Comments on: Downsize California: The Chile Option http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/ Firedoglake weblog Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:32:07 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: PierceNichols http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832683 PierceNichols Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:53:41 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832683 <p>A north-south split of CA makes sense to me. Northern CA gets the water and damn near everything worthwhile about CA… Southern CA has to, well, live with itself.</p> A north-south split of CA makes sense to me. Northern CA gets the water and damn near everything worthwhile about CA… Southern CA has to, well, live with itself.

]]> By: valletta http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832492 valletta Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:06:16 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832492 <p>Hey we still get Santa Clara, Monterey, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara wine country…</p> Hey we still get Santa Clara, Monterey, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara wine country…

]]> By: bernie68 http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832450 bernie68 Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:30:27 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832450 <p>Not apropos, but I still like the idea of a horizontal three way split, to be called: Logland (Northern Ca.) — Fogland (Central Ca.) — and Smogland (Southern Ca.).</p> Not apropos, but I still like the idea of a horizontal three way split, to be called: Logland (Northern Ca.) — Fogland (Central Ca.) — and Smogland (Southern Ca.).

]]> By: TarheelDem http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832358 TarheelDem Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:16:57 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832358 <p>Or the US could give the green part back to Mexico. Makes just as much sense.</p> Or the US could give the green part back to Mexico. Makes just as much sense.

]]> By: someofparts http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832345 someofparts Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:24:22 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832345 <p>OTOH, maybe keeping Humbolt is how they plan to pay off the debt.</p> OTOH, maybe keeping Humbolt is how they plan to pay off the debt.

]]> By: someofparts http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832336 someofparts Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:47:27 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832336 <p>Just popping into comments to agree that we are gonna want to keep Humbolt. San Diego too because we have to keep TBogg and his Lovely and Talented family.</p> Just popping into comments to agree that we are gonna want to keep Humbolt. San Diego too because we have to keep TBogg and his Lovely and Talented family.

]]> By: barryr http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832316 barryr Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:04:38 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832316 <p>IF California were divided, the state with the water source would find uses for it all within that state. In this hypothetical case, that would be agriculture. They’d do it all legal and proper, with votes and everything. </p> <p>I’d say water politics is one reason why CA will not be split up, but it is also a major reason why Californians often talk about splitting up.</p> IF California were divided, the state with the water source would find uses for it all within that state. In this hypothetical case, that would be agriculture. They’d do it all legal and proper, with votes and everything.

I’d say water politics is one reason why CA will not be split up, but it is also a major reason why Californians often talk about splitting up.

]]> By: Airpower http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832301 Airpower Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:04:17 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832301 <p>“when” = went</p> <p>Also, Imperial County is heavily Democratic.</p> “when” = went

Also, Imperial County is heavily Democratic.

]]> By: Airpower http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832296 Airpower Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:03:09 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832296 <p>Why would anyone on the coast vote to separate themselves from their water supply? </p> <p>Why would the sizeable bloc of votes in CA-04 that when for Charlie Brown vote to align with the GOPigs?</p> <p>Why would Humboldt, Mendocino, Napa, Sonoma, Yolo and Solano Counties (and even Sacramento County) vote to align with the GOPigs?</p> <p>A majority of San Diego (the city if not the county) is Democratic. There are a respectable number of Democrats in Orange County. And I think Riverside County is slightly Democratic, too. Why would they vote to align with the GOPigs? </p> <p>That’s enough votes to shoot this one down.</p> <p>Finally, why would the Democrats in Congress approve this? (Required by Article IV, Section 3 of the U. S. Constitution.) It would be throwing away a significant number of electoral votes.</p> Why would anyone on the coast vote to separate themselves from their water supply?

Why would the sizeable bloc of votes in CA-04 that when for Charlie Brown vote to align with the GOPigs?

Why would Humboldt, Mendocino, Napa, Sonoma, Yolo and Solano Counties (and even Sacramento County) vote to align with the GOPigs?

A majority of San Diego (the city if not the county) is Democratic. There are a respectable number of Democrats in Orange County. And I think Riverside County is slightly Democratic, too. Why would they vote to align with the GOPigs?

That’s enough votes to shoot this one down.

Finally, why would the Democrats in Congress approve this? (Required by Article IV, Section 3 of the U. S. Constitution.) It would be throwing away a significant number of electoral votes.

]]> By: Teddy Partridge http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832186 Teddy Partridge Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:40:35 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/15/downsize-california-the-chile-option/#comment-1832186 <p>SF owns Hetch Hetchy. It’s our power and our water. I doubt we’ll give it up in any state division.</p> SF owns Hetch Hetchy. It’s our power and our water. I doubt we’ll give it up in any state division.

]]>