Split California

Politics, Religion, Salsa Recipes, etc. Everything you shouldn't bring up at your Uncle's house.

Split California

Postby Sox-n-hawks » Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:49 am

User avatar
Sox-n-hawks
Legacy
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:27 am
Location: Pacific NW

Re: Split California

Postby c_hawkbob » Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:34 am

#wingnuts.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Split California

Postby burrrton » Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:43 am

1. I think both sides would be worse off.
2. Shouldn't this be in Off Topic rather than Think Tank?
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Split California

Postby Seahawks4Ever » Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:35 am

Maybe Texas should be split up in to 4 separate states...
Seahawks4Ever
Legacy
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:56 pm

Re: Split California

Postby trents » Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:23 pm

Some are suggesting breaking CA into three parts. The disparity between the world view of most rural/small town California folks and most of those who live in the big urban areas of SF and LA is pretty big and small town/rural Californians are tired of the urbanites controlling politics and making decisions for everyone else in the state. I could be wrong but I don't think the same is nearly so true in TX.
trents
Legacy
 
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:26 pm
Location: Centralia, WA

Re: Split California

Postby RiverDog » Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:37 pm

You need to ask Yoder or Mak to move this topic to the OT forum.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Split California

Postby yoder » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:29 pm

Moved to it's right place. :)
User avatar
yoder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 307
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:55 pm

Re: Split California

Postby RiverDog » Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:08 am

Thanks for moving the thread, Yoder.

Since I'm a life long resident of WA, I am not familiar with CA politics and thus not sure if the situation in WA is any different than that in the Golden State. But for as long as I can remember, there's been talk of eastern Washington splitting off from the western half for much the same reasons as those expressed in CA. I live in eastern Washington, and the biggest problem for us on the dry side would be a loss of tax revenue. One of the most dramatic examples of this loss of revenue is the highway/gas tax. With many more miles of highway per capita to maintain than the western half, we here in E. Washington would have to raise what is already one of the highest gas taxes in the nation to keep our highways in their current condition. Schools, parks, and other public services would suffer similar funding issues due to the disparity in population/revenue sources.

For the west side, they would lose quite a bit of clout in national politics as they'd be lopping off 2 Congressional districts and nearly 2 million voters.

Bad idea for us here in WA, and I would be very surprised if CA was any different.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Split California

Postby idhawkman » Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:05 am

California may be able to put it on the ballot this year for their elections but it will never pass the US congress since no senator will vote to dilute their own vote.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: Split California

Postby RiverDog » Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:59 pm

idhawkman wrote:California may be able to put it on the ballot this year for their elections but it will never pass the US congress since no senator will vote to dilute their own vote.


Senators would only be diluting their votes by 1%, so I don't think that would factor into it at all. IMO what would factor into it would be the likely political make-up of the new state. The proposed new state within California is mostly rural, which means conservative, so you could count on the Republicans lining up to approve it and the Dems fighting tooth and nail against it.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Split California

Postby idhawkman » Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:19 pm

idhawkman wrote:California may be able to put it on the ballot this year for their elections but it will never pass the US congress since no senator will vote to dilute their own vote.
RiverDog wrote:
Senators would only be diluting their votes by 1%, so I don't think that would factor into it at all. IMO what would factor into it would be the likely political make-up of the new state. The proposed new state within California is mostly rural, which means conservative, so you could count on the Republicans lining up to approve it and the Dems fighting tooth and nail against it.

The map I saw was for California to be split into 3 states creating 4 new Senators - roughly 4%. Since the House is already determined by districts and numbers of poeple it shouldn't effect the number of house members though.

The map I saw also shows that the northern California state would include S.F. which would definitely keep it in the Dems pocket. California was mostly the L.A. area including HollyWeird, Beverly Hills, etc. which also would be squarely in the Dems pocket. The only one maybe up for grabs would be Southern California but from what was reported the lines are such that it would definitely stay in the Dems pocket.

The current balance of power in the Senate wouldn't vote for ratification based on the makeup of the states now and I don't think the "fly-over" states would ever allow more power to be pulled to either coast. I'm not positive but I believe it would take 67 senators to approve any split in the state which I don't see happening for quite some time.

Additionally, I don't think any of the Senators (Dem or Republican) would want to split up their lobby money with other votes that could reduce their fundraising leverage.

I think it is an exercise in futility by the Californians and wishful thinking that they can influence/rule over the fly-over states.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: Split California

Postby RiverDog » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:06 pm

idhawkman wrote:The map I saw was for California to be split into 3 states creating 4 new Senators - roughly 4%. Since the House is already determined by districts and numbers of poeple it shouldn't effect the number of house members though.

The map I saw also shows that the northern California state would include S.F. which would definitely keep it in the Dems pocket. California was mostly the L.A. area including HollyWeird, Beverly Hills, etc. which also would be squarely in the Dems pocket. The only one maybe up for grabs would be Southern California but from what was reported the lines are such that it would definitely stay in the Dems pocket.

The current balance of power in the Senate wouldn't vote for ratification based on the makeup of the states now and I don't think the "fly-over" states would ever allow more power to be pulled to either coast. I'm not positive but I believe it would take 67 senators to approve any split in the state which I don't see happening for quite some time.

Additionally, I don't think any of the Senators (Dem or Republican) would want to split up their lobby money with other votes that could reduce their fundraising leverage.

I think it is an exercise in futility by the Californians and wishful thinking that they can influence/rule over the fly-over states.


You're correct about the current proposal having the state split by 3. Nevertheless, IMO diluting Senators power by such a small percentage won't make that big of a difference if it ever came down to a vote by Congress. The big difference will be in which party stands to gain the most. Being that CA is currently one of the bluest of blue states, the R's can't help but benefit from splitting the state. It would be interesting to run past close elections (Trump-Clinton, Bush-Gore, Bush-Kerry, Kennedy-Nixon) using the results in an electoral map with CA split into 3's.

There is no provision in the Constitution that prescribes a voting process. Article IV Sec. III does speak to statehood, but it merely states that the "consent" of Congress is required. As a rule, consent means nothing more than a simple majority.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Split California

Postby burrrton » Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:55 pm

Being that CA is currently one of the bluest of blue states, the R's can't help but benefit from splitting the state.


Hm- I'm not so sure. If they were splitting it in two, maybe- three, though?

Dems would effectively be doubling their guaranteed influence in the Senate (2 of the 3 new "states" will still vote 90% Dem) while tossing a bone with the 3rd state that (from what I've read) may or may not vote Republican (although they're certainly more conservative than SanFran/LA).

So they'd be increasing the size of the Senate by 4 seats, 2 of which will be reliably blue and 2 of which will be only reddish. It's still Cali-freaking-fornia for heaven's sake, and the border won't be gerrymandered to guarantee 1-party rule.

I don't see that as a slam-dunk for Republicans (or maybe I'm missing something in it all because I've only paid passing attention to it, if I paid any at all, because it's never, ever going to happen).
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Split California

Postby RiverDog » Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:10 pm

burrrton wrote:Hm- I'm not so sure. If they were splitting it in two, maybe- three, though?

Dems would effectively be doubling their guaranteed influence in the Senate (2 of the 3 new "states" will still vote 90% Dem) while tossing a bone with the 3rd state that (from what I've read) may or may not vote Republican (although they're certainly more conservative than SanFran/LA).

So they'd be increasing the size of the Senate by 4 seats, 2 of which will be reliably blue and 2 of which will be only reddish. It's still Cali-freaking-fornia for heaven's sake, and the border won't be gerrymandered to guarantee 1-party rule.

I don't see that as a slam-dunk for Republicans (or maybe I'm missing something in it all because I've only paid passing attention to it, if I paid any at all, because it's never, ever going to happen).



As far as Senatorial politics are concerned, it's less certain as to which party would benefit. But the electoral map in Presidential elections would definitely favor the R's. No longer would the D's be able to garner all 43 electoral votes. Congressional districts are fixed at 435. But you're right, we're debating a moot point. It will never happen.

Nevertheless, I'd like to see some hypothetical results ran from past elections using the proposed split and see what difference that would have made in the electoral college. I'm willing to bet that the R's would come out ahead.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Split California

Postby Aseahawkfan » Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:50 pm

If I were a Californian able to carve out a wedge for a more conservative state, I'd support it.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 7327
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Split California

Postby burrrton » Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:14 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:If I were a Californian able to carve out a wedge for a more conservative state, I'd support it.


Yeah, if you're not San-Fran-bananas-liberal, I would think a state where it might actually be worth voting for a POTUS candidate would be appealing.

As it is now, there's no reason to even bother checking the box (and I think many don't).
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Split California

Postby Aseahawkfan » Fri Jun 15, 2018 12:58 am

burrrton wrote:Yeah, if you're not San-Fran-bananas-liberal, I would think a state where it might actually be worth voting for a POTUS candidate would be appealing.

As it is now, there's no reason to even bother checking the box (and I think many don't).


Same way in Washington. The hippy liberal bunch have so much power in Washington now, we'll be rich and poor soon enough. Either on the state or paying them in taxes to keep the poor herded into other areas just like always happens when the socialists take too much in taxes and fees creating the haves and have nots rather than creating an environment where the productive can own things without having to pay just for doing so.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 7327
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Split California

Postby RiverDog » Fri Jun 15, 2018 5:43 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:Same way in Washington. The hippy liberal bunch have so much power in Washington now, we'll be rich and poor soon enough. Either on the state or paying them in taxes to keep the poor herded into other areas just like always happens when the socialists take too much in taxes and fees creating the haves and have nots rather than creating an environment where the productive can own things without having to pay just for doing so.



That's why eastern Washington has wanted to split away from the western half for as long as I can remember. WA hasn't failed to go Democratic in presidential elections since 1984 when Reagan took every state but one, and we haven't had an R Governor since the early 80's (John Spellman, who rode Reagan's coattails in '81). The last R Senator was Slade Gorton 20 years ago. The state is as blue as they come.

Puget Sound liberals are so far out of touch with the issues over here that they might as well have their capital on Mars. The latest nutty proposal was a carbon tax, and although it was rejected thanks in no small part to E. Washington legislators, they'll cram it down our throats sooner or later.

Although I'd like nothing better than to poke an eye at those dirt foot hippies and separate ourselves from them, it would be an economic disaster for us over here. With no large urban center to provide us with highly paid workers and high value real estate to support state revenue and large swaths of low density areas comprised of relatively low paying agricultural jobs as our primary tax base, we'd be no better off than Arkansas, Mississippi, or West Virginia. Schools, highways, and other public services would soon start to crumble.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Split California

Postby c_hawkbob » Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:26 am

Having lived in both rural and urban communities it seems to me as though both groups are equally clueless about the issues facing the other. City folk just b**** about it less.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Split California

Postby RiverDog » Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:35 am

c_hawkbob wrote:Having lived in both rural and urban communities it seems to me as though both groups are equally clueless about the issues facing the other. City folk just b**** about it less.


The difference is that the rural folks don't, or rather can't, dictate to urban communities, so urban communities don't have anything to b**** about. But urban communities can and do dictate to us rural folks, which is why us rural folks b**** about it.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Split California

Postby burrrton » Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:50 am

And if you think the urban/Dem faction of this country doesn't do its fair share of btching, I don't think you've been paying attention.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Split California

Postby burrrton » Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:09 am

The state [WA] is as blue as they come.


This is true in the end, but I'm reminded of the 2004 Governor election**.

Also, people tend to forget that 'landslides' outside of states like CA and NY means (typically) a few percentage points over 50- this country is pretty evenly divided, at least by that measure, with CA/NY being outliers.

**We actually did 'elect' a Republican that year (twice, in fact) but there was not one but TWO recounts, the second by *hand*, and (surprise!) they kept finding boxes of ballots in people's trunks (that's literally what they claimed), and (surprise surprise!) every recount handed Gregoire more votes and she won by something like 100 votes.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Split California

Postby c_hawkbob » Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:14 am

Urban and rural does not equal red and blue. There are plenty of both in each demographic.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Split California

Postby RiverDog » Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:22 am

c_hawkbob wrote:Urban and rural does not equal red and blue. There are plenty of both in each demographic.



Of course, there's diversity in both groups, but as a general rule, urban=blue, rural=red. Just take a look at a map of any POTUS election, broken down by county, in the past 30 years if you need evidence. Here's one:

https://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/

The only blue county in E. Washington is Whitman County, home of Washington State University, so it's an obvious anamoly.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Split California

Postby RiverDog » Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:28 am

burrrton wrote:This is true in the end, but I'm reminded of the 2004 Governor election**.

Also, people tend to forget that 'landslides' outside of states like CA and NY means (typically) a few percentage points over 50- this country is pretty evenly divided, at least by that measure, with CA/NY being outliers.

**We actually did 'elect' a Republican that year (twice, in fact) but there was not one but TWO recounts, the second by *hand*, and (surprise!) they kept finding boxes of ballots in people's trunks (that's literally what they claimed), and (surprise surprise!) every recount handed Gregoire more votes and she won by something like 100 votes.


Yea, I remember that election, with uncounted ballots in Norm Rice's King County that just kept popping up. I wouldn't go so far as to accuse them of stuffing ballot boxes, but they were damn sure incompetent on the same level as Florida's 2000 election boner.

That was the last statewide race that was even close....almost 14 years ago. All the rest have been virtual slam dunks for the Dems even though some are extremely weak. I had a good friend who happens to be a flaming Demo lib tell me after he attended a meeting where Sen. Maria Cantwell was a guest speaker "God, she's dumb." You could run "fill in the blank" for the Democratic candidate and they'd beat anyone the R's could put up.
Last edited by RiverDog on Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Split California

Postby burrrton » Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:44 am

I don't get that excited about it, but if it *wasn't* crooked, they did their damndest to make it appear so.

Also, I'd be a little pissed if I was a KingCo voter- how many voters' ballots go uncounted in the back of some a-hole's Tercel every election??
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Split California

Postby RiverDog » Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:47 am

burrrton wrote:I don't get that excited about it, but if it *wasn't* crooked, they did their damndest to make it appear so.

Also, I'd be a little pissed if I was a KingCo voter- how many voters' ballots go uncounted in the back of some a-hole's Tercel every election??


That election was one of the reasons why they went to 100% vote-by-mail, something I objected to. But it did correct some of the problems that arose out of the 2004 Gubernatorial election.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Split California

Postby idhawkman » Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:55 am

burrrton wrote:
This is true in the end, but I'm reminded of the 2004 Governor election**.

Also, people tend to forget that 'landslides' outside of states like CA and NY means (typically) a few percentage points over 50- this country is pretty evenly divided, at least by that measure, with CA/NY being outliers.

**We actually did 'elect' a Republican that year (twice, in fact) but there was not one but TWO recounts, the second by *hand*, and (surprise!) they kept finding boxes of ballots in people's trunks (that's literally what they claimed), and (surprise surprise!) every recount handed Gregoire more votes and she won by something like 100 votes.

So that's when they quit recounting, right? Otherwise, there'd have been another trunk found somewhere....
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: Split California

Postby burrrton » Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:01 am

idhawkman wrote:So that's when they quit recounting, right? Otherwise, there'd have been another trunk found somewhere....


To be fair, I think that's all the law allowed, but Rossi tried to sue for another one, which was rejected by the courts.

The galling part of it was Gregoire hollered for a recount after the initial, hollered for another recount after that, then when she finally had more votes, scolded Rossi for not accepting the outcome of an election.

I remember literally laughing out loud when I read that. :)
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Split California

Postby RiverDog » Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:44 am

Didn't Rossi challenge some votes, claiming that they were felons? I think that's what the court rejected.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Split California

Postby burrrton » Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:20 am

RiverDog wrote:Didn't Rossi challenge some votes, claiming that they were felons? I think that's what the court rejected.


Right- same outcome, though (no third recount).
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Split California

Postby RiverDog » Fri Jun 15, 2018 12:37 pm

burrrton wrote:Right- same outcome, though (no third recount).


Actually Rossi wasn't arguing for another re-count, he wanted a re-vote due to concerns over the integrity of the election. A lower court said no, citing a lack of evidence. Rossi opted not to take it to the state Supreme Court and conceded 8 months after the election.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Split California

Postby burrrton » Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:11 pm

Actually Rossi wasn't arguing for another re-count, he wanted a re-vote due to concerns over the integrity of the election. A lower court said no, citing a lack of evidence.


Ah- that's right. Thanks for the correction.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Split California

Postby Aseahawkfan » Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:32 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:Having lived in both rural and urban communities it seems to me as though both groups are equally clueless about the issues facing the other. City folk just b**** about it less.


You been in Seattle lately? The protests here are insane. We had guys laying down in the middle of the road protesting the building of a youth prison. We had a head tax. Then a head tax repeal. Then the socialist member of the Seattle City Council protested the head tax repeal and encouraged lawyers to sue the city for repealing the head tax. Then we have Antifa here all the time protesting business, while they coordinate with cell phones on networks built by the businesses they protest. Then we had people sitting on top of Chase bank protesting whale killing that the bank maybe loaned money to. Then anti and pro-immigrant protests. It's really insane here.

C-bob, you don't live in Washington and haven't lived in Washington for a long while. I don't hear about rural folk protesting so often the disrupt traffic in the city often enough to make people late to work and drive them out of the city. The socialist member of the Seattle City Council literally state she wanted to take control of Boeing and Amazon because she thought her socialist party could do a better job running both companies.

You live in Kentucky? I bet you hear more bitching from the rural folks. But here in Seattle the city folk b**** far more than the rural folks protesting just about everything they can protest. It's stupid. We have an avowed socialist that preaches against Amazon and Big Business like some Communist elected to the Seattle City Council. It is really bad here right now. And businesses are starting to take measures to leave because of it. We have people right now in Seattle that have made Amazon, Microsoft, and Boeing into the Legion of Doom.

It used to be we had the pro-union Democrats. They were generally more reasonable and seemed like mostly normal folk. Seattle has been taken over by far left groups reaching San Francisco levels of crazy.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 7327
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Split California

Postby RiverDog » Sat Jun 16, 2018 5:26 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:You been in Seattle lately? The protests here are insane. We had guys laying down in the middle of the road protesting the building of a youth prison. We had a head tax. Then a head tax repeal. Then the socialist member of the Seattle City Council protested the head tax repeal and encouraged lawyers to sue the city for repealing the head tax. Then we have Antifa here all the time protesting business, while they coordinate with cell phones on networks built by the businesses they protest. Then we had people sitting on top of Chase bank protesting whale killing that the bank maybe loaned money to. Then anti and pro-immigrant protests. It's really insane here.

C-bob, you don't live in Washington and haven't lived in Washington for a long while. I don't hear about rural folk protesting so often the disrupt traffic in the city often enough to make people late to work and drive them out of the city. The socialist member of the Seattle City Council literally state she wanted to take control of Boeing and Amazon because she thought her socialist party could do a better job running both companies.

You live in Kentucky? I bet you hear more bitching from the rural folks. But here in Seattle the city folk b**** far more than the rural folks protesting just about everything they can protest. It's stupid. We have an avowed socialist that preaches against Amazon and Big Business like some Communist elected to the Seattle City Council. It is really bad here right now. And businesses are starting to take measures to leave because of it. We have people right now in Seattle that have made Amazon, Microsoft, and Boeing into the Legion of Doom.

It used to be we had the pro-union Democrats. They were generally more reasonable and seemed like mostly normal folk. Seattle has been taken over by far left groups reaching San Francisco levels of crazy.


Don't forget the $5 million that the city spent on toilets for the homeless that ended up being used by prostitutes and drug users and eventually sold on Ebay for $2500 apiece.

ASF is not exagurating. It doesn't include the entire Puget Sound region, but the City of Seattle itself is completely insane.

One of my favorite examples of urban folks dictating to us rural folks is when the Seattle City Council passed a resolution advocating the breaching of the lower Snake River dams...as if it was any of their business and something they knew nothing about except for the environmental impact. In response, the Moses Lake City Council passed a resolution advocating the breaching of the Ballard Locks, which regulates the level of Lake Washington, in order to restore the lake shore to its natural state and re-create habitat for spawning salmon but would have left hundreds of boat docks at million dollar homes high and dry. The Seattle council quicky backed off, asked that cooler heads prevail.

I don't see rural folks entering urban debates, like whether or not to build a monorail (another colossal waste of money) or replace the Alaskan Way viaduct with another viaduct or a tunnel. But urban folks are constantly dictating to us out here in the sticks, whether it be moving the opening day of hunting season back from sunrise to noon, trying to ban studded snow tires, or most recently, trying to enact a carbon tax that would have hit us much harder than those in urban areas that have shorter distances to travel and access to mass transit. Our only salvation is the state legislature, which is almost always more conservative than the Governor, and provides a check on his/her authority.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Split California

Postby burrrton » Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:03 am

...as if it was any of their business and something they knew nothing about except for the environmental impact.


And only one tiny slice of the environmental impact! Outside of upsetting the fish a bit (something they've gone to great lengths, rather successfully, to eliminate), they're as clean, abundant, and cheap a source of energy as can be imagined this side of a perpetual energy machine.

The impulse to insist on them being removed comes from the urge to control, not improve things.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Split California

Postby RiverDog » Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:27 am

burrrton wrote:And only one tiny slice of the environmental impact! Outside of upsetting the fish a bit (something they've gone to great lengths, rather successfully, to eliminate), they're as clean, abundant, and cheap a source of energy as can be imagined this side of a perpetual energy machine.


Remember when there was a bunch of gulls eating huge numbers of salmon and steelhead fingerlings at the mouth of the Columbia that were nesting on some artificial islands created by the tailings of dredging operations that the libs objected to shooting?

They were completely ignorant about the economic consequences. The rail system is not equipped to handle the increased grain traffic that would result from the removal of barges, so the only way to get grain from northern Idaho and eastern Montana to a port would be to truck it to Pasco or some other location on the Columbia and that it would require 1,000 truck trips per day. That's 42 trucks per hour on two lane highways like SR12 and SR125. Not only that, but just breaching the dams would be hugely expensive as they'd have to deal all that silt that's accumulated over the past 50 years. It's not like the river would immediately revert to its original condition prior to the dams.

Now you got me started. Shame on you!
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Split California

Postby idhawkman » Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:46 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:You been in Seattle lately? The protests here are insane. We had guys laying down in the middle of the road protesting the building of a youth prison. We had a head tax. Then a head tax repeal. Then the socialist member of the Seattle City Council protested the head tax repeal and encouraged lawyers to sue the city for repealing the head tax. Then we have Antifa here all the time protesting business, while they coordinate with cell phones on networks built by the businesses they protest. Then we had people sitting on top of Chase bank protesting whale killing that the bank maybe loaned money to. Then anti and pro-immigrant protests. It's really insane here.

C-bob, you don't live in Washington and haven't lived in Washington for a long while. I don't hear about rural folk protesting so often the disrupt traffic in the city often enough to make people late to work and drive them out of the city. The socialist member of the Seattle City Council literally state she wanted to take control of Boeing and Amazon because she thought her socialist party could do a better job running both companies.

You live in Kentucky? I bet you hear more bitching from the rural folks. But here in Seattle the city folk b**** far more than the rural folks protesting just about everything they can protest. It's stupid. We have an avowed socialist that preaches against Amazon and Big Business like some Communist elected to the Seattle City Council. It is really bad here right now. And businesses are starting to take measures to leave because of it. We have people right now in Seattle that have made Amazon, Microsoft, and Boeing into the Legion of Doom.

It used to be we had the pro-union Democrats. They were generally more reasonable and seemed like mostly normal folk. Seattle has been taken over by far left groups reaching San Francisco levels of crazy.
RiverDog wrote:
Don't forget the $5 million that the city spent on toilets for the homeless that ended up being used by prostitutes and drug users and eventually sold on Ebay for $2500 apiece.

ASF is not exagurating. It doesn't include the entire Puget Sound region, but the City of Seattle itself is completely insane.

One of my favorite examples of urban folks dictating to us rural folks is when the Seattle City Council passed a resolution advocating the breaching of the lower Snake River dams...as if it was any of their business and something they knew nothing about except for the environmental impact. In response, the Moses Lake City Council passed a resolution advocating the breaching of the Ballard Locks, which regulates the level of Lake Washington, in order to restore the lake shore to its natural state and re-create habitat for spawning salmon but would have left hundreds of boat docks at million dollar homes high and dry. The Seattle council quicky backed off, asked that cooler heads prevail.

I don't see rural folks entering urban debates, like whether or not to build a monorail (another colossal waste of money) or replace the Alaskan Way viaduct with another viaduct or a tunnel. But urban folks are constantly dictating to us out here in the sticks, whether it be moving the opening day of hunting season back from sunrise to noon, trying to ban studded snow tires, or most recently, trying to enact a carbon tax that would have hit us much harder than those in urban areas that have shorter distances to travel and access to mass transit. Our only salvation is the state legislature, which is almost always more conservative than the Governor, and provides a check on his/her authority.


With the left in big cities going so far toward socialism and splitting their party people still think that Trump won't be re-elected in 2020 by the non-big city states.

The big city crazies will nominate a socialist to represent the Dem party and Trump will win in a landslide his second term.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: Split California

Postby RiverDog » Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:50 am

burrrton wrote:they're as clean, abundant, and cheap a source of energy as can be imagined this side of a perpetual energy machine.


Yea, and they depend on the ability of dams to store energy to provide a backup to windmills during times like the dead of winter when there's virtually no wind to spin the turbines yet demand for electricity is high.

One thing that no one has been able to explain to me is why hydropower isn't considered renewable energy. The water isn't consumed.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Split California

Postby Aseahawkfan » Sat Jun 16, 2018 2:37 pm

You guys remember all the stupid during Seattle's snow storms? The city refused to use salt to melt the ice because the runoff for our two weeks of snow and ice would pollute the water and environment. Then they had numerous accidents due to all the hills in Seattle and Washington that caused huge amounts of damage and traffic slowdowns. Then they finally switched back to using salt and similar substances to clear the roads because people were so unbelievably pissed off because the sand was not working. It is just creating frozen mud and making the city look dirty.

Then we had our once a decade snowstorm,the state and city bought a bunch of snowplows to deal with the next one. It never came. All this happened because they wouldn't spend the money for the once a decade snowstorm to clear the roads by hiring temporary plows and the like. The people freaked out again. They over-prepared with too many plows, then had to sell them off because the cost to maintain them was too high and they weren't needed.

Then the Mayday Protests every year are just stupid.

And you guys hit the nail on the head for the homeless situation. The law literally does not allow a business to do anything to protect their property after 6 pm or so. If the homeless stack up in the alleys, they just get to sit there. There are literally entire areas of Seattle where the homeless camp. Near as I can tell, the majority of homeless in Seattle are drug addicts. They wander around asking for money. You offer them food, they don't want it. They can't get drugs with food. It's so stupid. I used to not believe the stories about the whole "I offered to buy them food, they said no" until it happened to me three or four times wandering from the bus. I actually had a couple ask me for money, tell me they were recovering heroin addicts (and they did not look recovered), asked me to give them some money. I said I didn't have any. Then he asked me to go to the ATM with him and take out 20 bucks. He would show me where it was. I walked on and left. I'm going to go to an ATM at night, using my pin and card in front of a couple of unrecovered heroin addicts? Are you kidding me?

This is where Seattle is headed. They are seeking to drive out business. They encourage the homeless to come to Seattle with their social help programs. They have have a heroin/drug problem they aren't dealing well with. They want productive people to help them pay to provide these drug addicted homeless people with facilities they won't take care, won't stay in, and basically don't care much about as they live drug addled, spaced out lives. It's unreal the direction the Seattle City leaders are taking us in.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 7327
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Next

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron