How do we help California?
- Thread starter horsemen61
- Start date
- Status
Flechette
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 481
Colorado was nice 30 years ago...before being invaded by Californians. Taxes went up, gun rights went down and the place is now a little California.
Why do people move to a new place to live because it is awesome but then immediately turn it into the cesspool they came from?
Flechette
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 481
Probably *not* a good idea. That would give the current population of California 10 more Senators.
It would be a good idea if we knew for certain that the five new states would be pro-gun...but I think that is questionable.
Flechette
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 481
The sentence that stands out is:
I guess that is the question. Do we have concern for the country as a whole?
I am not sure that I do. I'd much rather have some states with the full Bill of Rights in effect than the whole country under a watered-down Bill of Rights.
Why? Because if every state is watered down then the dream will be lost. If a few states still have the Bill of Rights in full effect it will show that freedom is truly possible and not some utopian postulate conjured up by rich slave owners over 200 years ago...which is what is currently being taught in schools.
lysanderxiii
Member
True, all states have bad cities that ruin it for everyone...
Up-state NY is a nice place, as is southern NJ.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Of course we have concern for the country as a whole. But that doesn't mean we have to beat our heads against stone walls. It doesn't mean we waste resources on fighting battles that can't be won -- because the people who live in those states will not fight for themselves.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
You said it yourself --30 years. They aren't Californian transplants throwing the electorate, but their offspring i.e. native Coloradornians. It's because the freedom loving folks who fled there didn't bring their kids up right, ultimately. Didn't work to keep subsequent arrivals on track, ideologically --they laid back, content with their situation, and allowed it to decay.
Same as in California, once the last bastion of frontier freedom, itself, a refuge from urban Eastern poverty or Southern privation (Gold Rush and Depression, respectively)
This is actually the preferable situation by a long shot. Remember the whole "states being laboratories for Democracy" thing? It totally works. California proved that a highly democratized system of government with popular-initiative master override for everything is ultimately unsustainable and ungovernable. The idea was that the more successful states would thrive and grow, and the population would self-select the best forms of governance in seeking them out (remember, the whole purpose of enlightenment representative governance was to concoct a system which would yield the best results for its citizens --not because of some unfounded belief in the sanctity of 'the vote' or anything)
Lo and behold, we see it in full force. Despite monumental riches, unfathomable resources, native Californians are streaming out of that place almost as fast as they can, into places far less intrinsically valuable, but free enough that commerce thrives and multiplies. I think Texas is getting another electoral vote or two this go-around if I'm not mistaken, and though the blue areas are getting bluer, in a lot of ways our state house is still pursuing the policies which made us so successful, while expanding individual freedoms.
TCB
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Is this really an accurate statement, seeing as "everyone" is in those bad cities in those types of states? The demographic weight between rural/urban is almost laughable in NY/NJ, almost as though there are still city walls everyone's forced to hide behind, or dangerous wild predators forcing the shivering masses to huddle together around a campfire. Some western states have the excuse that Federal ownership of so much rural land makes it impossible for those areas to develop any population.
Land in the rural Texas Hill Country is north of $20,000/acre --people are moving out there, from our cities, from outside our borders, and an awful lot of them like shooting. The cities are blue, and as always have outsized power, but people actually bother to live away from their oppressive hustle and bustle since they value their freedom (literally the only reason to not live in a city, btw). Therefore things like gun, taxes, and business policy can be swayed by those away from the ivory towers.
Land doesn't vote, people do. Very simple concept, though it really seems to confound some folks. A better argument is that your region is so sparsely populated & far away from the political action, that there can be no justification for its authority over your situation --good luck pursuing the Sovereign Citizen angle, though.
TCB
Flechette
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 481
I wonder if the states could re-write residency requirements such that a newcomer cannot vote in state elections for five to ten years after they move there. Then hopefully they would understand why the state they moved to is better than the mess they moved away from.
On the surface it sounds like this would disenfranchise a bunch of voters (unconstitutional) but maybe it isn't if the newcomers could still vote in their old states.
People visiting a state cannot vote in the local elections. Perhaps it is Constitutional to say that someone is visiting for five to ten years before they are a resident.
Something has to be done. Remember that we are not a Democracy, so some times the majority does *not* rule.
On the surface it sounds like this would disenfranchise a bunch of voters (unconstitutional) but maybe it isn't if the newcomers could still vote in their old states.
People visiting a state cannot vote in the local elections. Perhaps it is Constitutional to say that someone is visiting for five to ten years before they are a resident.
Something has to be done. Remember that we are not a Democracy, so some times the majority does *not* rule.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Immigration history the world over suggests a better rule would be to allow the immigrants themselves to vote, but only their grandchildren and subsequent generations. Something about the new arrivals' offspring always ends up longing for the ancestral home...but without the knowledge of why it was abandoned.
TCB
Probably not; states have authority over their own elections. Easiest route would be a long period before recognizing residency, but at this point there are a ton of federal programs/etc which rely on it being fairly consistent, which has the effect of making such a system unworkable (what is a person who is not a resident of the new state but has left the previous, can their kids go to local schools, do they pay taxes & if so why can't they vote, far too tempting for any crop of politicians to enfranchise them so as to snatch a quick and easy voter bloc, etc.)
TCB
tark
Member
California is run by L.A. and the Bay area. Float those two areas out in the ocean and sink them and California is a red state. I know, I lived there for 15 years. I thought I was moving back to the U.S.; but it turned out to be Illinois.
Which is still Far better than California when it comes to gun laws, but the state is near financial collapse.
Jo Jo, did you get your PM from the moderator yet?
Which is still Far better than California when it comes to gun laws, but the state is near financial collapse.
Jo Jo, did you get your PM from the moderator yet?
Deanimator
Member
Only California can help California, and they just don't seem inclined in that direction.
The Germans voted for the National Socialists. Californians voted for what they have. I have no idea what I should or CAN do about that.
The Germans voted for the National Socialists. Californians voted for what they have. I have no idea what I should or CAN do about that.
lysanderxiii
Member
Your specificizing a general statement....
Everyone inside the city limits is not a blue voter, similarly everyone outside those limits is not a red voter. But, generally cities like NYC and those big ones in California tend to dominate the politics far beyond their actual city limits.
As to California, one of the problems is the number of signatures for a ballot referendum is tied to the number of votes cast in the last election, 5%, in most other States the number of signatures required is tied to the number of registered voters. That makes it very easy to put referendums on California's ballot. And the average voters does not have all the information necessary to make a sound decision, since many referendums sound good, but with further research show the potential down sides.
Currently, less than 600,000 signatures are required for a constitutional amendment referendum in California, out of a States with 17.7 million voters....
Last edited:
Vern Humphrey
Member
There is nothing we can do -- only Californians can help California. And they're simply not willing to make the effort.
Shanghai McCoy
Member
As a native of the state, but a long time "ex-pat" in the mid west, I have to mostly agree with this...
But remember, those who are willing and do make the effort are surrounded and out numbered by the enemies of freedom.
One thing I have noticed is that most elections only have like a 30% voter turn
out I bet that if EVERYONE voted I mean 100 % voter turn out the results could
change the outcome,
For example here where I live there was a State vote on requiring back ground
checks on firearm transfers unfortunately it did pass and everyone complained
to the point of armed protests at the State Capital and still the law is not complied with or enforced.
my point is the results said the polls only had a 23% voter turnout and it passed 52 to 48 if EVERYONE WOULD OF VOTED it would not of passed because
the Liberals ALL VOTE and are very active on their side, So should we be if we
want to fight and keep our rights.
out I bet that if EVERYONE voted I mean 100 % voter turn out the results could
change the outcome,
For example here where I live there was a State vote on requiring back ground
checks on firearm transfers unfortunately it did pass and everyone complained
to the point of armed protests at the State Capital and still the law is not complied with or enforced.
my point is the results said the polls only had a 23% voter turnout and it passed 52 to 48 if EVERYONE WOULD OF VOTED it would not of passed because
the Liberals ALL VOTE and are very active on their side, So should we be if we
want to fight and keep our rights.
Flechette
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 481
I am not one of the "get out the vote" people. The reality is that most people are living their lives listening to pop music, watching sports and generally not paying attention to politics.
For many of them the first time they are even aware of an issue is when they read it on the ballot.
Quite frankly, it would be better if these people did not vote at all.
danez71
Member
Oh brother... still on that falsity?
It's not that there isn't effort, it's that they're out numbered.
That fact, supported by evidence presented, shouldn't be that hard to understand, or just acknowledge.
CA also has a system that the 2 candidates with the highest votes move on to the general elections.
Thats the reason why 2 Dems will be the only 2 candidates on the ticket for US Senate.
If anyone wanted to help, they could make a small donation to the lawyers or candidate's that are fighting.. and sometimes winning.
It's not that there isn't effort, it's that they're out numbered.
That fact, supported by evidence presented, shouldn't be that hard to understand, or just acknowledge.
CA also has a system that the 2 candidates with the highest votes move on to the general elections.
Thats the reason why 2 Dems will be the only 2 candidates on the ticket for US Senate.
If anyone wanted to help, they could make a small donation to the lawyers or candidate's that are fighting.. and sometimes winning.
Vern Humphrey
Member
But that's no excuse for rolling over and playing dead.
FIGHT! Work! DO something!
Flechette
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 481
I am not saying that we should not vote, I am saying that I do not agree with all of the "get out the vote" campaigns (in the general population, you hear them on the radio).
Gun owners are typically much better informed. Do you want an informed gun owner, most likely informed about many other issues, to have their vote essentially cancelled by someone who has no idea about any of the issues but is voting because some campus activist made sure that they got a mail-in ballot?
Vern Humphrey
Member
What's your plan to prevent that?
There WILL be get out the vote campaigns -- people have a right to vote.
If we want to win, we have to get out MORE votes. If the average voter is uneducated, we have to educate them.
627PCFan
Member
Being a former Maryland resident I get a lot of the comments here and the politics.I've taken the position those who chose to leave do so, the rest burn. You cant save everyone and IMO that's what you have to do. It takes that level of change for people to realize their responsibility and their error in ways and then people are motivated for change in the right direction
Flechette
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 481
I have no plan. I am just saying that "I am not one of the get out the vote people."
Whenever I see billboards saying "Get out the vote" I cringe because I know what happens: people with no clue look at a ballot and see an issue for the first time in their life, written in maybe five words, and think, "Yeah, free everything sounds good" and "Less crime sounds good" then vote.
SwampWolf
Member
IF (eternally thankful for that qualifier), I lived in California (or any other state that is making its business to rob me of my inalienable, God-given rights as described by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights-and, unfortunately, there are more than a few of them), the only solution for me would be a U-Haul trailer with a sign on the rear end that reads "Free State Or Bust". There's just no fixing the slave states-you can change the laws but you can't change the culture.
- Status
