has moved on from the presidency.

    tldr; the sky is not actually falling. The biggest risk from Trump is him making embarrassing statements.

  162. Re:Fuck you back nazi fuck by tuxgeek · · Score: 0

    .. And assholes like you are what is wrong with amerika today. Untrained, unkempt, uneducated, ignorant, ill informed, inbred, dick licking, sperm swallowing republicunts.

    The last time we had this same number of criminals in office was the last 6 years of dubya. Those sorry pieces of shit left the nation bankrupt with the Enron collapse, real estate collapse, auto industry collapse, banking collapse, wall street collapse, 2 out of control wars bleeding the country dry of money that took a black man to fix. a terrorist on the loose wanting you sorry pieces of shit to die that took a black man to fix. do I really need to go on?

    No the problem with amerika today is fox news and the republikans are teaching the nation how to hate again, and they all have a fuck you attitude to everyone they interact with. American is now a nation of ignorant stupid assholes just like you and all the sperm whores that modded your hate speech as informative.

    Seems everytime we get repblicunts in power the country turns to shit and everyone looses their jobs and homes, and all those are like goldfish and don't remember any of the ass raping they got. Conclusion? All republicans are morons. End of country.

    --
    "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
  163. California wants their facists not some one else's by zerofoo · · Score: 1

    Silicon Valley wants to break away from the union?

    How is replacing one facist government with another going to improve anything?

  164. Starve the Federal Govt by ghoul · · Score: 1

    Stop contributing funds to the federal govt. Pass a state law that the IRS will not have jurisdiction in California and let Californians stop paying Federal tax. Also sell all Federal bonds owned by all California Pension funds and but California bonds. Use the bonds to run the economy till California can negotiate a secession and can print its own money. At that point income taxes can be reinstated. Arrest any IRS officers who do try to come to California.

    Money makes the world go round. When the federal govt is no longer getting any money from Califronia but is still having to pay salaries to military posted in California, medicare to hospotals in california and social security to retirees in California they will soon be starving for money given the size of the California population.

    Negotiate for independence or a revote for President based on a popular vote.

    Thats the hardball option. Doubt Californicos are series enough to actually go down this path.

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
    1. Re:Starve the Federal Govt by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      I imagine federal marshals will attempt to retrieve these imprisoned IRS agents. If unsuccessful, then maybe the military gets involved, and takes control of the state. Now try to negotiate after THAT has happened.

  165. No secession without war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These guys are idiots, they think the state owns the land... Its federal land, the state boundary is a political boundary. California will not secede without war, and I don't think any of these silicon valley nerds are going to pick up a rifle; they think firearms should be illegal.

  166. By all means, please do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

  167. Re:I am so tired of defending a guy that I don't l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and claimed that Mark Zuckerberg's push for specialist immigration would actually decrease opportunities for American women and minorities.

    He's absolutely correct. There's a reason that Facebook founders were willing to throw $20M at Hillary at the last minute to try to get her elected. By the way - remember the timing of that? When everybody thought Hillary had it wrapped up? Given the rampant collusion between Clinton, big media, and big business it seems pretty clear that she and her team knew she had a loss on her hands a couple of months ago and hoped an extra 8 digit slush fund would help.

    I'm sure Lessig was just *furious* when he found out about it <eyeroll>.

    Zuckerberg did nothing that the Koch brothers and a whole string of right wing billionaires haven't been doing for years. Why is it that when left wing tech company execs throw money at politicians it's treason but when the Koch brothers and their ilk does the same it's patriotism?

  168. Secede you left-coast faggots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch the Narco.MEX, ghetto Niggaz and Muzzi-wog rape your women, eat your babies and spread plague and ignorance over the entire left coast. Then the straight white Christian republicans who built this USA will need to sterilize the region ( sorry jewboi, but you picked ther wrong side again ) before snatching a seaside slab of Mexico and repopulating the beach with robust white Christian settlers. Suck that up yo *zzwhole bitches cause it's coming .... you can't import chi.com peons fast enough to stop it!

  169. Oh grow up. They're both lying to you, silly by raymorris · · Score: 2

    > Class and dignity? Coming from a Trump supporter that's rich.

    Oh grow up. You're really stuck in that raging fanboism where you think anybody who doesn't throw a tantrum because Hillary lost must be a Trump drone? No, I didn't vote for the reality TV star. When you grow up you'll realize she's just as full of shit as he is. She's been lying as a full-time job since 1977.

  170. Don't let the door by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...hit you where the good Lord split you. Buh-bye.

  171. Trades? by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    Maybe the Japanese will trade us CA for Okinawa or perhaps the PRC for Macau?

    1. Re:Trades? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Could we at least get DPRK? It contains far less nutjobs than CA and Kim Jong looks better in a pantsuit that Hillary does.

  172. Time to join WA, OR and CA to Canada? by snemiro · · Score: 1

    It looks like people in WA, OR and CA has more similarities with canadians than the rest of the US.... just sayin'....

    1. Re:Time to join WA, OR and CA to Canada? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again?

      The Jesusland map is an Internet meme created shortly after the 2004 U.S. presidential election that satirizes the red/blue states scheme by dividing the United States and Canada into "The United States of Canada" and "Jesusland". The map implies the existence of a fundamental political divide between contiguous northern and southern regions of North America, the former including both the socially liberal Canada and the West Coast, Northeastern, and Upper Midwestern states, and suggests that these states are closer in spirit to Canada than to the more conservative regions of their own country.

      Jesusland map

  173. Stop trying to disenfranchise people by s.petry · · Score: 2

    According to Pew Research: 1 in 3 Hispanic/Latino voters voted for Trump. 2 out of 5 women voted for Trump and Clinton got barely more than half. Asian Americans voted overwhelmingly for Trump. In fact in California only 3 out of 5 voted for Clinton overall, and considering the voter depression in the state it could be closer to half than we will ever know.

    Your position is disenfranchising anyone who disagrees with you. So much for you being an intellectual who really cares about the minorities in the Country.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Stop trying to disenfranchise people by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It's long been established that, statistically speaking, Asians are more intelligent than average.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:Stop trying to disenfranchise people by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      source for the asian american vote? haven't found good numbers yet.

    3. Re:Stop trying to disenfranchise people by s.petry · · Score: 1

      The majority stat was given on the Radio (560AM/SF). They gave 90%, but I believe that was for CA and not a National number.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:Stop trying to disenfranchise people by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The dirty little secret of Southwestern culture is that there is a major divide between illegal Hispanics and legal Hispanics, who resent being defamed and dragged down by the illegals. In Arizona we have long-standing Mexican neighborhoods where illiterate and radical newbies are showing up, raising chickens in their back yards. Think of them as los cuellos rojos.

    5. Re:Stop trying to disenfranchise people by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      don't think that's correct, they might have gotten confused, that might be more "percent increase" type deal, or a single county.

  174. WHAT are they protesting by phorm · · Score: 2

    This seems like the stupidest thing to me. Whatever you think of him as a person, he was elected by a legitimate democratic process. So either you don't like said process (aka it only works when it's a candidate that you like), or you're just a sore loser. Probably both. It does suck that the district-based electoral college doesn't line up with the actual total votes, but that wasn't so much an issue when they voted in the other guy, it seems.

    Trump isn't even in office yet. He's said a lot of stupid things, but he hasn't *DONE* any stupid things yet, and frankly he's pretty inconsistent on the doing part of things. You want to protest, then I suggest you find something that's actually being done before you whip out the tar and feathers.

    If you really want something to be afraid of, don't fear Trump. Fear a GoP majority, an empty spot on the Supreme court, and two additional spots on the Supreme that are filled by some fairly old judges. That could mean up to three LIFETIME appointees to the Supreme court - you know the place that really is the final decided on a lot of the cases that have affected the citizens of your country - which might get filled with some potentially heavily biased GoP appointees.

  175. Why not Fight? Cowardly and Selfish by Koreantoast · · Score: 2

    If you care about the country so much and you believe it fell into the wrong hands, then why not fight to take back the Congress in 2018 and the White House in 2020? That makes more sense than selfishly plotting secession which is guaranteed to break the back of the progressive movement you claim to love by withdrawing one of its core financial and political bedrocks from the system.

  176. They'd be welcomed back into the UK by lowkeyknight · · Score: 1

    It might help undo our own catastrophically stupid, anti-status quo protest vote and prevent Scotland leaving/replace Scotland when they leave.

  177. Raytheon, Boing, ring a bell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have it backwards my friend...

    It is US that will likely have to purchase New California's weapons.

    Some RWA in US have a very warped view of "liberals"/California/etc.

  178. Google Appears to Be Meddling With Searches by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Yesterday, the "California secession" searches went down by some 19,000 in one hour.
    Today, Bing returns twice as many results as google.com.
    Please try it yourself.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  179. Half of Ca occupents aren't even US citizens.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anyways, good rideance.
    Now, if we can just get NYC to do the same thing, 1/2 of America will be back to US citizens again...

    Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it any less true... (liberals often have this disease)

  180. There you have it folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now you know how much screwing you with H1B visa workers means to these guys ... they're willing to break up the United States over it.

  181. NOW they understand by wasteoid · · Score: 2

    Get in line behind Texas, hippies.

  182. As a 10+ years resident of CA... by nomad63 · · Score: 1

    ...I have 2 words for those secession supporting people who have their head deep in their asses: F|_| ( | off.

    --

    __________
    The more I know people, the more I love animals
  183. OK, but... by daninaustin · · Score: 1

    you have to take NY, DC and a few others with you.

  184. Two rockets by istartedi · · Score: 1

    One for all the right-wing nut jobs who have suggested this. A new, smaller one for left-wing nut jobs. Both. Right into the Sun. Thank-you.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Two rockets by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Please don't attribute starting this to us right-wing nutjobs. Very few of of us live in CA.

    2. Re:Two rockets by Kevoco · · Score: 1

      California is a very large state and there is plenty of right wing sentiment. There's just more left wing, and so, on a state level, left wing wins.
      Go to Orange County or northern california (north of Sacramento, and you'll find all the right wing you can handle.

      california voting trump clinton by county

    3. Re:Two rockets by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I was referring to secession in general and should have made that more clear.

      Now that the issue has been raised, there are indeed right-wing secessionist nut-jobs in CA. See, State of Jefferson. They tend to spin themselves as more libertarian than right; but if you scratch the surface it seems very right-wing.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    4. Re:Two rockets by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I'll believe that CA is rightwing nutjob-friendly when their gun laws make any actual practical sense at all.

    5. Re:Two rockets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orange County went to Clinton.

  185. Good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure you're not gonna miss any of that federal money, military support, lack of requiring trade/travel/political and so on agreements to deal with the United States. What will your currency be? What will you call yourselves? New California Republic? Hmm, there might be a copyright issue with that one. Oh yeah, copyrights, that's something else that would have to renegotiated with the United States government. I'm not sure the the Hollywood lobbyists (you know, people with the actual power and influence) will want to back this dream.

    Maybe Mexico will take you back. Damn, the wall just got longer.

    There would be an upside for all of the Hollywood douchebags who promised to flee the country after a Trump victory. They could just stay put and live in their plastic palace.

    In conclusion, STOP ACTING LIKE CHILDREN.

    1. Re:Good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In conclusion, STOP ACTING LIKE CHILDREN.

      In conclusion, STOP ACTING LIKE "butt-hurt CRY-BABIES"

      FTFY

  186. Fallout by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

    So this is how the NCR (New California Republic) gets founded.

    I'm scared. Maybe Bethesda knows something

  187. Pot calling the kettle.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy is giving the kings of UAE an opportunity to look 'modern' by installing the hyperloop in their country. Who's his next customer? Kim Jon Un? And he has the gall to show contempt for Trump who has legitimately won an election..

  188. DaFuq Outtahere! by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    Silicon Valley Investors Call For California To Secede From the US After Trump Win

    You know, that is the stupidest shit I've heard since Trump opened his maw and made his followers howl when he said the majority of illegals were murderers and rapists. Now, let that sink in for a moment.

    What these investors are suggesting is even stupider than anything Trump has said. Again, let that sink in for a moment.

    I didn't vote for Trump. And I'm upset that he won (for this means the majority of voters who bothered to show up had no problem tagging along his racist platform.)

    But this, the suggestion to seceded? What the fuck is this? I can get an individual wanting to leave somewhere else (I sometimes feel that).

    But a call to total secession? The amount of privilege behind such an absurd notion, it boggles the mind. And I thought people who wanted Texas to secede were idiots. Noooo, these investors truly take the cake!

    This goes to show you can be very smart at investing and still be very stupid at life.

  189. Brexit 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't the people advocating for secession the same ones who mocked Brexit?

  190. Let's do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I rather be classless, childlike, etc... and happy. Happy to not have a sorry leader, happy to tell my kids/nieces,/nephews that we didn't vote a despicable man, happy to not be united to states who would vote for an idiot, and happy to not be in an archaic system where these idiots have a voice in voting for the position for the most powerful man on earth.

    Sadly, the union doesn't realize it needs California. Sadly, Texas leaving wouldn't have hurt the union. Sadly, secession is what feels right. Sadly, everything is. Thank you trump voters, I hope we secede.

    A huge crowd of teens are rallying on an extremely busy street in front of me here in San Francisco as I type this.

    1. Re: Let's do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pokemon Go?

  191. On another note. by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    Shervin Pishevar

    Should I need to point out that a foreign-born investor calling for secession is the stupidest thing you could do in the current political climate after a nationalist-inspired win? Wow. Fuck. I just don't know how to describe this amount of stupid.

  192. hybris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    comes before the fall

  193. It's Sad Really by avandesande · · Score: 1

    It's like seeing Christmas stuff in the store in September. This election 'season' is now more than a year and a half old. Why can't it be over after the votes are counted?

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  194. Didn't you hear - the election bullshit can stop by presidenteloco · · Score: 2

    Now that the bullshit has served its intended purpose.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  195. Let them go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....then the government can put an embargo on water coming into the state from other states.

    See how they like it.

  196. Don't secede - balkanize for more Senate seats by Kevoco · · Score: 1

    The people of the 3 states of the west coast of the United States are vastly underrepresented in the U.S. Senate.

    Think about it:

    area of 13 original colonies:
              338,900 square miles

    area of 3 west coast states (CA, OR, WA):
              333,371 square miles

    And yet, those 13 states have 26 senators, while the west coast has only 6
    If the west coast really wants to make a difference for themselves, it won't be through succession, but through balkanization.

    More states = better representation in Senate

    1. Re:Don't secede - balkanize for more Senate seats by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      First off that's not allowed but even if it was, if you broke up states based on square miles then the democrats would be seriously disadvantaged.
      Most of the smaller states are democrat while most of the larger states are republican. The only reason the democrats have as many senate
      seats as they do is that they are overrepresented in the smaller eastern states.

      The house and senate and the electoral college are really designed pretty well. Yes, Clinton won the popular vote but the reason the senate
      and house and electoral college is designed the way it is is so that small states can't overpower big states and so that overpopulated states
      can't overpower less populated states.

    2. Re:Don't secede - balkanize for more Senate seats by Kevoco · · Score: 1

      Of course California can divide:
      Six Californias - Wikipedia

      I only mention square miles for comparison purposes.

      I do not care about political party dominance - I care about people being represented.
      Balkanization is the only effective way that smaller territories will EVER manage to be represented by a 3rd party.
      People will gravitate to the party they feel best represents them.

  197. disarmed california civilians by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    well, the civil war breaks out again, california will be fighting the union troops with harsh language and rocks, since californian politicians have effectively disarmed all of its law abiding citizens, and most californians don't exactly have pitchforks around the house anymore.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:disarmed california civilians by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Spoken like someone who hasn't been to California lately.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  198. This is a litmus test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's the hope Trump is actually a really good businessman and really runs the country like a business, no port-belly politics-as-usual crap that we'd get from Hillary or Rubio. That's why Bernie Sanders had that outside appeal too -- lots of people want government change, not a demo/repub change, but to get people in charge that want to make things run well, and not because they like being in charge (ie career politicians).

    I voted for Trump. He may turn out to be a huge disaster. Or he may turn out to be a great president. I didn't think Hillary had a chance of the latter.

  199. No, DNC shot themselves in the foot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody pushed for Clinton. Everyone pushed for Bernie. DNC fucked with what the people wanted via delegates & super delegates. Call this DNC shooting themselves in the foot.

  200. Re: ad absurdum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Latin for American Electorate.

  201. Simple Solution: Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... To Florida and North Carolina. If one percent of California moved to these two states and voted there instead, Hillary wins. Let's not pretend this was a blowout. Trump lead for maybe three days all year, it just happened to be one of those was Election Day. Switch those two states by the 500 K people vote difference and there's a different president.

  202. and sell where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Calif secedes, where will it sell its products with the 100% tariffs that Trump will impose? California will have to build factories in AZ and NV and TN.

  203. Who knew Trump was the new Abe Lincoln? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As both men ascended to the presidency, super-rich Democrats were so freaked-out at the potential loss of their slaves, and upending of their preferred social policies that they called for the states they ran to secede from the Union.

    The rich elite Democrats of today are clearly still like the rich elite Democrats of 1860... STILL fixated on skin color, STILL insisting that they cannot possibly stay rich and get even richer by employing average Americans and must instead use slave labor (usually non-white) either in other distant lands or imported into America but then working under different rules and less pay than Americans would get.

    It just occurred to me: I have NO IDEA where to find David Duke and his freakish Klan buddies, but the Democrats (who started the KKK after all) are able to find him for photos and interviews and to get him supposedly endorse Republicans every four years.... I'm not sure the guy is even real but if he's not a paid actor it's suspicious that the DNC has him on their call list.

  204. Please leave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We put up with 8 years of your crap...

  205. Way to Trump Tea Party by al0ha · · Score: 1

    This is not a new idea, Californians have been aware for a long time they provide far more to the Fed than they get in return.

    The point is not whether this is a good idea; the point is Brexit and Trump have now proven that for the first time, this idea is actually doable.

    --
    Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
  206. If by "secede" they mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If by "secede" they mean sink into the sea, I'm all for it.

    Drown in your tears, faggots.

  207. South Carolina, 1861 by CharlieG · · Score: 1

    People pissed off a Republican was elected did this before, starting with South Carolina, 1861 - tell me how that worked out

    --
    -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
  208. Better idea would be constitutional reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is merely a symptom of the corruption and filth in Washington and an obsession with propping up the failed neo-liberal/corporate enrichment agenda. While in reality he may not be much different, at least he was outwardly enough opposed to the 'free' trade nonsense and the deep seated corruption to attract voters looking for some alternative. America is getting the candidate it deserves. Towards the end of all empires such people often come to power. The US system as it exists today is not what I would recognise as a democracy in any way. Trump represented the only way out - the only candidate who isn't promising more wars, more propaganda, more free trade agreements, and more population growth. I'm not so sure that breaking up the US would be a bad idea at all. Divorced from the militaristic regime in Washington, some states would be very attractive places to live. While I personally find Trump to be truly awful, I still prefer the idea of him shaking things up, as someone fortunate enough not to be an American. If I lived there, I might feel differently, but I really feared the slaughter a maniac like Hillary would have unleashed upon the world.

  209. Re:Fuck you back nazi fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. You sound like a basket of deplorables.

  210. Re:I am so tired of defending a guy that I don't l by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    The Koch's don't actually give that much money out - orders of magnitude less than Soros and company. Part of the reason morons like you (oops) believe that they do is that a large part of Soros' money goes to fooling idiots into thinking that the Koch brothers give out huge sums of money. I see he got his money's worth on you.

  211. Please do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been saying for years that California should leave this country. We wouldn't be missing anything if it did.

  212. Cormanusts by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I suspect that the Canadian system might be based on one that Britain, France, or any other developed country except the USA has.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  213. Would like to wish your kids the best of luck by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    Living in the central United States dustbowl desert of the 6 degree Fahrenheit warmer world that your new President is ushering in by spiking the global agreement to start curbing GHG emissions.

    Canadians will be happy to sell you food from the northern prairy breadbasket, and even water. Only $1 per litre.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Would like to wish your kids the best of luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Canadians will be happy to sell you food ... and even water. Only $1 per litre.

      Shit, that's a bargain. The vending machine at my place of work sells 20oz. bottles for $1.50.

      It's not even spring water, it's Dasani - filtered tap water!!

  214. Can Texas Secede from the Union? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

    CGP Gray did a good video on this topic...
    https://youtu.be/S92fTz_-kQE

    Ok, this is Texas, not California, but the same principle applies...

    In short, the US Constitution is mute on the subject, but the US Supreme Court has ruled, "No, there is no secession, you cannot leave".

    If you want to go, there are two ways to make it happen.

    1. Revolution
    2. Constitutional Amendment

    Neither of those are likely to happen

    1. Re:Can Texas Secede from the Union? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Supreme Court itself while ruling that secession is unconstitutional also noted two things, one of which makes a third item for your list (they did not mention amendment)

      1. revolution or
      2. agreement of the states

      could result in a successful secession.

  215. A growing divide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Part of America is looking forward to the rest of the 21st century, and part of it is looking backwards to the 20th century. The backward looking part won the election, focused on trade deals, getting rid of immigrants, and bringing back industrial jobs. Trump was more than happy to promise a return to the good old days before the Rust Belt rusted. But that message just doesn't resonate with many (but by no means all) Californians, who are more focused on building for the future and would rather see a better educated workforce of knowledge workers with machines to do the manufacturing rather than people. If that divide continues to grow (and Trump won't help) California may become increasingly out of step with the Red states, and correspondingly serious about Calexit.

  216. Did it ever occur to you by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    that those signs were printed for other anti-Trump protests. There were lots and lots of those pre election ya know?

    Show me the proof protesters were paid cash.

    Professional inciters? You don't need to be a pro to rile up a crowd after a Trump win. Again, show me the money.

    Alert Media? Gee, it's almost like they were covering a major national election or something.

    You've been manipulated, but not by a few tens of thousands of anti-Trumpers.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  217. Hey, idiot, do you have ANY facts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless I (and most other educated people) am mistaken, there are no people who independently arose and evolved in the Americas... We're all ONE race/species. Those "Native Americans" are no more native to the continent than anybody else, they just got here over the land bridge from Asia whereas the much more educated and technically capable Europeans came here across the Atlantic in ships.

    Worse: over the centuries the "native" Americans were here, they developed NOTHING. They developed no written language, did not discover the wheel, NOTHING. They are not any more recently-evolved from our common ancestors than the Europeans were.They had just as many centuries to develop art and science and math and technology and medicine, and all the rest. They just sat here as culturally backwards, primitive stone age barbarians whose culture was so wretched that it would never have advanced no matter how many more centuries passed. They never even developed enough intellectually to know where on the planet they WERE. They had no maps, no governments, not even a calendar. They were little more than illiterate squatters and did NOTHING to improve the lands where they lived like nomads, and were not the most-peaceful people either; many of their tribes waged war on other tribes so it's not as though they disagreed with the idea of killing opponents and taking lands.

    Only propagandized idiots fall for all the "planet-loving, nature-hugging, peaceful, enlightened and wise Native Americans, victimized horribly by the evil white man" propaganda. Some American Indians were certainly victimized, many by Democrat President Andrew Jackson (one of the two the namesakes of the Democrat party's famous annual "Jefferson-Jackson" fundraising dinner). Every human population on Earth has at some point been victimized by some other group. This does not however convey universal victim status onto all their descendants just as everybody else on Earth does not get the presumption of victim status from what happened to their ancestors.

  218. Fuck you old man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck off, ya old bastard! You weren't condemning the repubs for stomping feet and rolling around the floor of the Capitol blocking every bill that was put up and shutting the gov down, what 4 times? You aren't condemning them for refusing to follow the constitution and elect a supreme court justice. You aren't condemning them for wasting millions on 50 something attempts at ACA repeal. You're still hypocrites.

    1. Re:Fuck you old man by Mr307 · · Score: 1

      Sure is convenient when you can just imagine someones actions, let alone their motives or intentions without even knowing the truth, then just attack them based on that instead of actually finding our or heck even thinking.

      Saves alot of time, you are so smart.

  219. Re: Didn't you hear - the election bullshit can st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bullshit will become established fact, see for example next year's Trumpcyclopedia.

  220. You both need math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're both wrong. All of those articles are measuring using different units. Some are state gdp, some are doller spent per dollar gdp, and so on. Get your data sets on the same units before you two keep bitching.

  221. Re:Trump calling someone else for not paying taxes by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

    I don't just think it, it's a fact. We know historically what the markets did, and we know for a fact that if he had simply put all of his money in the markets, he'd have just as much as he claims to have now. Rather than disputing facts, perhaps you should be reconsidering your belief that he's a great businessman, because he isn't.

  222. Grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grow up .

    You want democracy everywhere in the world but in your own elections you don't accept the results and come out on streets. If people are so infuriated, than they should have mobilized the voters to the voting day. This is gross intolerance.

  223. Oh, GOD, please DO! Please, please, please DO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YES! YES! YES! YES! It's the best news I've heard since Obama was elected.
    I'm sure Obama can okay it with an EXECUTIVE ORDER!

    Oh, PLEASE don't fro us in DAT BRIAR PATCH!

  224. Re:Trump calling someone else for not paying taxes by Z80a · · Score: 1

    It's more of a "nobody including me will be able to do it anymore, but i don't care because i got a much better toy"

  225. A couple of decades early... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    But I fully support the creation of the California Free State. Just don't go to war with Tir Tairngire.

  226. Secession? by ai4px · · Score: 1

    If CA seceeds, and Apple is in CA, how on earth will I get my next Iphone? It'll have to be imported from another country!! Oh wait, Apple's product was made in China and their corporate headquarters were in Ireland when I got my last Iphone. Never mind.

  227. Your welcome to join Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you will have to leave your handguns at the door. No exceptions.

  228. Please Do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's time for you to defend yourselves. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

  229. How fucking stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those investors should be tried for sedition.

    Or at least make sure they can't breed.

  230. TRUMP THIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    silicon valley can g.t.f.o. of My State! Quality of Life was So Much Better here when San Jose was just an ORANGE GROVE Trump won in spite of the Dem(on)S

  231. Stock Price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think acting like an emotionally immature child is going to help your stock price.

    It might be better to pretend that you have the capacity to deal with adversity. The markets might be more likely to respond favorably to that.

  232. Charleston, SC by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    ... California to secede from the US ...

    We tried that, about 150 years ago. It did not turn out so well ! 8-P

    You think the "DamnYankies" shafted the Southerners, just see what they do to California ... ;-)

  233. Alternative to Calexit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about federalism which is the way it is supposed to be anyhow? Let each state do what they want within a limited constitution via a national govt that puts few restrictions on them and takes little. Let Californians be Californians, Texans be Texans, New Yorkers be New Yorkers, etc.

  234. Adios Cali by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good riddance

  235. Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    California can then join Mexico, Apple can then be made by Mexicans, salaries would be cheaper, after all, you pay Mexicans much less than Americans. All those Mexicans who live in California will then be in their home country. All the actors who wanted to leave the US won't have to, seeing as it's now a Mexican state.

    The only thing that will trouble the US is how to stop Mexicans crossing the border from California to the US. That would be a much longer wall!

  236. per capita by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is in the top three by total amount. Those numbers you listed are "per capita", but we are not looking at tax per person, we are looking at the state economy as a whole. Multiply the numbers by the population of each state.

  237. Anti-Democrats by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Democrats can't handle it when people don't vote the way they want them to.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  238. You've got to hand it to the Confederate types... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've fucked things up so badly now a good portion of what was the north wants to leave the union.

    (Oh, and plenty of states that hadn't existed yet.)