• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should California split into 2, or even 3, states?

Should California split into 2, or even 3, states?

  • Total voters
    66
phattonez said:
Yes, a million times yes. Make at least a coastal California and an East California. I'm sick of living in the same state as degenerate coastal elites and their slave labor (illegals).
Click to expand...
What shall we call it? Death Alley? Needles and Barstow can then battle each other on which one will be the sand Capital. :roll:
 
phattonez said:
The 51 state flag still looks nice.
Click to expand...

I suppose, though I always considered our flag a scorecard. The stripes were what we started with, the stars what we now have, lol. So I think the only way to add more stars is by adding more land.
 
calamity said:
What shall we call it? Death Alley? Needles and Barstow can then battle each other on which one will be the sand Capital. :roll:
Click to expand...

All of the inland cities and those in the Central Valley would all be together. San Bernardino, Riverside, and Fresno would all be part of one state.
 
phattonez said:
And the problem with that is, what?
Click to expand...

Turning our most robust state into West Virginia, Kentucky and Michigan...gee, where is the harm in that?
 
calamity said:
Turning our most robust state into West Virginia, Kentucky and Michigan...gee, where is the harm in that?
Click to expand...

I think it would give the people more power... six (or four) Senators instead of two. House would stay roughly the same total.
 
phattonez said:
All of the inland cities and those in the Central Valley would all be together. San Bernardino, Riverside, and Fresno would all be part of one state.
Click to expand...

We can name that one "Meth."
 
calamity said:
Turning our most robust state into West Virginia, Kentucky and Michigan...gee, where is the harm in that?
Click to expand...

You tell me. The Republicans in this state already have virtually no representation. How could it possibly get worse for them?
 
radcen said:
I think it would give the people more power... six (or four) Senators instead of two. House would stay roughly the same total.
Click to expand...

I don't want to see rural California with two new senators. I have enough trouble accepting the ones in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana.
 
phattonez said:
You tell me. The Republicans in this state already have virtually no representation. How could it possibly get worse for them?
Click to expand...

Ask me first if I could give two ****s about the lament of a few snowflake Republicans in Cali. They can move to Texas and suppress democrats.
 
calamity said:
Ask me first if I could give two ****s about the lament of a few snowflake Republicans in Cali. They can move to Texas and suppress democrats.
Click to expand...

So you're fine with the fact that demographic replacement has been engineered to squeeze out native voters in favor of foreigners who will vote for a certain political philosophy?

How is that not treason?
 
phattonez said:
So you're fine with the fact that demographic replacement has been engineered to squeeze out native voters in favor of foreigners who will vote for a certain political philosophy?

How is that not treason?
Click to expand...

:lamo

CT Forums is -----> way
 
It'd be kinda awkward if they decided to follow the State of Washington's example and name the three states after their three ex-Presidents. Would you rather live in Hoover, Nixon or Reagan?

EDIT: Seriously, though - it depends on the circumstances. If it's to improve representation in Congress and the Statehouse, then I think it would be a good idea. My concern however would be that it would create one very wealthy state and two poorer ones.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
:lamo

CT Forums is -----> way
Click to expand...

There's no conspiracy about it. Our current demographic trends are a direct result of policy implemented in the 1965 Immigration Act.
 
radcen said:
Should California split into 2, or even 3, states?

Why or why not? What would be the pros and cons each way?
Click to expand...

I see no point to it. As others have pointed out, as far as politics go, it is the big city areas that are Democratic and rural areas which are not and it would be pretty much impossible to sort that out, not to mention that many of the states are similar in that regard.
 
phattonez said:
There's no conspiracy about it. Our current demographic trends are a direct result of policy implemented in the 1965 Immigration Act.
Click to expand...

LBJ sticking it to white people again. :lol:
 
Moderate Right said:
I see no point to it. As others have pointed out, as far as politics go, it is the big city areas that are Democratic and rural areas which are not and it would be pretty much impossible to sort that out, not to mention that many of the states are similar in that regard.
Click to expand...
I'm not getting what people mean by "sort that out".
 
radcen said:
I'm not getting what people mean by "sort that out".
Click to expand...

You can't create a "state" of just cities surrounded by a different state of rural areas. You can't have a state of Los Angleles, San Francisco, San Diego, and Sacramento and a different state of just suburbs and rural areas. You need defined borders.
 
Moderate Right said:
You can't create a "state" of just cities surrounded by a different state of rural areas. You can't have a state of Los Angleles, San Francisco, San Diego, and Sacramento and a different state of just suburbs and rural areas. You need defined borders.
Click to expand...

Correct.
But we could, at least theoretically, have a Northern California and a Southern California, or an East California and a West California, splitting the state along the Coast Range. There are still quite a few signs in Northern California declaring the state of "Jefferson", comprising the northern part of California and Southern Oregon. The idea os to leave behind both Portland and San Francisco. If that did happen, we'd have two new Republican senators in Washington.

But, it's highly unlikely to ever happen anyway.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Moderate Right said:
You can't create a "state" of just cities surrounded by a different state of rural areas. You can't have a state of Los Angleles, San Francisco, San Diego, and Sacramento and a different state of just suburbs and rural areas. You need defined borders.
Click to expand...
Correct.
But we could, at least theoretically, have a Northern California and a Southern California, or an East California and a West California, splitting the state along the Coast Range. There are still quite a few signs in Northern California declaring the state of "Jefferson", comprising the northern part of California and Southern Oregon. The idea os to leave behind both Portland and San Francisco. If that did happen, we'd have two new Republican senators in Washington.

But, it's highly unlikely to ever happen anyway.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you understood MR's post, because I sure didn't. Who the hell was talking about "states of just cities" as if they'd leave rural areas floating alone? That's how I took it. I was talking about creating whole states out of one, and I think everybody else was talking the same.

I was going to comment last night, but decided to wait and see if someone else would, and, well... no offense, after your response I still don't understand what MR was getting at. :shrug:
 
I would prefer they not. I love California. While I probably wouldn't choose to live there, it is one of my favorite places to visit. But in the end I would leave it up to the people who live their.
 
radcen said:
Should California split into 2, or even 3, states?

Why or why not? What would be the pros and cons each way?
Click to expand...

California is a wonderful state with much to commend it. I know a lot of Californians very well and love a fair number of those dearly.

But. . .

I was just reading a recent article--I think in Forbes--citing the 20 least affordable areas to live in the USA. Three of those were in New York State. Two were in Hawaii. The other fifteen were stretched along the California coast which ironically is where most of the people are. So however you split up California, you still are going to have large populations of wealthy leftists in pretty much every new state unless states are carved out of eastern California where there are very few people to support a state. In other words, those right of center won't be represented any better.

It wouldn't help us out with the popular vote issues vs EC vote. I can't think of any advantage to any of the rest of us and very little advantage for most of the people of California to split up the state.

California is larger in area than most countries of the world both in area--#90 out of 190+ if I am remembering right--and if it was a country it would have the eighth largest economy of the world ahead of Canada, Australia, and Russia. (That's down from fifth place I think in the 1980's.) If it were a country it would rank #36 in population among all the nations of the world. I think we should keep it as an example of what happens to a large 'country' that is controlled mostly by leftist policy and leftist thinking when compared to other states with more centrist or right leaning policies.
 
Never happen...for one thing most of rural California vote republican and if it did split that would create 2 to 4 new conservatives Senate seats to only the two existing democratic seats in the Senate.

But dream on.....
 
Dittohead not! said:
Correct.
But we could, at least theoretically, have a Northern California and a Southern California, or an East California and a West California, splitting the state along the Coast Range. There are still quite a few signs in Northern California declaring the state of "Jefferson", comprising the northern part of California and Southern Oregon. The idea os to leave behind both Portland and San Francisco. If that did happen, we'd have two new Republican senators in Washington.

But, it's highly unlikely to ever happen anyway.
Click to expand...

But it's not like the Northern part of the state is one party and the Southern part of the state is a different party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom