Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
How about just calling it the Californian Dollar? That's basically what the rednecks up north use after all.
Also, if we are are even somewhat seriously considering the possibility of a secession, what do you think about immigration policies? Because considering how things go down, I'd like to know that I won't have to become an illegal alien to live in an actual Land of the Free. (TM)
A recount is currently underway in Michigan - but apparently in Detroit, there are a very large number of votes (roughly 373,000, according to external sources) that may be deemed "unrecountable."
The Heritage Foundation is having an address by Mike Pence at the Trump International Hotel
.
On the climate change denial thing. I've seen plenty of it during my debunking conspiracy theory years.
All the Go P and the interests that benefit from its denial did was to create some reasonablenote doubt. This involved a few things:
First they convinced a share of their public that the push for green energy and all those papers about anthropological climate change are a sham by global elites and the green energy lobby. The later simply wants to undermine the US competitiveness and the latter are paid shills for the green energy sector.
Second they kinda admit that the climate change is real...buuuuut as a natural cycle that mankind can't intervene in, so they can claim the former is using a natural phenomenon to push their agendas on the public.
Third with the help of the former two, they convinced their supporters that the academics and groups publishing the anthropological climate change live in ivory towers with no connection and empathy towards the blue collar workers that will be harmed by the migration of fossil fuels like oil and coal to other green energy thus robbing them from their jobs and making them feel guilty for using fuel inefficient vehicles. Fostering an anti-intellectual feeling in order to discredit anyone who disagrees with their narrative as being a bunch of uptight know-it-all elitist douches who never had to work in their lives.
This helped by remaining in their information bubbles and convincing themselves that any academics that disagree with their views must be from a brainwashed librul! college circlejerk that hates blue collar workers and their version of the true and traditional America.
In other words. They are stupid and proud of it, they don't want to change their views because they'd have to admit they are wrong and true murikkkans are always right and they have been drinking the kool aid long enough to start believing their own bullshit. Of course there are also the religious dipshits who believe it is all part of the mighty god's plan and they can't tamper with creation no matter how hard they tried or that the second coming of Christ is soonTM so they shouldn't bother with fixing the planet.
Inter arma enim silent leges
x4 Well, yeah. If I had to move to the Grand Republic of California, I wouldn't mind tossing my USA citizenship into the dirt, given the circumstances that would have led me to going to California in the first place. It's just that I would want a chance to actually get citizenship there, rather than having to play it like it's South of the Border and cross into Cali illegally because they've closed their doors on account not wanting any crazy American rednecks in.
edited 5th Dec '16 7:56:47 PM by kkhohoho
Steven Attewell has written a bit about
devolution before
. Apparently the same sentiment happened when Bush the Second got re-elected in 2004 (with the popular vote this time).
A recent example from California, where billionaire venture capitalist Tim Draper attempted (and thank god failed) to place an initiative on the ballot splitting California into six states, shows the implications quite clearly:
Dividing the state would have instantly polarized the regions between wealthy and poor, with North California, Silicon Valley, and West California enjoying median household incomes far above those of Jefferson and Central California. More importantly for Tim Draper, it would have meant that the wealthy of Silicon Valley would not have to pay taxes to support services for the poor, who would now be the problem of someone else’s government. The redistributive nature of California’s existing state government, where statewide Democratic majorities vote to increase taxes on the wealthy and increase social spending for the poor, would have ended.
Calexit would probably lead to mini-secessions on its own...and probably the end of the social democracy that has functioned at local state legislatures.
And some of these Silicon Valley types might move their business away attracted by Trump's tax-cuts.
Which is why I think tax protest is more effective.
Less true now than in 2004. The only part of California that would probably want out of California is the north eastern corner of California.
Most of the Republicans in the red part of California are more moderate than their red state counterparts and the Republican Party took a real beating in California after Governor Arnold and his posse helped wreck out economy even worse than before.
It also helps that California is doing really well in comparison to other states.
How about the Californio? Or we can just name our currency the Californian dollar.
edited 5th Dec '16 8:22:52 PM by MadSkillz
![]()
![]()
That's always the problem with secession, you can always make up reasons to keep slicing things smaller and smaller and breaking up more and more. Shit, at one point during the Civil War South Carolina threatened to secede from the Confederacy.
edited 6th Dec '16 7:53:54 AM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |You know what's kind of funny? In Canada, the provinces arguably have more autonomy than the states do in the US. There's way less friction though, because the Constitution Act of 1982 directly stated the powers the provinces have versus the federal government. Like, the federal government has the final say on marriage. Period. When Ottawa said gay marriage was legal, no one had any real way to push back, because the provinces didn't have a say.
The US really needs something like the Constitution Act of 1982.
![]()
As I stated earlier, if enough electors go faithless to break 270 to win, the college will go into a separate vote-it only goes to Congress if they deadlock below 270. If several break ranks, the Republican Congress critters will all order their electoral representatives to go faithless and roll over the Democrats and defectors through sheer numbers. The Democrats would have to get every one of their own on board plus the independents, and add around thirty Republicans willing to vote for the same candidate-and then account for the most likely Judas by way of Chamberlain turncoats in their own ranks when the final vote comes up. That is a very tall order, and if it goes sideways it would be a disaster that puts the choice in the hands of the heavily Republican House; and a direct vote by the Representatives, rather than electors with a conscience.
edited 5th Dec '16 9:21:59 PM by ViperMagnum357
He is obviously joking. I think in any case he should be in the primaries in 2020 in any case. He should have been there this time too because I feel that Hillary could have used the competition and challenge. Getting Biden in would also have kept Sanders from getting traction because he's way more charismatic than Bernie.
Biden refused to do so because of personal reasons of his son dying, and I don't think we should be looking on his lack of running with any kind of regret because that's disrespectful. And frankly this whole game of "should have done" and "would have won" bullshit is going to get us nothing but feeling bitter at each other. Let's stop rehashing the primaries in that manner, please.
Anyway, I think he's at least semi-serious and is more going to watch what happens over the next four years and regarding the field of candidates. Meaning he's serious when he says he might, but there's a lot of other factors that are going to happen between now and then. And hell, I'd vote for him. Seems like he's got his head on straight at the moment.
I'm not really so sure we should be so concerned about age at this point anyhow. He's not that much older than Trump and is in better health. And age hasn't exactly stopped other presidents from dying in office, so. Not so sure we ought to be that concerned about it.
edited 5th Dec '16 10:35:27 PM by AceofSpades
![]()
I feel that if Biden had ran he might have split the non-leftist vote with Hillary thus giving Bernie a better shot at the candidacy and mirroring what ultimately happened in the Republican primary race. Then again you may be right that Biden's charisma would have carried him well, likely to the candidacy I think.
Technically the 10th Amendment
was supposed to settle that by saying that anything that the constitution did not explicitly and specifically empower the federal government with was the purview of the states and only the states.
Of course, that did not stop the federal government from using some loss interpretations of some of the vaguer parts of the constitution to exercise more authority. The varies Commerce Clauses
being one of the most common sources of this.
In the end though it comes down to how much the courts are willing to allow the federal government to do.
Only issue I have is that by declaring so early (as in the body is still warm early), Joe sort of poisons the well.
One of the biggest issues I think about Clinton was the fact her mere prescence suppressed other candidates coming to the fore. No one in the Democrat party dared to mount a challenge... I think it is important to change that culture to at least give others a chance to build up a national profile.
At this point I'd vote for Biden simply for not being Republican, less out of party loyalism and more because the current Republican electorate seems incapable of nominating anyone who isn't bugfuck crazy.
@Ivanka
For whatever reason she's always seemed like the most reasonable and pragmatic (or at least clever enough to maintain a public image as such) of the Trump clan. If anyone wants to effect change she may be the best person to cozy up to. It's going to be a good dose of irony if a woman is the key to saving the day.
edited 6th Dec '16 12:57:38 AM by AlleyOop
I don't know...it feels very neo-feudal to me.
And why assume that the daughter shares views very different from Daddy. She's a bit of an airhead
and if this guy is to be believed, a racist too
.
This one hilarious quote is great:
In other words she's a chip of the old block. She built a lemonade stand and made her servants give spare change to pay for it. She's also wants to make money out of Native American culture too, which is part of the general imperialist ethos there.

We'd also need to get our housing prices under control.
Also, what would we use for currency? It seems unlikely that the USA would allow California to keep using the dollar.
...I cannot believe I am actually putting thought into this.
edited 5th Dec '16 6:47:48 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised