Do current circumstances in California represent a threat to the wellbeing of the nation in terms of unsanitary health conditions, security from non-US citizens, domestic instability, run away and unchecked drug abuse in a very public setting, public safety, and disease control (probably just to name a few items)?” Moreover, is it manifestly apparent that the California Governor, and mayors of various cities, are unwilling, or, able, to provide resolution to these issues? As an outsider looking in, it seems to me the answer is “no”. Further, it appears to me as if those office holders have no intention of cleaning up this mess for which, in large measure, they are responsible. Additionally, it is clear certain diseases, long eradicated in the US, are now returned to the detriment of people beyond the homeless, dopers, etc. So, question: is this circumstance of concern to the US at large? IMO, the answer is decidedly “yes”. I have not written these things willy-nilly. These issues, in California found in abundance, are serious, and not in the interest of upstanding and productive citizens, either in California, or in the rest of America. Federalization, Martial Law - call it whatever folks wish, in the absence of effective and corrective action by the good people of California, seems to me warranted. Clearly, the Governor is opposed to ANYTHING associated with our current POTUS ( or, in all likelihood, any POTUS espousing similar policies). So, there you have it. The once Golden State presently Is flagging, and it’s leadership is much involved in that process. I am sensitive to slippery slope arguments, but, of sorts, this era in California is not unlike post 1865 CSA, and Reconstruction. Not pretty, but my position is a starting point for discussion. Thoughts?
Counterpoint: I see your points and I think they are fair. Some would be very debatable, like what constitutes widespread disease... Some things are relative. That's probably the root of all challenge to your position as these things are arguably in the eye of the beholder. Mind you, I don't disagree with what you see. Just looking at these things from the opponent's position. If it ever came to implementation (and I doubt that it would because the optics would demolish a sitting president in the current climate), I would like to see it implemented by a liberal president/executive branch rather than a conservative one just to put to bed any allegations of partisan bias. But I guess party politics are also at the root of how we've gotten here in the first place. I'm not even sure how the exec branch would go about taking remedial action on the level you're suggesting. Having the support of Congress? By court order? Where's the partner in check & balance theory? Because to do this purely by executive order would being international condemnation, not just local push back. I sincerely wonder what White House counsel would have to say in response to your observations and suggestion to federalize. And we always have to keep in mind that just because one CAN doesn't mean one SHOULD or that it would be constructive to other political/diplomatic goals. In short... I think things in CA and the threat they present to America at large would have to increase dramatically before a president would take this step. And I suspect that the pendulum will swing back in a conservative direction during the next decade here in CA. I don't know what the non-linear solution is. But the system still has its flexibility.
Or California could just stop subsidizing various "taker states" with its federal tax dollars. You know, like Idaho.
No, the Feds do not need to interfere with California. If the people that choose to live there are willing to put up with the problems you mentioned, more power to them. If outsiders boycott the state, no big deal - nobody forces people to visit or move there.
You start a thread to have a debate if fucking martial law should be declared in a state because you don't like the people in charge of it, and then try to dismiss tafkats post as masturbatory.
Well, to be fair, he immediately tried to make it personal, didn't he? The typical lib kneejerk. And was it because I don't like the people in charge, or because those issues are relevant?
Sorry, I didn't realise this was different to the last time you called for armed uprising against elected governments.
@Marso Before I actually respond to whatever that was, are you sure you want to have an actual discussion? Because I am down for addressing your points, but you tend to run away when refuted. I am fine with just throwing poo, but if you really want to do this let me know.
Gee, can you read? Was this calling for 'armed uprising against elected governments' or 'elected governments cracking down on rogue states?' Dumbass. Read the fucking quotes. And while you'ere at it, look up 'Federalization' and 'martial law.'
Typically, the counterpoint should be a BIT better than "I generally agree with you but you're wrong about this very minor part of what you said". It's like you didn't WANT to put any fucking effort into that bit, so why did you even fucking bother?
Hi. Welcome to Wordforge. You must be new. When he's not drunk flying planes, Marso posts stupid shit.
I think you're looking at CA in the same way Ontario, beyond the suburbs looks at Toronto (i.e.: the region of greatest population density). That is, we get all those "problems" you refer to, even if few of them are sourced locally. If you surveyed the homeless around my neighbourhood, you'd find 90% aren't born and raised in the city and many of them are from out of province. Now, plenty of the local working poor are immigrants, but they aren't shitting on the sidewalks-to the contrary, they're frequently hosing them off. Tangentially, in this part of the city, a great deal of the unhealthy stuff (drugs, "broken windows", sidewalk vomit) is from the leisured classes enjoying some ghetto tourism. Most of the people at the after hours trading blow for blowjobs are from the outer boroughs that grew up in professional homes.
So you're willing to give up their subsidy? Let's also remember that they're pulling more than their share in keeping up the national GDP. (Theirs is $53,987 per capita versus the national average of $50,577 ... meanwhile your state is dragging us down with a per capita GDP of $35,466, the second-lowest in the country ... thank God for Mississippi!) Why would the union want to be without one of its most productive members?
Maybe the bubonic plague? Heard it sucks. Hope we don't have to quarantine CA if the plague catches and starts spreading, don't want bubonic plague coming to Texas.
It's clear that California needs some sort of intervention, at least it's most populous cities. Instead of treating homelessness, addiction and mental illness, places like LA and SF enable and encourage it. The reason most of the homeless are from out of state is due to factors like the weather and that the city gives out needles and will protect their feelings from those mean, awful people who make them feel bad when they shoot up in front of them and shit on the streets because the toilet they put up for them is like a whole 60 feet away and they cant be bothered. What do i suggest? bring back asylums, give them some solid oversight, and come down hard on the people who need it, to make sure they get the help they need.
And, if a Calexit happens for whatever reason, I wouldn't be surprised if Oregon and Washington went with California. Less likely that Nevada goes too. No idea about Alaska or Hawaii, though.
Let's break this down: Nope, those are local problems. You ever seen NYC on trash day? We've got nothing on that. Where do you want to start on this one? The part where immigrants are less likely than citizens to commit violent or fraudulent crimes, or the part where the majority who come here do so temporarily? The fuck are you even talking about? Again local problems. How could that possibly affect the US as a whole? The worst parts of the state for this are the parts of the state most like your own, and most like the country as a whole. You're the threat to CA here, not the other way around. Finally a real point, but probably the worst one -- see below. Where'd you steal this one that you forgot to remove the close-quote? The governor tightened vaccine loopholes, which counters your best point. Beyond that our diseases are either well-treated or endemic - you won't get rid of the plague without burning the entire American southwest to the ground, and a couple meters deep for the burrowing rodents, and all the caves for the bats. You willing to use your federal authority to burn 5 ⅓ states to the ground? Which makes things different from the rest of the country how, exactly? Which we've done something about. That's because you're a moron. The evidence would beg to differ. Why don't you go fuck yourself, and we'll call it a day. I think you're deranged and should sit down, shut up, and retire, because fuck if I want someone in such a mental state flying a plane I might be on.
According to the CDC, as of 2017 Idaho had a higher drug overdose death rate than California. https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths/drug-overdose-death-2017.html According to US government National Institute on Drug Abuse Idaho has opioid prescription rates 75% higher than California. https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-summaries-by-state What do you say Marso, time to call the troops in?
Please don't encourage him, Idaho is already the state with the fifth highest suicide rate in the US. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/suicide.htm