State of Jefferson pushed on the "nonpolitical" C2C webpage

[VtaGeezer]

PRN has kept a 5-minute video by the "Jefferson" bunch linked on the C2C website. Funny thing is that being associated with Noory's C2C will likely brand the promoters as flakes. 

[DanTSX]

As if they were not flakes?

[DanTSX]

Who said the webpage was non-Political?

The article is there to bring traffic.  Honestly, who cares?

I'm sure the Koch brothers and Dick Cheney are behind this movemeant to install clones of rand Paul as senators once they find a racist way to ensure he wins the presidency for 8 terms. :

[VtaGeezer]

Who said the webpage was non-Political?

I'm just extending Noory's constant claim about the show...usually made as he welcomes an extremist or quack.  And I'm not aware of any other plainly political videos being hosted that way on the show website.

[albrecht]

I'm just extending Noory's constant claim about the show...usually made as he welcomes an extremist or quack.  And I'm not aware of any other plainly political videos being hosted that way on the show website.

Come on. Surely you are bright enough not to believe anything Norry says about the show! He himself says, in his mumbling manner, it is "beyond beleef." Having said that I'm all for State of Jefferson and other non-violent attempts to devolve power from on-high and assert more local control, including, but not limited to creating new States etc.

[VtaGeezer]

Come on. Surely you are bright enough not to believe anything Norry says about the show! He himself says, in his mumbling manner, it is "beyond beleef." Having said that I'm all for State of Jefferson and other non-violent attempts to devolve power from on-high and assert more local control, including, but not limited to creating new States etc.

Google "irony".

[albrecht]

Google "irony".

Why?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29
I think this is a better option, by the way, though I support the "Jefferson" attempt and though unlikely (California isn't going to even up water and ag stuff willingly) and outright secession (aka Cascadia etc) will be hampered by both countries, trying to make a new state(s) is a bit more viable. It has been done before and, why not? It would be more "democratic" as more local control. And witness the events, some good, some bad, in other areas of the world where devolution of power, outright civil war, or internationally brokered divisions of countries take place. The USA, and Canada, are huge countries and fairly diverse so they shouldn't be controlled by such an autocratic, top-down mandated, centralized control. Even many of our states and provinces are larger than many countries. So why not have more local control? Not leaving the union but making new states or provinces, more local control, less Federal government control, allow ideas, theories, practices to differ between States (and therefore figure out what "works" best and others can adopt them if they wish, etc?)

[3OctaveFart]

In this case, as in almost all cases like this, it's conservatives who are simply angry the state in question is dominated politically by the other side.
If that's not the case, then why aren't conservatives making the same case in Texas and Alaska, where the states are larger?
Well, that would be because they run those states.

[albrecht]

In this case, as in almost all cases like this, it's conservatives who are simply angry the state in question is dominated politically by the other side.
If that's not the case, then why aren't conservatives making the same case in Texas and Alaska, where the states are larger?
Well, that would be because they run those states.

There are movements in both States you mention for more local autonomy (even outright secession even, which apart from political rhetoric and drunken laughs, has small actual support) but enough so Obama's minions raided a very small meeting recently.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Feds-raid-Texas-secessionist-meeting-6096637.php
And many movements, in Alaska, as you mention, and other States like Utah, Idaho, Nevada, etc etc to reclaim land from Federal control
http://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/04/06/house-passes-bill-to-seize-federal-lands/
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/04/08/3739164/crapos-vote-on-public-land-transfer.html
I won't mention to a Canadian the movements for Quebec or the indigenous populations but obviously you are aware of them (they even kidnap or bomb sometimes in their aims.)
It is interesting how even though the UN asserts the right of self-determination how the leftists, usually so loving of international law and control, don't appreciate it when it occurs closer to home. I am not for insurrection, civil wars, or secession but, simply, more local control and freedom. Which would be more "democratic," actually. Though, increasingly, when actual Constitutional provisions are ignored, or worse willfully violated, such as a securing the national border or adhering to Constitutional provisions:  the phrase "when in the Course of human events" does come to mind.

[3OctaveFart]

Albrecht, I agree with you. This needs to be reframed differently.
The process is legally pretty simple and the founders saw "re-statehood" happening down the road.
I listened to that C2C show and Noory fukked up that interview 10 different ways.
We are going to see more "secession stories".
Our government is crippled by competing interests.
China understands this implicitly.
It is run by engineers and scientists and people who know how to get things done, not man-babies whose daddies had a lot of money.

[albrecht]

Albrecht, I agree with you. This needs to be reframed differently.
The process is legally pretty simple and the founders saw "re-statehood" happening down the road.
I listened to that C2C show and Noory fukked up that interview 10 different ways.
We are going to see more "secession stories".
Our government is crippled by competing interests.
China understands this implicitly.
It is run by engineers and scientists and people who know how to get things done, not man-babies whose daddies had a lot of money.

My only concern, well not "only" but a big one, is that actual "secession" (at least in a violent form) cripples a region- sometimes for many, many decades and other countries, groups, etc take advantage. Which is why more "new" states, devolution, local control, and orderly process would be best. Thus, like the original intention of many modern countries we would have the ability to defend ourselves from an aggressor who doesn't allow freedom or more devolved local power (like China in some scenario, for example) but still maintain more democracy and local control. Actually the beauty of a loose federal system is the ability for regions (states, provinces, county, national, etc) to "learn" by local testing. In other words, say, California, or even some County, wants to put in a health care system. Fine and dandy. If it works other states might adopt it. Or others might reject. Or others might learn from a failure, tweak it and make a similar but better system. But "orders" from on high preclude any local variances, testing an idea locally without total commitment, etc. Sure, there are some things (mainly written down inherently depending on the country's constitution etc) that are sacrosanct. But  many things more locally controlled means systems can be tested, people more happy and comfortable, and more actual democracy (your vote is not as diluted.)
As an aside, I doubt a more State/Local orientated government system would get involved in far-flung foreign adventures and wars- unless real and ACTUAL threat, and then usually with much hesitation and as a part of a coalition. And considering that many, at least we, have advance nuclear, biological,chemical etc systems there is still real deterrent capability if actually attack and these could still be controlled by the National government even as we devolve more power to local regions.

[PB the Deplorable]

Most of the country would like to secede from the Liberal big cities in the various states. 

What would the governor and legislature of New York state be like if they ditched New York City and those voters no longer voted in state elections?  Or California without the San Francisco Bay Area and LA.  Or, say, Maryland without Baltimore, Wisconsin without Milwaukee, Illinois without Chicago, etc, etc, etc, et, etc, etc.

[albrecht]

Most of the country would like to secede from the Liberal big cities in the various states. 

What would the governor and legislature of New York state be like if they ditched New York City and those voters no longer voted in state elections?  Or California without the San Francisco Bay Area and LA.  Or, say, Maryland without Baltimore, Wisconsin without Milwaukee, Illinois without Chicago, etc, etc, etc, et, etc, etc.

Probably would result in more productivity, more general happiness, and more likable people and more honest politicians even.

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

Honest politician? Oxymoron!

[Gd5150]

Heull Howser did a really funny "California's Gold" on the State of Jefferson. He could't stop laughing the entire episode when he went to visit the State of Jefferson.

By remaining 1 state CA completely screws itself having just 2 Senators. But it'll never change, the media and Dems love that auto 55 votes for president they get that require 0$ spending. Nice to start out with a 20% lead every 4 years. God bless the 2000 gerrymandering redistricting.

[136 or 142]

By remaining 1 state CA completely screws itself having just 2 Senators. But it'll never change, the media and Dems love that auto 55 votes for president they get that require 0$ spending. Nice to start out with a 20% lead every 4 years. God bless the 2000 gerrymandering redistricting.

1.Senate seats can't be gerrymandered, dumbass.

2.California has an independent redistricting commission. Just like the one the Arizona Rethuglic Party is trying to do away with.

[3OctaveFart]

Not Canadian, by the way, Albrecht.
Married a Canadian. I'm a Georgia peach and will be retiring in the foothills of the Appalachians.
Long after this terrible president has brought his "game" to the golf course.
New Hampshire is another state to express desire to leave the union.
Far more libertarian-friendly than California.

[VtaGeezer]

By remaining 1 state CA completely screws itself having just 2 Senators. But it'll never change, the media and Dems love that auto 55 votes for president they get that require 0$ spending. Nice to start out with a 20% lead every 4 years. God bless the 2000 gerrymandering redistricting.

You state it as if Californians have a real choice in the matter.  There have been a few attempts on the ballot over the years, all by small and flakey special interests. The US Senate would strangle any real effort in infancy. And you're apparently not aware that by referendum the people of CA also took redistricting out of the hands of the hacks in Sacramento, a failed legislature having the lowest level of representation in the US by a huge margin.  But the hacks have fought it tooth and nail in the courts.

Yes, CA's 35+ million people should be subdivided; I think into at least three states. But "Jefferson" with a mere 500K (per wiki) redwood rednecks in the least populated non-desert area of the state, should not be one of them. As far as that goes, most of the US should be "re-stated" since Senate representation and influence has been distorted to a grotesque level and most states were created to bolster political influence of the day. Ian Punnett once did a show on this. 

Interesting link to a map of states based on population (halfway down): http://fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/

[Gd5150]

2.California has an independent redistricting commission.

good one!

[aldousburbank]

But "Jefferson" with a mere 500K (per wiki) redwood rednecks in the least populated non-desert area of the state,

Wiki's wrong. I'm living in Jefferson so it's 499,999.

[Quick Karl]

You state it as if Californians have a real choice in the matter.  There have been a few attempts on the ballot over the years, all by small and flakey special interests. The US Senate would strangle any real effort in infancy. And you're apparently not aware that by referendum the people of CA also took redistricting out of the hands of the hacks in Sacramento, a failed legislature having the lowest level of representation in the US by a huge margin.  But the hacks have fought it tooth and nail in the courts.

Yes, CA's 35+ million people should be subdivided; I think into at least three states. But "Jefferson" with a mere 500K (per wiki) redwood rednecks in the least populated non-desert area of the state, should not be one of them. As far as that goes, most of the US should be "re-stated" since Senate representation and influence has been distorted to a grotesque level and most states were created to bolster political influence of the day. Ian Punnett once did a show on this. 

Interesting link to a map of states based on population (halfway down): http://fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/

The only real way to solve America's problems is to divide the country into two countries - one run by liberal parasites and the other run by "redwood rednecks," and let each country pay for it's own shit with money from its own citizens (and/or illegal aliens).

Then we just sit back and watch and see what country turns to shit and starts demanding that the other one pay for it.

I love Texas but I have no clue how all those queers infected Austin.

[136 or 142]

good one!

It's independent enough that the Rethuglic Party in Arizona is trying to get the one there voted in by a popular referendum declared unconstitutional.

[albrecht]

You state it as if Californians have a real choice in the matter.  There have been a few attempts on the ballot over the years, all by small and flakey special interests. The US Senate would strangle any real effort in infancy. And you're apparently not aware that by referendum the people of CA also took redistricting out of the hands of the hacks in Sacramento, a failed legislature having the lowest level of representation in the US by a huge margin.  But the hacks have fought it tooth and nail in the courts.

Yes, CA's 35+ million people should be subdivided; I think into at least three states. But "Jefferson" with a mere 500K (per wiki) redwood rednecks in the least populated non-desert area of the state, should not be one of them. As far as that goes, most of the US should be "re-stated" since Senate representation and influence has been distorted to a grotesque level and most states were created to bolster political influence of the day. Ian Punnett once did a show on this. 

Interesting link to a map of states based on population (halfway down): http://fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/

Got a laugh about the comment he put underneath the map: "Keep in mind that this is an art project, not a serious proposal, so take it easy with the emails about the sacred soil of Texas. That said, if you have any questions, drop me a line."
Down here most folks don't understand "Art" projects, unless they are Remington paintings/bronzes or $$ art for investment, not the modern stuff or "projects" and we can get riled up by such "art" messing with us (except the homosexuals in Austin QK mentioned earlier who probably thought it was fabulous.) By the way this is the map we use:
http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/1200/1243/1243.htm
Come on, it gets dang hot here and we need some skiing opportunities besides Lubbock!

[Gd5150]

I love Texas but I have no clue how all those queers infected Austin.

Don't worry once they redraw the stateliness based on the population map they'll all be rushing to the "Tule" state.

[PB the Deplorable]

It's independent enough that the Rethuglic Party in Arizona is trying to get the one there voted in by a popular referendum declared unconstitutional.

That's weird, only the Libs are supposed to sue to overturn referendums

[Zetaspeak]

Conservatives can't stand being in the minority. Which is kind of ironic as they tend to treat other minorities like crap (See: Indiana thread). But when they are in the minority like in this situation, it's now not about majority rule but they believe in "equal location rights"

Yes liberals whined when GWB won re-election but most of them talk about leaving or moving to another country. Conservatives almost immediately talked about secession when they don't get their way (I am talking about the most vocal of each group)

You want to know what's shady, the 2012 election. Slightly more people voted for a Democratic representation than Republican (49% to 48.2%) Yet republicans get way more "elections seats win" (233-195) Talk about Gerrymandering. It was mentioned a bit when it happened, but quickly moved on. I swear if it was the other way around, it would have been daily talk radio topic.

[136 or 142]

Conservatives can't stand being in the minority. Which is kind of ironic as they tend to treat other minorities like crap (See: Indiana thread). But when they are in the minority like in this situation, it's now not about majority rule but they believe in "equal location rights"

Yes liberals whined when GWB won re-election but most of them talk about leaving or moving to another country. Conservatives almost immediately talked about secession when they don't get their way (I am talking about the most vocal of each group)

You want to know what's shady, the 2012 election. Slightly more people voted for a Democratic representation than Republican (49% to 48.2%) Yet republicans get way more "elections seats win" (233-195) Talk about Gerrymandering. It was mentioned a bit when it happened, but quickly moved on. I swear if it was the other way around, it would have been daily talk radio topic.

It was 234-201.
Democrats also got slightly more votes in 1996 than the Republicans yet the Republicans won 227-208.

Gerrymandering certainly plays a role, but the other factor is popular incumbents getting reelected by narrow margins in a number of districts that doesn't make a difference in the overall vote totals while changing the seat totals quite a lot.

The United States was built on the premise of minorities treating other minorities like crap.  The Puritans didn't leave England just because they were persecuted, the came to the United States so that they could persecute others.

[Juan]

The Democrats buried themselves by creating all of the black supermajority Congressional districts.  Sure it resulted in the election of loyal black representatives (Sheila Jackson Lee, Corrine Brown, Mel Watt), but it meant that there are few blacks outside those districts, so the other districts have gone Republican, and without blacks living in the districts, the Republicans have little interest in them.  It's an example of be careful what you wish for.

[Gd5150]

but it meant that there are few blacks outside those districts, so the other districts have gone Republican, and without blacks living in the districts, the Republicans have little interest in them.

I hear what you're saying. But Republicans simply have interest in everyone having the most opportunity to be successful and pursue the dream. They encourage this by having lower taxes, less burden on people and business, thus drawing in business and jobs. As well as having stronger law enforcement, and forcing out crime.

This is why when people from the inner city districts get an education and career they get the hell out of the inner city. Inner cities are not the place for anyone to live. They've been consistently run by Democrats for over 100 years and are perpetual cesspools. The people trapped in them are enslaved by Democrat policies and sold false promises by inner city politicians like the great Los Angeles Mayor of 25 years Tom Bradley who did nothing for LA but piss away Hollywoods greatness and turn it into a homeless dump. Or how about the honorable Maxine Waters whos overseen south central LA for decades as it remains a war zone and place for gangs and drug dealers to thrive. Kids deserve the opportunity to go to school everyday without fear of being killed. This is truly a place in need of marshall law, even the black folk who try to survive there will tell you. The sooner one can get out the better.

The beauty is despite Democrat efforts to keep these people enslaved more black people are getting educated and getting out. This generation of black people are so much is better than the last, and their kids will have more opportunity than the last. As these people acquire education and success they move away from Democrat lies, forcing Dems to find new slaves. Hence erasing as many voting regulations as possible and letting all illegals in so they can be the next poor bastards who are enslaved by Democrat policies and false promises.

[VtaGeezer]

... But Republicans simply have interest in everyone having the most opportunity to be successful and pursue the dream. They encourage this by having lower taxes, less burden on people and business, thus drawing in business and jobs. As well as having stronger law enforcement, and forcing out crime.

You bet. And unicorns pee Laphroaig.  Where you in prison or in a coma the last time the Republicans were in charge?