Reactions of Trumpians

[fraurosena]

@clueliss, you may be afraid of civil war if your state and others were to secede, but it's not a forgone conclusion that it would ever come to war this time. The Civil War was fought because the southern states were economical powerhouses, much more so than the northern states, who had a lot to lose financially with the southern states leaving the Union -- a new and fresh-faced Union that needed stability in order to survive. Today's situation is completely reversed though. The states threatening secession are (generally speaking) much poorer. Why would the other states want to keep them if they want to leave? May be they'll simply say: "Goodbye, and good riddance! Don't let the door hit you on your way out..."

Still, even though there might not be a war, it doesn't help the tough situation you'd be in if they do secede. Frankly though, I don't think they'll do more than threaten to do it. They'd be losing all those nice federal funds keeping them afloat if they actually went through with it. And those trumpian politicians would lose all their nice cushy jobs...

[47of74]

42 minutes ago, clueliss said:

I’m concerned because I live in a state that supported the Texas lawsuit.  With idiots in Texas now babbling about succession, are they going to blindly hop in board that too?  Am I going to end up in the wrong side of a civil war?  I want to say I’m over thinking and what have you, but we’re caught in 2020 bizzaro world here.

Up here in Iowa #CovidKim wanted the Attorney General Tom Miller to join the lawsuit but he said no to that.  She refused to allow him to join a amicus brief opposing what Texas was doing.   (Here in Iowa the attorney general made an agreement with Kimmy that he would seek her permission to join suits like this and she agreed not to support the GOP legislature hamstringing the AG office like they did in Wisconsin).  That's why Iowa wasn't state number 18 to do sign up for this bullshit.

[church_of_dog]

43 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

Exactly what portion of California are they trying to sever? ? They do have arrogance aplenty.

This sfgate article  

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/New-California-State-amicus-brief-Supreme-Court-TX-15795009.php

implies it would be most of the rural part of the state.  

Map in this article: 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/01/16/new-california-declares-independence-california-bid-become-51st-state/1036681001/

Edited December 12, 2020 by church_of_dog

[Coconut Flan]

Those twidgets think San Diego will join them?  They've lost more brain cells than I thought.

[Emma]

The state of Jefferson

https://soj51.org/

has been trying to secede from California for many many years. First I’ve heard of new California, though.

[clueliss]

That sounds like the periodic threat of Western Kansas leaving Kansas.  (Guess where the money is in Kansas?  The NE part of the state.  ). 

[church_of_dog]

Yes, the State of Jefferson is a real movement (its flags fly all over my area) but as far as I know they're not currently taking any legal action to try to realize the formal state.  It's become more of a trendy attitude than anything else.  This New California is something different.

I've long been a fan of both the concept of splitting California as well as the history of various past attempts.  However I definitely don't share the right-wing views of many of the current supporters.  I just think California is too big in both geography and population to be governed as just one state.

But as we all know, the economics are crucial.  The geography of State of Jefferson has no major economy other than some timber and water.  Tourism a bit, but not huge (depends on whether Tahoe area is included, I guess).  Health care the same.  Beef production ditto.  Even before the environmental movement thankfully reduced output of both timber and water, I doubt this would be enough to support a state economy.  (I could be entirely wrong though -- I have no idea how several states support themselves).

Edited December 12, 2020 by church_of_dog

[Audrey2]

Maybe one of you who live in California can clarify this for me, but I was surprised to see San Jose included in New California. That strikes me as an area that would still be quite liberal if not as liberal as San Francisco. Is this an economic reason because of the wealth of San Jose that New California wants to claim it while neutering them politically, or would San Jose fit in more politically with New California?

[Ozlsn]

8 hours ago, formergothardite said:

My crazy cousin has declared that Trump always planned to lose all these cases because he needed to lose so he could declare martial law so he can hold a new election and win. They are going to lose their damn minds on January 20th when Trump isn’t president. She and her friends absolutely believe Trump has won. 

So the plan so far goes:

1. Lose election.

2. Start litigation in multiple states to overturn result.

3. Lose those cases.

4. Appeal to the Supreme Court

5. Get told to go away 

6. Declare martial law

7. Hold new election?!?!?!?

That is (a) the most convoluted plan I have ever seen, and (b) begs the question of why they would bother with step 7.

[Ali]

1 hour ago, Audrey2 said:

Maybe one of you who live in California can clarify this for me, but I was surprised to see San Jose included in New California. That strikes me as an area that would still be quite liberal if not as liberal as San Francisco. Is this an economic reason because of the wealth of San Jose that New California wants to claim it while neutering them politically, or would San Jose fit in more politically with New California?

Yes, San Jose would not fit in with New California politically.

[Ozlsn]

2 hours ago, church_of_dog said:

I just think California is too big in both geography and population to be governed as just one state.

I had to go look up how big it was (I know it's one of the larger US states, but I'm never sure what that equates to in terms of something I have a better understanding of - for any other Australians wanting a short cut it's just under half the size of NSW but with 5 times the population. In European terms France is 1.5 times the size with about 40% more population.) Personally I think it is governable in both size and population terms, but how that is done probably could be reviewed to see whether there are changes that would reduce resentment. Then again given the current "the only true winner is the one I voted for and I won't listen to anyone I don't agree with entirely" mentality in certain sections... yeah maybe splitting into smaller segments is better. 

7 hours ago, Botkinetti said:

These people remind me of doomsday preppers. I don’t know how they are going to cope on Inauguration Day and the days following. At some point rational people have to accept that their side lost and all the angry tweeting, useless marching and anguished prayers haven’t changed anything.

I am afraid for your country. These believers are far from rational and it seems they are all being provoked and pushed to violence.

At this point I am starting to wonder if martial law will be declared. Can the President do that unilaterally? Who enforces it - the actual military, the national guard, someone else? Are there mandatory sunset clauses? 

[Audrey2]

13 minutes ago, Ali said:

Yes, San Jose would not fit in with New California politically.

Thank you- I was in San Jose 2 years ago and didn't think it fit with the New California concept. It sounds like an economic and technology grab to me.

[church_of_dog]

1 hour ago, Audrey2 said:

Maybe one of you who live in California can clarify this for me, but I was surprised to see San Jose included in New California. That strikes me as an area that would still be quite liberal if not as liberal as San Francisco. Is this an economic reason because of the wealth of San Jose that New California wants to claim it while neutering them politically, or would San Jose fit in more politically with New California?

This surprises me too.  I'm not sure whether SJ is a bastion of liberality or not (in spite of that being my hometown!) but what makes no sense to me is separating San Jose from the surrounding towns.  I know all urban areas have boundaries through them of various municipal sorts, but "Silicon Valley" kind of operates as one entity, including parts of San Jose, Santa Clara, Cupertino, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto/Stanford, and several other small cities.  

Not to mention the range of areas people live in and commute into Silicon Valley from.  I don't see any purpose to making a state line between, nor can I think of a compelling enough reason to do so even if unrelated to how the tech companies interact.

That said, there is a little voice in the back of my head telling me that there is something conservative about or in San Jose.  Maybe as simple as one particular billionaire or company who sympathizes?

Edited December 12, 2020 by church_of_dog

[47of74]

Of course most Branch Trumpvidians won’t listen. 

Quote

The group Republicans for the Rule of Law have released a new ad set to air on the conservative networks Fox News and Newsmax warning voters not to donate to President Donald Trump's "Official Election Defense Fund" now that all 50 states have certified their election results, all but guaranteeing that President-elect Joe Biden inauguration.

"Attention! Consumer protection alert!" the ad begins, police sirens blaring through its one-minute length. "Beware of a new scam from Donald Trump targeting 2020 voters requesting money to be used for an Official Election Defense Fund."

"Do not be fooled," the ad continues. "Joe Biden will be the next president of the United States. The election has been certified by all 50 states. Over 50 Trump lawsuits and counting have been thrown out. Attorney General Bill Barr announced the Justice Department found no widespread voter fraud. Don't get fooled by Donald Trump's post-election scam."

 

[clueliss]

And now they’re threatening to destroy the GOP because it didn’t help Trump enough 

 

[Cartmann99]

3 hours ago, church_of_dog said:

This surprises me too.  I'm not sure whether SJ is a bastion of liberality or not (in spite of that being my hometown!) but what makes no sense to me is separating San Jose from the surrounding towns.  I know all urban areas have boundaries through them of various municipal sorts, but "Silicon Valley" kind of operates as one entity, including parts of San Jose, Santa Clara, Cupertino, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto/Stanford, and several other small cities.  

Not to mention the range of areas people live in and commute into Silicon Valley from.  I don't see any purpose to making a state line between, nor can I think of a compelling enough reason to do so even if unrelated to how the tech companies interact.

That said, there is a little voice in the back of my head telling me that there is something conservative about or in San Jose.  Maybe as simple as one particular billionaire or company who sympathizes?

If California did split up, what's the plan for the Channel Islands?

[church_of_dog]

11 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

If California did split up, what's the plan for the Channel Islands?

Interesting question.  There have been a variety of split-the-state proposed maps so I can't say they're all the same.  But I suppose they would go with Santa Barbara/Oxnard?

I must say, I need to revoke my earlier statement that California is "too big to manage" as one state.  I know that's not true. 

I think my real interest is more along the lines of being a geography geek and thinking "if it's gonna happen anyway, let it happen during my lifetime, because it would be cool to watch the process."

And everyone thinks their little corner is the best spot, right?

Edited December 13, 2020 by church_of_dog

[Cartmann99]

More on Lady Maga:

Spoiler

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

8 hours ago, clueliss said:

That sounds like the periodic threat of Western Kansas leaving Kansas.  (Guess where the money is in Kansas?  The NE part of the state.  ). 

When the dems finally took unified control of Virginia in 2019, some of the ruby red western part of the state explored leaving Virginia and moving to West Virginia. Yeah, good luck with that. West Virginia is dirt poor. Virginia has money, thanks to Northern Virginia. Just like so many states, the poor areas piss and moan about the ebil libruls, but they're quite happy to take our money.

[livinginthelight]

5 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

If California did split up, what's the plan for the Channel Islands?

The Channel Islands are technically under the National Park Service. But they are directly west of Ventura and Santa Barbara counties so would probably go with those (liberal) areas.

Regarding San Jose, I'm thinking whoever made the New California map realized that the great majority of the wealth is along the coast and they are just trying to find a way to grab some wealthier areas. I don't think a split would ever happen though. At least as "New California" is envisioned. As much as I would love to say good riddance to some of the red areas, they know that we support them with our tax money. It's a lot of noise but I don't think they mean it.

[AmazonGrace]

Wild thread about Trumpy ecumeny

[Becky]

9 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

More on Lady Maga:

  Hide contents

 

 

Holy crap, that's some cognitive dissonance right there.  

[GreyhoundFan]

[clueliss]

Well, it’s like this, you can call for it, but when Trump has pissed off the military across the board, they aren’t likely to “help” him out, now are they?

[Ozlsn]

18 minutes ago, clueliss said:

Well, it’s like this, you can call for it, but when Trump has pissed off the military across the board, they aren’t likely to “help” him out, now are they?

Also when you have everyone except this batshit group acknowledging that the elections were free, fair, transparent and not corrupt then the military leadership are basically going to stay out of it. Even if there were actual, valid concerns about the elections I think they would stay out of it because there are courts etc which deal with this.