California opened an embassy in Moscow

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Will Trump favor military action over civil procedure in case of a cessessionist movement

  • 1. Trump will use military and paramilitary force to oppose cesession
  • 2. Trump will not use force but let the legislature and judicial decide
  • 3. Undecided
0 voters

As a sign of impending political turbulence, with a pending sesessionist agenda, and perhaps a foreshadowing of things to come, how do you feel things will go:

Will Trump take a stance and act accordingly, as Lincoln had done during the first civil war, or will he let a gradual civil procedure take its course?

2

Just revoke their passports if they try to open a embassy.

We have a lot of private semi-embassies all over, be it carnegie libraries, American Houses, friendship missions, American colleges. What they have done so far isn’t illegal, but the second they start seeking to give credentials as a diplomat of any sort, for a territory of the US, they become unlawful. Same shit that happens once a decade when some rancher declares himself and his little community a sovereign nation would happen.

And you know everyone in California would laugh and giggle when it happens too, this party getting raided. Not a realistic chance in hell, better chance Trump will succeed Nancy Pelosi in her position in San Francisco after he finishes the presidency.

3

Why would California be allowed to go if the South wasn’t? I’d be in favor of letting them leave, but precedence makes it pretty clear that you can’t.

4

Presedence? Although pundits have already started to compare Trump to Lincoln, in terms of this scenario we’re IT to happen, this gives a kind of preference to the belief that indeed, he would use force.

On another front, the other influential people have pre-emptively are applying for United Nations membership.
That means, that the reality of the outcome of this situation is contingent on the future successive processes going down, the seeds sown being at this time strictly symbolic.

If, something were to happen adversely connected or, related or caused by the Trump people, such overtures may prove again symbolic, but to a far lesser degree. Other states may get on the bandwagon, causing turmoil and civil disobedience unprecedented in modern US history. War would be unlikely other than guerilla warfare, but such an event, if they were to occur would disrupt everything political, ideological, human rights challenges included. I think the only event barring the likelihood of such scenario would be a coup.

As yet untested, Trump may have to go this route, given his rhetoric.

5

No. 101% certain, no.

6

Ok, Turd, never say never, and at the very least, please vote accordingly. If you feel it is not worth voting for either way, at least mark undecided.

7

No, I decided. I’m originally from California, and moved back for a few years.

Certain zero chance of this happening.

Besides the naval base and coast guard siezing control of San Diego and it’s airport instantly without even trying, and the agricultural producing lands not joining in, and the state heavily dependent on Water from out of state, as well Electricity from the continental grid, and silicon valley ONLY functioning if the government is stable… nobody is gonna do this in mass. Dying of dehydration sucks horrible.

I’m not even mentioning troops in places like Fort Irwin merely driving around, or Beale Air Force Base flying overhead, reminding people literally nothing changed.

8

Missing an important point: California is by far the wealthiest, most productive state in the union. The reliance on the US is overstated, and conflict may be symbolic like cutting economic ties. The US would hurt more by far, and the export of Cali. grown agricultural products would deprive the US , that the cost of importing from other sources would escalate costs to prices unaffordable. This is where forces would be called upon to prevent this from happening.

Conceivable? Politics right now in California are at a very perilous stretc, and there is a lot of hate going around. Unless it dissipates, it will be a very delicate inauguration, a tact Trump is not known to possess.

If he were the giving kind(ahem ahem ) then perhaps compromises would be at hand. But even as we talk, retaliation is feared by many, including Bill Maher who is in seclusion, fearing from some kind of FBI kind of aggressive overture.

But not withstanding the above, there are serious economic anomalies, and fear on part of some people of loosing serious money. Remember Enron, and what Texans did to California.

So there is something going on, that’s for sure. Something big is in the wind.

9

That something is just a massive fart. Zero chance of a succession being remotely successful. You obviously haven’t thought this out at all.

10

Here, your reasoning isn’t based on clear headed strategic reasoning (califonia’s economy would shrink to nothing out of the US, Washington state and Baja would explode) confirmation bias.

In particular, the Halo and Horn Effect.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

California is only strong because of it’s relation to the US. It isn’t sufficient in anything save cheese production, and the state isn’t exactly moving to embrace agriculture in its water crisis. It’s import/export market would collapse, silicon valley would instantly flee, many banks would from the pot smoking insanity if the act… you can’t build a country in the remainder population, worthless scumbags.

And your guaranteed to see NorCal break off and form it’s own state and reenter the union, if for nothing else to preserve it’s economy. It needs the US more than it needs southern california.

Didn’t I see this scenerio before, where Snake Escaped From LA?

Will everyone in LA become fishermen? Chinese don’t give rice for free, you gotta pay for that shit, and California will have NO LOANS, inheriting nasty debt and entitlement spending. How people gonna get social security and Medicare without a taxbase, after the certainty of a economic collapse, state split in two, federal government occupying San Diego, no food, no water?

If Trump marches trips in, it won’t be for occupation, but food relief convoys. Everyone would rush out to get MREs cause they are starving and beg the state to stay, and turn the water and electric flow back on, and start accepting shipping again. Californians would then hunt down in the streets with machetes everyone who wanted succession, hoping if they kill enough of them, the jobs will come back.

11

In fact, Cali economy is in excess of 25 percent of the whole US economy, and it isn’t clear wether the trade exchange favors the US or Calif.
these statistics don’t really prove out the idea that Calif. would fold economically, and if the Chinese connection would play into the game, with Chinese investments outranking by the whole of the US, and China would feel threatened by Trump’s get hard policies, they may play into the game strategically.

No doubt, that would put a completely different spin on things, andChina may retaliate by calling in all US gov. issued warrants. The French did it to the Yankees during the civil war, except that we are talking about far larger margins here. Not to mention the Koreans, Japanese, and of course the Mexicans.
Even Israel may get into the act.

Not thought out? I think this scenario is possible in the tumultuous times of this very fragmented world.
The above scenario is vastly superior to a bleak and mushroom filled sky, that is on everyone’s mind, thinking nervous fingers on a dire button is no mean joke.

12

No. 100% positive not. You’ve been smoking something that drops your IQ by 50 points tonight.

13

There are 3 states that are Republics and are states by treaty(not sure that is the right word). Or they were back when I studied it. California, Texas and Alaska. They can secede. Other states can not. All this may have changed over the decades but, I do not recall any major law change and it would take that.

14

Yes, the Treaty of Quadalupe Hidalgo, as the other states you mentioned. Except in the eyes of international law, I don’t think the way a state was acquired and annexed makes much difference in terms of the rationale of a Calexit. But it may I dunno. Except that it will be on the 2018 referendum, and the way it goes with the incoming administration, will determine likely outcome.

Texas is an example, who also wanted an exit, and it didn’t go very far. Internationally, Scotland, Northern Ireland, are other examples, and things didn’t change much. On the other hand disintegration has been fairly common nowadays, since the breakup of the USSR, and given the right amount of pressure, there is no union which does not have its breaking point.

I still think that there is no absolute way the possibility is not there, especially given extreme negative economic payback, for California having disputed a Trump election.

You don’t have to smoke anything into forming this thought, unprecedented changes have occurred without precedent.

15

California isn’t actually going to do shit, just to be clear. Them threatening to leave the U.S. is about as real as all those celebrities threatening to move to Canada. For one thing, 30 percent of the state voted for Trump. So that’s 30 percent of the state that will absolutely not support leaving the U.S. Of the 70 percent remaining, probably half of them hated Hillary and only voted for her because they hated Trump more. They absolutey aren’t going to support it. The U.S. wouldn’t have to do shit, if the measure was pushed hard enough, there would be a civil war within the state itself between the retards that want to doom themselves becoming a third world nation, and normal Americans.

16

I agree with both, I can’t see it occurring at this time.

17

These internal impressions omit the view of external forces coming into play, such as what went down with the D.C. metro refusing to post Trump posters on DC subways. This is a very small sign that something is amiss here, other outside source factors coming into play are the China connection, and the Mexican connection asreactions against any provocative moves by the Us against their trade ratios.

This is why the idea that most of the huff and puff of the election rhetoric was simply a bold strategy to get elected, and as far as the fear of not being able to deliver to the cast of millions who took his word literally, a slow grinding reversal is not quite the feat
that it appears to be say six months down the line.

18

No it isn’t. Democrats always act this way when they lose.

19

That may be, but the Trump campaign reaction’s over the top reaction was anything like business like usual, and it is this 'business as usual that has everyone shook up both nationally and internationally. The case can be made that a new and drastic isolationism is at hand, and a very dangerous one at that-for the US.

The last one was Wilson’s echoed by the British, : Peace in our time. The continent was, as is now, not in accord.

Sounds like familiar echoes?

20

But the vote cast does not represent a scenario that the options chosen will happen as prescribed, but is in the form, If it happens that such and such, then the options are’ . That this implication is not spelled out is maybe the reason for a lack of a vote.

As it stands, the result implies certain Force used by Trump in a predicted probability of it occurring.

It was left in the original form, because the two implications are generically loosely tied quasi logically between the pre-election rhetoric, and the expected resulting actions taken by the new administration.