Current Events > So if crybaby California splits into 3 states

(+) Yeah! (+)

Zachnorn posted...

Why is LA County a state?

As a fellow resident of Los Angeles, I think it's the best solution for most people, especially given the political views, and the needs of the people and how they feel.

LA has the financial capability to sustain itself as a State of it's own. You look carefully at the population to land ratio, the Budget would be MUCH easier to balance since LA County / California 2.0 would have 26% of the old population, especially some of the richest areas and only need to maintain 2.4802% of the land area.

That makes budgeting and balancing easier along with limiting the things they need to worry about.

As a resident, sure, it's a decent county (sometimes) and sure it's around the size of Michigan in population, but come on, that's almost like making New York City a state. Which I personally don't like, because states need to be more than just a city. And sure, LA County isn't just the City of LA and sure you feel like it's a different county when you're in the Lancaster/Palmdale area but it's still not that much of a state.

LA is it's own unique Culture / Vibe / ability to sustain itself. And many who live outside NYC prefer to be separated from NYC. I'm giving the people what they want.

There's this thing in history called "City States". Look it up, it worked in the past.

LA would make a great State all by itself.

And now that I said that, why do I get the feeling you want Lancaster/Palmdale to break off and go chill with Kern County in their state?

Because they're closer aligned in culture / geography.

Why is Greater Los Angeles (commonly considered LA, Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties) split into four states?

Because of Political leanings of the residents of each area.

Can the yellow state ever sustain itself? Sure, the cities there are nice. But can they sustain themselves with just tourism and a little bit of agriculture?

Of course they can, look at how other small countries sustain themselves.

I see what you're doing with green and trying to give the Jefferson people what they want, except you're also adding counties that aren't part of that movement. Jefferson is also problematic because although they are culturally distinct from the rest of the state, they also don't have that much in the way of their economy.

According to the organizers of the Jefferson Movements own analysis, they have enough financially to be self sustaining and don't want to deal with Sacramento. If they think they can do it, then do it.
---

Why is San Diego a state and why is it put with a county generally considered to be part of Greater Los Angeles?

They're both generally "Conservative Areas" Look at my stats page and look at the top far right for political leanings of each new state.

Why is Contra Costa not part of what is otherwise a decent Bay Area state?

Due to political leanings in the previous election.

Sure, let's break up the eastern half of central/southern California so that there's the heart of California's agriculture and then there's a bunch of desert, each in different states. Hey, know where a ton of people in San Bernardino and Riverside go to work? In two other states under your proposal: Los Angeles and Orange County, across state lines!

People on the East Coast travel across state lines for work all the time. It's not a big deal.

In summary: California is too interconnected and dependent on itself to ever be broken up except, maybe, by having a Northern and Southern California, and even then, you're breaking up and damaging one of the largest economies in the world.

No it's not. There are ALOT of people who are unhappy with the Liberal City Slickers and their politics. The best choice is for a divorce and to form new states where people who are close by and very similar work together for new goals.

Imagine how much happier my new "Bay-Side California" would be when they don't have to worry about the politics of people outside the area.

They can get laws / actions done MUCH faster and with less interference.

Budgeting would be easier given that they have 20% of the old population, especially the RICHEST 20% and only have to fund 4.3795% of the old Land Area.

Competition amongst all the new states would drive the economy along with delivery of resources between states for Inter-state commerce.

Not to mention that growth from Businesses from other states coming to the new state formation with different laws that can suit their needs.

Competition drives growth, and a division would help that.
---

Imagine if a revelant state like New York or Texas pulled some shit like this.
---

MabusIncarnate posted...

Imagine if a revelant state like New York or Texas pulled some shit like this.

That's fine.

NYC can become NY and the outer counties can become the brand new state of "Greater York".
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

MabusIncarnate posted...

Imagine if a revelant state like New York or Texas pulled some shit like this.

That's fine.

NYC can become NY and the outer counties can become the brand new state of "Greater York".

Staten island, long island, buffalo, new york city. Sounds like a plan to me.
---

MabusIncarnate posted...

Staten island, long island, buffalo, new york city. Sounds like a plan to me.

As long as everybody in the County votes on it and agrees democratically, why not?

See the Jefferson 51st State movement
http://soj51.org/

Also see the New California movement.
https://www.newcaliforniastate.com/
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

As a fellow resident of Los Angeles, I think it's the best solution for most people, especially given the political views, and the needs of the people and how they feel.

So it is about making it more into blue vs. red states?

KamenRiderBlade posted...

There's this thing in history called "City States". Look it up, it worked in the past.

LA would make a great State all by itself.

City states worked in the past when things were simpler. Now, I don't see how that's sustainable. You need a variety of industries to be a successful state, and today, that means you need both urban and rural areas. LA County is very urban and suburban.

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Because of Political leanings of the residents of each area.

Is that the main goal of this? If you're going to do this, why not make it a bunch of purple states, as best you could? Obviously, there would have to be a blue state, but still.

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Of course they can, look at how other small countries sustain themselves.

Okay, how do small US states sustain themselves? I'll tell you. Part of it is that the federal government gives them money because they can't do it on their own.

KamenRiderBlade posted...

According to the organizers of the Jefferson Movements own analysis, they have enough financially to be self sustaining and don't want to deal with Sacramento. If they think they can do it, then do it.

I thought they would end up being one of the most economically disadvantaged states, but fair enough.

KamenRiderBlade posted...

They're both generally "Conservative Areas" Look at my stats page and look at the top far right for political leanings of each new state.

I don't know about San Diego County, but the City of San Diego is generally considered moderate. I believe it had 100 more of one of the parties than the other at one point. For a city of millions of people, that's such a tiny difference.
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Due to political leanings in the previous election.

So...let's break up states based on the 2016 election?

KamenRiderBlade posted...

People on the East Coast travel across state lines for work all the time. It's not a big deal.

Sure. I have a friend on the West Coast that does as well - he lives in Vancouver, WA and works in Portland, OR. There's plenty of complications though, like with taxes. But let's not get into that. My point was more that the people of Desert California (I know you gave your names, but I'm giving mine) would be contributing to the economy of Los Angeles more than their state.

Speaking of your names, you're not doing us LA people any favors by naming LA County's state "California". The Bay Area people already think we're self-centered as it is. I shall also just go ahead and call it Los Angeles because it's not like you invited any other counties to the party anyway, and decided to kick Lancaster/Palmdale out too while you're at it.
---

Man, I love these movements to break up California or call for independence. I just can't take any of it seriously.

I'm honestly going to chuckle when I vote no on it in November.
---

Zachnorn posted...

So it is about making it more into blue vs. red states?

It's more about giving those like the "Jefferson 51st" state movements what they want.

Freedom from the City Dwellers who ruin their lives.

City states worked in the past when things were simpler. Now, I don't see how that's sustainable. You need a variety of industries to be a successful state, and today, that means you need both urban and rural areas. LA County is very urban and suburban.

Singapore would like to say Hello!
Hong Kong survived for countless years when it was on it's own with UK support.

Is that the main goal of this? If you're going to do this, why not make it a bunch of purple states, as best you could? Obviously, there would have to be a blue state, but still.

3 Red, 3 Blue, 1 Purple. That's about as even as you can get while making everybody happy.

Okay, how do small US states sustain themselves? I'll tell you. Part of it is that the federal government gives them money because they can't do it on their own.

That's why it's called the "United States of America". We all share resources and work together.

Look at the East Coast and how tight some of their state borders are.

I thought they would end up being one of the most economically disadvantaged states, but fair enough.

http://soj51.org/
They want to go at it alone, why can't you be happy for them?
They've done all their home work, they won't be any worse off then they already are.

I don't know about San Diego County, but the City of San Diego is generally considered moderate. I believe it had 100 more of one of the parties than the other at one point. For a city of millions of people, that's such a tiny difference.

I'm looking at the Counties as a whole.
---

Zachnorn posted...

So...let's break up states based on the 2016 election?

Based on the voting patterns of the most recent election. The data we got was useful.

Sure. I have a friend on the West Coast that does as well - he lives in Vancouver, WA and works in Portland, OR. There's plenty of complications though, like with taxes. But let's not get into that. My point was more that the people of Desert California (I know you gave your names, but I'm giving mine) would be contributing to the economy of Los Angeles more than their state.

That's going to be on a individual case by case basis depending on where they work.

Speaking of your names, you're not doing us LA people any favors by naming LA County's state "California". The Bay Area people already think we're self-centered as it is. I shall also just go ahead and call it Los Angeles because it's not like you invited any other counties to the party anyway, and decided to kick Lancaster/Palmdale out too while you're at it.

Louisiana already has the LA state abbreviation.
What would you abbreviate Los Angeles State as?
Would you really try to force Louisiana to change their State Abbreviation?
Or is it easier to just accept Los Angeles County as the new State of California.
AKA California 2.0.

When people around the world think California, Los Angeles is the 1st City that comes to mind.

As far as Bay Area people, being known as "Bay-Side California" is a pretty cool name.

And if you don't know what "Bay-Side California" is a reference too, man you're too young.
---