Nobified[H]
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,095
It is being done on purpose, that is the problem people can't get it wrapped around their heads.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Hyperloop Co-Founder 'Very Serious' About California Secession
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
It is being done on purpose, that is the problem people can't get it wrapped around their heads.
Fair enough
Whach
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,244
Lets not confuse Putin with the Russian people, shall we? (Putin is a complete different kettle of fish). And as for the "narrative of the TPTB", I wouldn't count on american media or the state controlled crud from Russia. However, recent state actions speak louder of intent than any interpreted reports.
Of course its better to be diplomatic, and Putin is very keen on that because of the effects of sanction placed on him and his wealthy "fellas". The question is if Trump is going to acquiesce or be dominant when dealing with him, instead of being a useful idiot to him, given the cozy comments he makes towards him. Things aren't so rosy for the Russian people. If you believe that Putin doesn't have a soviet era state of mind, then I don't know what to say to you.
Last edited:
chockomonkey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 8,328
The problem IMO is that anti-Trump folks gobbled up everything the MSM was touting. For instance, you've brought two things into this discussion which are entirely not true. Banning 1/6 the world's population, for instance. He was talking SPECIFICALLY about muslim refugees. He also never said all Mexicans were rapists. He was talking about a subset of the illegal Mexican aliens, of which there are many rapists and gang members.. but again, the MSM clipped his speach, often added their own slant, and sold so many people who wanted to believe that he was all these horrible things.
As George Carlin said, it's the context that matters!
I think what you may not realize is that he didn't actually call 10 percent of the population anything. He talked about the people that Mexico sends over to us when
All I ever hear is how the Russian people love him. I am a huge pro-
My favorite is how you never see the full speech when they say women should be punished for abortion. They just seem to forget the context of "IF IT'S CONSIDERED a crime or murder" beforehand. I see this almost daily.
Pishevar is an idiot. If California followed Maine or Nebraska, over 45% of the vote would of been red. As a Diegan, I'm sick of some of the stupid laws this state passes. But the California bashing is stupid. Most of the fresh produce comes from the central valley. If you love almonds and pistachios (and most other nuts) come from California. The two largest concentration per capita cities of the US Military are in California. Largest percentage of unicorn companies come from California. Even if the rest of the US voted to allow for it, it would idiotic for California to leave the Union.
Last edited:
Whach
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,244
That's because any form of dissent is usually stamped down upon and pro Putin propaganda is all that is broadcast from state owned media. Opposition is met with repercussion. However, most Russians are aware of the fud, but propaganda is propaganda and one daren't say otherwise....
Nobified[H]
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,095
It is okay, let them leave so we can conquer them military and reduce the liberal populace. Once conquered, we can clean the state and leave the honest hard working folks alone. To ensure the state will never rise up again, we would cleanup the institutions and promote freedom policies.
If you wanted to get serious, the root problems are people's morals and leftist institutions dumbing down the populace. California has so much potential but under the policies of leftist and pro communist grip.
It is really sad to see these things.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
Presidents impact on congressional term limits: ZERO
Presidential impact on lobbying limits: ZERO (well maybe negative if you consider Citizens United)
The president can't do jack for either of those. Term limits for congress can only happen at either the state level or via constitutional amendment (which is basically state lvl).
And as far as lobbyists go, Trumps team has been and will continue to be filled with lobbyists.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,753
Just because the president doesn't have the explicit power to do something doesn't mean he can't push an agenda through. Just look at Obamacare.
OR break up California into two states, North and South.
That map is meaningless without context.
If a state provides no services whatsoever, odds are it would be very solvent, hence, meaningless map.
Nobified[H]
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,095
I would support this and made sure that pro freedom policies were in the area where people want to be successful and off gov't tit. The other liberal side would be on their own and starved off via embargo. I am sorry, I hate liberals because your policies have failed world wide. The only reason Liberal succeed in other countries are small populace or large populace like China with Strict communist controls. Stealing other people's money has never been a sound policy.
Don't get me wrong, I will listen to what Liberals have to say. The problem is, you will need to provide proof that your policy will work and not incurred debt.
It would be easier to push the Earth out of its orbit than to push term limits on Congress. It's the most impossible campaign promise ever made in US history.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,753
True that. Can still hope though.
What part of "intolerant" did you miss/ignore? If you think you're justified in insulting someone simply for holding views you disagree with, you are not just a bigot, you are an unapologetic bigot. You can have no concept of what bigotry is if you cannot first practice tolerance.
rezerekted
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
- Messages
- 3,051
Did any of the Hillarybots read any of the wikileaks emails? I think not.
Couple of random thoughts after reading almost all of this thread...
1. The US Constitution prohibits breaking states up into smaller states. (Lincoln "creating" West Virginia was unconstitutional.) There are obvious reasons for this. Article IV, Section 3. (Reading the Constitution should be required in US schools. Amazingly, it is not. How many have read Marx?)
2. The electoral college was not created, as one poster said, because our founders "feared" democracy. Rather, they knew that pure democracy never works. It devolves into mob rule. Think about it... If you need historic examples, you need to re-assess your education and determine if you were merely indoctrinated.
3. Secession is an interesting idea. Enough so, that it was tried once. Perform a mental exercise...a "what if". Let liberals pick how to divide America in half. Either North/South or East/West. Remember as a kid, whoever cuts it in half, the other kid gets first choice? Well, not this time. Let liberals choose which half they get. Then, pile them all into that half...and the conservatives into the other half. The one limit is that no liberal can come over to the other half, and vice-versa, for two generations. Live what you preach. Now, which side will enthusiastically say, "Yes!" to that? Liberals may get a little antsy when they realize they'd be stuck in their utopia. (Socialism is great until you run out of other peoples' money.) Remember that picture upstream of financial status of states? Yeah, the liberal states are all in financial trouble. There's a link there.
Like I said...some random thoughts.
1. The US Constitution prohibits breaking states up into smaller states. (Lincoln "creating" West Virginia was unconstitutional.) There are obvious reasons for this. Article IV, Section 3. (Reading the Constitution should be required in US schools. Amazingly, it is not. How many have read Marx?)
2. The electoral college was not created, as one poster said, because our founders "feared" democracy. Rather, they knew that pure democracy never works. It devolves into mob rule. Think about it... If you need historic examples, you need to re-assess your education and determine if you were merely indoctrinated.
3. Secession is an interesting idea. Enough so, that it was tried once. Perform a mental exercise...a "what if". Let liberals pick how to divide America in half. Either North/South or East/West. Remember as a kid, whoever cuts it in half, the other kid gets first choice? Well, not this time. Let liberals choose which half they get. Then, pile them all into that half...and the conservatives into the other half. The one limit is that no liberal can come over to the other half, and vice-versa, for two generations. Live what you preach. Now, which side will enthusiastically say, "Yes!" to that? Liberals may get a little antsy when they realize they'd be stuck in their utopia. (Socialism is great until you run out of other peoples' money.) Remember that picture upstream of financial status of states? Yeah, the liberal states are all in financial trouble. There's a link there.
Like I said...some random thoughts.
Palladium@SG
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2015
- Messages
- 283
Nah, MSM pounding your head every single day about how everything is wrong because your skin color is RGB 255 255 255 will never piss off the living fuck out of people.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
I've had a couple ignorant people say that the military and police can handle asymmetric warfare.
In truth, not really.
Sure, they know how to chase it underground. And they know how to track attacks AFTER THE FACT.
But, are they ready for a bunch of Lee Harvey Oswalds, Jack Rubys, Mark David Chapmans and John Hinkleys?
People with no history of this sort of thing self-actualizing?
Sure, it's kind of easy to tell the difference between a US soldier and some Afghan/Iraqi native.
How do you differentiate people back home in the US?
You don't. Or at least not very well.
And remember, California is leaning mostly anti-gun.
So what are they going to fight with? Bongs, dildos and weaponized cultural memes?
Master_shake_
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 17,794
Let's see --- They do have the biggest economy and most people in the US. They don't have nearly enough electricity or water to support themselves. They have a high debt problem and their social structure cost is very high. Their education system is ranked number # 40 (out of 50 - - Texas is ranked 21 by comparison). They do grow a huge amount of the fruits and vegetables in this country. They also have some of the largest ports around.
Overall there's plusses and minuses. Personally, I say good-riddance. We can shut down the water at the Arizona border and charge them a boat-load for the electricity they need. Then we could just irrigate Arizona and grow all the crops we needed. Heck, a lot of the farmland in California is desert. We have plenty more of that in the southwest US.Maybe we could make Californians get passports and visa's before entering the rest of the country????
is that anyway to talk about hollywood?
CaptNumbNutz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 24,969
I've said multiple times already in this thread that the Californians do not have the will to pull it off.
If it were Californian population numbers with the Texas rebellious spirit, they would have a tiny chance.The reality? They aren't even going to attempt to secede no matter how good their chances would or would not be. My point has always been if there is a will, you can fight and beat any military to a standstill no matter how lacking your forces are.
D
Deleted member 204526
Guest
If another secession were to happen, there would be no war to stop it. Despite a handful of bloodthirsty people on each side who jerk off at the thought of the other side getting mowed down by government forces, that simply wouldn't happen. The people as a whole do not have the stomach for it, and the US government's remaining legitimacy would be destroyed if it began slaughtering people.
What you would see would be very much akin to the USSR's dissolution.
What you would see would be very much akin to the USSR's dissolution.
Agree with all the negative crap said about California. ...and I am born, raised and living here now.
Grand irony is they practically just banned guns and ammo. Good luck trying to secede and defending against the Fed without weapons, you stupid hippies!
Grand irony is they practically just banned guns and ammo. Good luck trying to secede and defending against the Fed without weapons, you stupid hippies!
California is NOT running a surplus! We are massively in debt and had our bond rating cut for a reason. What left-wing rag did you read this nonsense on??
staknhalo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,924
No, the Federal Government just wouldn't allow them to secede, period. It would go like this:
California: "We're seceding!"
Fed: "No, you're not."
California: "We want to secede!"
Fed: "Don't care. The answer is no."
California: "Please?"
Fed: "No."
California: "Okay
"There's a reason it's called the 'United States' and not the 'Leave Anytime You Want States'.
Last edited:
LOL! Er... you are reading that chart upside down. Red states generally return more money in taxes than they take in. Blue states are the locusts of this country.
South Carolina (a very red state) returns ~$8 on an investment of ~$1 in taxpayer money.
The chart shows California returns less money than it takes in.
Understand what you are posting, next time.
South Carolina (a very red state) returns ~$8 on an investment of ~$1 in taxpayer money.
The chart shows California returns less money than it takes in.
Understand what you are posting, next time.
Lol.
You obviously don't seem.to understand how things actually work.
Red states are the ones who by and large take more federal money than they pay back in taxes, and blue states are generally those that pay back more than other take, keeping the union afloat
Here are the states rated by how many dollars they receive from the federal government per dollar they pay back.
View attachment 10336
California is in the top third of the chart, one of only 14 states that pays back more than it takes. (Note, Texas is not among them)
While there are some outliers, you'll find that mostly blue states are the "maker states" to use Fox News lingo, and red states tend to be the "taker states"...
Last edited:
![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1707758471){kind=avatar}
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,835
Nope you are wrong.
I linked the article it was taken from. You should read it.
They are talking about the return on investment each STATE gets for a dollar invested in the federal government.
Red states are on average the moocher states in that regard, whereas blue states are on average footing the bill.
And honestly, we don't mind doing it, we just wish they'd shut up about all the moochers on the dole, because it is pretty hypocritical.
Lol! Excellent turn of phrase. Thanks for that. Well done.
Moochers. The data is hidden behind "per capita" or "per dollar". If you look at how much other people get coerced by the government so their money goes elsewhere, the "per capita" listing is disingenuous. The simplest (most honest?) way of looking at it is to simply take the total federal revenues collected from a state and compare that to the total federal outlays bequeathed upon that state. Good luck trying to find THAT!!! This, from a government whose BLS lies about every fact and figure. (Check the history of "Shadow Stats .com". "Stats", not "States". The name "shadow" is not sinister. It is used in the manner of the British Parliament. The party out of power sets up a mirror image of the governing structure. Shadow Foreign Minister, etc. Shadowstats' founder is respected enough that Alan Greenspan was forced to address his website's information on one of the Fed Reserve quarterly announcements.)
I don't think we can fully determine how much a state receives. However, using Wikipedia (with whatever data biases it has and whatever factual errors it includes) gives a tax revenue in 2012 from California as $292 Millions. Wikipedia, unhelpfully, does not list other years. For federal expenditure, Wikipedia only has 2013. So, different years. Shrug. The California listing shows $343 Millions.
Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state
That means California received about $50,000,000 from other citizens across the country. (Using different years (adjust it for fed spending inflation of ~3%?), using simplistic numbers, etc.)
(Using the same methodology, Florida seems to have received $70,000,000 from other citizens across the country.)
Regardless, it is obvious that California cannot sustain its (deficit) spending at current levels without massive cash infusions. Looking at the 2013 California budget (do you THINK they make it easy to find totals? Lol...obfuscation and lies. Here's their website: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/home.php?selectedYear=2013-14) I used the 2013-2014 year. The total budget was about $90 Millions.
So...the state spends $90 Million a year, but relies on $50 Million of federal subsistence. (Or, "other peoples' money".) If you live in California, your taxes will double if you secede. What cost freedom, eh?
Final note: Cultural memes are important, as is the manipulation of the population. A good example is the story of Robin Hood. Ask folks what he was known for and the answer will be, "Took from the Rich and gave to the Poor." That's a lie. That started gaining currency in the mid-60's. And, it was done on purpose (lying, that is). Let's look at Robin Hood. He came to prominence because the Good King Richard (the Lionheart) had left the Kingdom. His brother, the Evil King John was imposing ruinous taxation upon the people. Robin Hood took the ill-gotten taxes from the collectors and gave it back to the citizens.
Think about how subtle that shift was. From "giving the taxes back to the people", to "takes from the rich and gives to the poor".
I found your link. They didn't post a source. Only "wallethub data." ...and where does wallethub get their data?? Not even sure the data is correct or they are interpreting their own graph correctly without x y-axis labels. Maybe it's this one, but this supports neither position: https://wallethub.com/edu/state-taxpayer-roi-report/3283/
Last edited:
There isn't a nice way to respond to you comparing revenue from one year against expenditure in a different year and shrugging it off like it's a minor issue with your data set. This "analysis" isn't anything other than garbage in, garbage out.
In 2008, I was laughing (tragically) at the dunces on the right that were talking about secession in places like Texas. In 2016, I find myself laughing at the dunces on the left that are talking about secession in my own state.
In 2008, I found myself saying, "Holy shit! Obama really won?" In 2016, I find myself saying, "Holy shit! Trump really won?"
Obama as president-elect had a softer, more pragmatic tone, but once he got elected, he quickly grew fed up with Congress and took a more combative approach in his words; the right succeeded in undermining much of what he hoped to accomplish.
Trump as president-elect has a softer, more pragmatic tone than when he was campaigning, but he is already re-positioning his stance on many of the issues that he was very outspoken about before. In a year we'll know who really got elected. Though, history seems to be repeating itself on much shorter cycles lately.
I remember Schwarzenegger said all these great things to get elected, and convinced me to vote to recall Davis, but once he took office, he quickly realized that things are much more complicated than most of us outsiders (including himself up to that point) realize; he ended up not getting a whole lot done.
In 2008, I found myself saying, "Holy shit! Obama really won?" In 2016, I find myself saying, "Holy shit! Trump really won?"
Obama as president-elect had a softer, more pragmatic tone, but once he got elected, he quickly grew fed up with Congress and took a more combative approach in his words; the right succeeded in undermining much of what he hoped to accomplish.
Trump as president-elect has a softer, more pragmatic tone than when he was campaigning, but he is already re-positioning his stance on many of the issues that he was very outspoken about before. In a year we'll know who really got elected. Though, history seems to be repeating itself on much shorter cycles lately.
I remember Schwarzenegger said all these great things to get elected, and convinced me to vote to recall Davis, but once he took office, he quickly realized that things are much more complicated than most of us outsiders (including himself up to that point) realize; he ended up not getting a whole lot done.
Well, there is. I stated that you could modify it by using a 3% change in spending assumption. Shrug. I don't care. The money is hidden. Wikipedia is one of the worst sites for factual data, but that was the ONLY site I found which actually had tabulated totals...as bad as they are.
I'm curious why you attack my post rather than take the more educated approach and wonder why it is so hard to find accurate data on government spending and taxation?
LOL...Only if I could also see the Clinton Foundation's books. (C'mon: Bill Clinton claimed deductions for donating his used underwear. Seriously? How low can you go?) Regardless of that, your link was dead.
Reminds me of last election's saying: ""You're saying I should be more concerned with Mitt Romney's taxes than with how much of mine Obama wants to take." I don't care how rich/poor Trump is/was. I want a flat tax rate and a government which is not filled with a class of people who enrich themselves on the backs of the working man. Should be simple... Maybe (keeping this on track) that's what the California secession movement thinks they'll get. Or not.
I don't wonder why it's hard to find accurate data on government spending and taxation because it isn't difficult to find if you use the correct tools and know where to look. It's not very difficult. In academic research, we cite our sources and interested parties can verify the information for themselves. If you look at the bottom of that chart, it will have citations. You can look them up, read them, and within them you will find more citations. Eventually you will find yourself with the primary data in your hands. Taxation and public spending is public information and you don't need any secret codes to obtain it. Simply follow those citations if you want to see how they derived their data. You can determine for yourself whether you agree with their methodology, as I've disagreed with yours.
You claim Wikipedia is the worst site for factual data, yet use it as a source anyway, pull numbers from one year for money in, use numbers from a different year for money out, and then try and massage it even further by claiming you can simply assume a 3% spending adjustment. Your methodology is rife with errors. You don't have any evidence for the conclusion you came to. In reality, you formed a conclusion apriori, cobbled together data that doesn't have any relationship to your conclusion, and then stood back pleased like you had demonstrated your point with math.
You claim Wikipedia is the worst site for factual data, yet use it as a source anyway, pull numbers from one year for money in, use numbers from a different year for money out, and then try and massage it even further by claiming you can simply assume a 3% spending adjustment. Your methodology is rife with errors. You don't have any evidence for the conclusion you came to. In reality, you formed a conclusion apriori, cobbled together data that doesn't have any relationship to your conclusion, and then stood back pleased like you had demonstrated your point with math.
You seem to have an axe to grind. I stated my sources. I linked to my sources. I stated how bad they were. Then I stated that it works for ballpark numbers.
The evidence for my conclusions? LOL. You're jesting, yes? My conclusion was that California based about 1/2 of its budget on federal funds. That was supported by the =bad= website data. Now, if it's really 42% or 50.1% or anything else, I don't care. You do? No one else even attempted to start using data...bad though mine (as I admitted = and pointed out =) was. I got a ballpark number.
Instead of being such a tool, go ahead and find some real data for fiscal year 2015. Ironclad. With sources. I'll wait.
Meantime, we all know that California needs the federal government to fund their budget...and is still running deficits.
My maths are correct, by the way.
I have an axe to grind against erroneous claims and conclusions based on faulty methodology and that doesn't make me a tool.
That you would throw a fit over someone pointing out that your conclusions aren't supported by the data you're using, and then to somehow use the fact that you know you're misusing data as some sort of shield against criticism of your analysis, is pathetic.
I take it you no longer live in the bay area, otherwise you'd realize they really are that insane.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,753
Just parts of the Bay Area really. Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco are the worst offenders. I don't come across many of those nuts in the Fremont and San Mateo area.