CalEXIT

[Golden Dragon Shining]

I think this would be beneficial, why not have separate states with different political ideologies? It gives people options.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Sionnach

[windwalker]

options for what?  

didn't the US go through that with slavery 

 

 

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source.

 

A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

 

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

 

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp

 

There are some very solid reasons why what your suggesting should not be done.

Edited February 4, 2017 by windwalker

[Golden Dragon Shining]

You've Communist, Islamic and Feminist groups that want to overthrow Western Civilization. They can have all their dreams realized in California. Both they and the New USA can be happy, all problems are solved
 

Edited February 4, 2017 by Sionnach

[Brian]

The use of force (or the threat of force) to sustain a voluntary relationship is not a healthy thing. Similarly, using force to shape the dynamics or rules of a domestic relationship is pretty universally a bad idea.

[windwalker]

You've Communist, Islamic and Feminist groups that want to overthrow Western Civilization. They can have all their dreams realized in California. Both they and the New USA can be happy, all problems are solved

 

The problem as I see it, is that none of those groups developed what they seek to change.  All the "dreams" mentioned seem to have either have failed or became very bad "dreams" where ever they were tried or implemented. 

 

Can you point to any place where the "dreams" mentioned are good and did not turn into nightmares for the "dreamers"

Edited February 4, 2017 by windwalker

[futuredaze]

I am all for the U.S. (and other powerful nations) breaking down.

 

If people in California want socialism and big government, let them have it.

 

If others want limited government and capitalism, let them have it.

 

People can move to where they want.

[windwalker]

Said on a platform that allows you to say it that apparently you would want to break down. makes sense

[Aetherous]

If California exits, NYC should as well. Let's free up the popular vote.

[liminal_luke]

I doubt that a majority of Californians want to become a separate country.  A few maybe.  And I`m guessing some people from other states would be happy to be rid of California.  Still, nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.  California is generally a "blue" state, some others are "red."  People vote.  Sometimes the vote goes the way most Californians would like, and sometimes not.  

 

Instead of separating into different countries, how about we all -- liberal and conservative alike -- try to be a little more tolerant of each other, a little less quick to anger.

[Golden Dragon Shining]

Nah, everyone knows now when the left want "tolerance" it's only to push their agenda as far as possible, or their "tolerance" becomes terrorism, as instructed and carried out by Communist leaders throughout history.
 

“We will turn our hearts into steel, which we will temper in the fire of suffering and the blood of fighters for freedom. We will make our hearts cruel, hard, and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky, Zinovief and Volodarski, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois - more blood, as much as possible.”
 

Excerpt from an interview with Felix Dzerzhinsky published in Novaia Zhizn on 14 July 1918.
 

“We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal's own confession.”
 

Excerpts from V.I. Lenin, “The Lessons of the Moscow Uprising” (1906)  Keeping in mind the failure of the 1905 revolution, Lenin argued that it was imperative for an even more ruthless application of force in the pursuit of overthrowing the Tsar’s regime.
 

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Quotes/leninkeyquotes.htm

Edited February 5, 2017 by Sionnach

[Marblehead]

WoW!  Tolerance just got a bad rap.

[Aetherous]

There is true tolerance, and there is self righteous and self congratulatory tolerance. True tolerance can have a dialogue with people it disagrees with, and agrees to disagree...it can admit when a certain group is a destructive force in society (Islamists).

The false tolerance allows no room for opinions other than its own...labels outside opinions, so as to demonize the people with them in order to feel better about itself...ends up fighting those people with the violence it claims that it stands against...and turns a blind eye to the destructive aspects of what they perceive as minorities that need their help. For instance, allowing all Syrian refugees into their country, despite the fact that in Europe this has led to violence and everyone knows that terrorists have infiltrated the refugee groups.

We call it "bleeding heart" syndrome...a heart's not supposed to be bleeding out. If it does that, it's a sign that the heart will soon die because of its own pumping. So this type of thinking is self destructive and society destructive. There is true compassion and false compassion...the false does what it perceives as good in order to feel self righteous. The perception is off in the first place, so perhaps it also makes mistakes in understanding what's good and what's bad.

The true compassion does it for others. For instance, defending your own country against terrorists who try to enter and kill innocent people is true compassion. False is protesting so that anyone can enter (which is currently the case due to the appeals court), for the sake of thinking you were on the good side, despite it opening up a risk to other people's lives.

In this light...I think we can say it's a win win for liberals to have their own country, where they can run things the way they want to, and others can be free of that. Of course, it's probably not going to happen, and we'll continue to have the binary American politics.