The State of Jefferson’s plan for a California divided

  
Via:  make-america-great-again  •  3 months ago  •  282 comments

The State of Jefferson’s plan for a California divided
The Jeffersonian movement has recently re-ignited and spread across California. Now, supporters as far south as San Bernardino want in, even though it’s not practical to admit counties that aren’t contiguous, Baird said. But he understands why impoverished rural Californians statewide want to join. “California has become a totalitarian nightmare of social engineering, and people are bailing out, we’ve lost 9,000 businesses and nearly a million productive people,” Baird said.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Almost anywhere you drive through Northern California, you’ll see green and gold signs, flags and banners heralding the arrival of the State of Jefferson, a separatist movement that nearly succeeded in 1941 and, more recently, has grown like a grass fire in the era of Trump.

The signs feature “The Great Seal of the State of Jefferson,” a gold pan emblazoned with two X’s—Jeffersonians have long believed they’ve been double-crossed by big city politicians in Sacramento who take their money but ignore their concerns.

Over the last two years, the signs have popped up on billboards, front yards, and haystacks, sometimes next to Confederate flags and anti-immigrant slogans.

They can also be seen at county fairs and frequent rallies featuring supporters, some in camouflage fatigues, outside the Federal Building in Sacramento, where the secessionists have taken their fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jeffersonians argue that since Southern California has 111 elected state reps (74 assembly members and 37 senators) and Northern California above the San Francisco Bay Area, only nine (six in the assembly, three in the Senate), the courts have “a legal, moral and constitutional” obligation to fix this imbalance by adding more state legislators, especially in far-flung rural counties.

cover1-5.jpg
Click on the image for a larger version.
INFOGRAPHIC BY SARAH HANSEL

“Taxation without representation,” the rallying cry of the American Revolution, now resonates with tens of thousands of Jeffersonians in 23 counties from Stanislaus to the Oregon border—nearly all of which voted for Trump. The “double cross” dates back to 1941 when residents of five counties, sick of paying taxes and not getting needed roads in return, joined forces with rural Northern Californians to secede and then formed their own border patrol.

Today, they reflect a growing sentiment that California should be carved into anywhere from two to six states in order to adequately govern its 40 million people and their conflicting political views on a broad range of issues, including immigration, gun control, water rights and environmental regulations.

Just this summer, a measure to ask Congress to split California into three states, backed by Silicon Valley billionaire Tim Draper, qualified for the November ballot. It was eventually invalidated by the California Supreme Court, which questioned the measure’s constitutionality.

The legal setback didn’t discourage Jeffersonians.

Indeed, this unlikely assortment of survivalists and hippies, pot growers and hardline cops, real estate appraisers and loggers, fencing instructors and gun-lovers, Latinos and anti-immigrants has joined forces, seemingly impervious to criticisms.

While Jefferson’s leader, Mark Baird, claims the movement is non-partisan, Baird admits he, and many other Jeffersonians, voted for Donald Trump—"he wasn’t my first choice, I wanted Ted Cruz"—because they couldn’t stand Hillary Clinton. He also acknowledges Trump’s victory empowered thousands of disaffected voters in Jefferson country, and noted that the more federal judges Trump appoints in California, especially to the decidedly liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the better Jefferson’s chances.

Critics across California and the nation have called Jefferson a hare-brained scheme, a disaster in the making.

But Baird and others argue that Jefferson’s time is now.

“Our window of opportunity is here,” he said.

‘California has become a totalitarian nightmare’

The Jeffersonian movement has recently re-ignited and spread across California. Now, supporters as far south as San Bernardino want in, even though it’s not practical to admit counties that aren’t contiguous, Baird said. But he understands why impoverished rural Californians statewide want to join.

“California has become a totalitarian nightmare of social engineering, and people are bailing out, we’ve lost 9,000 businesses and nearly a million productive people,” Baird said.

Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence opens with a Trumpian-sounding rant that claims leaders such as Gov. Jerry Brown and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom “have openly and publicly declared war on the government of the United States.”

“Is this or is this not a nation of laws?” it reads. “[We] Declare the 51st State, Jefferson, to free us from tyranny!”

The language and ideas date back much further than the 45th president.

In 1941, Jeffersonians captured attention when they formed a rebel militia and even stopped drivers on Highway 99 in Siskiyou County at gunpoint, handing out their declaration of independence and bumper stickers letting them know they were entering the State of Jefferson.

Stanton Delaplane, a writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, could smell a great story 300 miles away. He rode into Siskiyou County and won the 1942 Pulitzer Prize for reporting his coverage of the “mountain men” rebellion.

“Gun-toting citizens of these rebel counties are partly mad, partly in fun, partly earnest about this new state,” Delaplane wrote then.

The rebels—then comprising four counties in California and one in Oregon—demanded the state build promised roads into the mountains containing millions of dollars of copper deposits, “and if they don’t get them pretty soon, there’s no telling what they might do.”

“This is the last frontier and the hard stand of rugged individualism that is not a political slogan,” Delaplane opined in his December 1, 1941 piece.

cover1-2.JPG
Stephen Johnson, an avid State of Jefferson supporter, sold shirts, caps, signs and flags during a recent Auburn Home Show. Some hats proclaimed “Jefferson Militia,” while others featured a gun and the slogan, “Mama Didn’t Raise No Victim.”
PHOTO BY STEVE MAGAGNINI

Jeffersonians appeared on the verge of getting approval from Congress to break away until it was blown out of the water by the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

The movement remained largely under the radar until Mark Baird, 65, a strapping reincarnation of John Wayne, started breathing new life into Jefferson five years ago. The 6-foot-4-inch fire tanker pilot, rancher and reserve deputy sheriff from Siskiyou County cuts an impressive figure. He sports a black belt holster, but instead of a sidearm, packs his weapon of choice, a copy of the Constitution.

Many politicians, academics and journalists seek to dismiss Baird and his fellow Jeffersonians as a bunch of gun-toting, right-wing rednecks, Trumpies and neo-Confederates whose chances of launching the 51st state are slim to none and slim’s left town.

Tim Onderko, vice-mayor of Loomis in Placer County, empathizes with Jeffersonians—to a point.

“I understand people feel under-represented or misrepresented and want to make a change—I totally get it, I’m all about local control,” Onderko said. “But we have to have a state-wide constitutional convention. How would Jeffersonians support themselves?”

Onderko’s skepticism was amplified by the State Legislative Analyst’s Office, a nonpartisan think tank, which last year issued a 13-page report on secession outlining a wide range of potential problems, including who will pay for and operate public schools, courts, prisons, water, welfare, transportation, parks and state agencies.

If the measure was approved by voters and the federal government—and until California and Jefferson came to an agreement on how to split the state’s assets and liabilities, the report read, “all tax collections and spending by the existing state of California would end.”

Baird’s used to not being taken seriously.

When he and his finance expert, Steven Baird (no relation) of Sacramento, showed up for a scheduled appointment with Gov. Brown to present their secession plan, for example, a California Highway Patrol officer outside the governor’s office told them the state’s chief “had more important things to do.”

“We couldn’t even get the guy who brings them coffee to take our papers, so we dropped them off in the mail room,” Steven Baird said.

Mark Baird is equal parts Don Quixote, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. He lives in Scott Valley, a staunchly independent community 30 miles west of Yreka, now the provisional capital of Jefferson.

Baird said he and several other ranchers took on the California Department of Fish & Game a decade ago, “when they were trying to charge us $25,000 per ranch for our water rights and unfettered access to our land.”

“We told them not only ‘no’ but ‘hell no'—if you want our water be prepared to take it.”

Ultimately, Mark Baird and company never had to brandish their weapons, Fish & Game just cleared out. That victory set the table: On September 3, 2013, the modern state of Jefferson was born when Baird and about 100 supporters presented the Siskiyou Board of Supervisors with their Declaration of Independence and won approval by a 4-1 vote.

Baird, a walking encyclopedia of California history and constitutional law who’s fond of quoting Alexis de Tocqueville and Frederick Douglass, has sold his dream across a vast expanse of California.

“We’ve raised more than $500,000—$2 at a time, and I’ve been reading legal cases like a crazy law student for the last five years,” he said.

Teachers, mechanics, doctors, lawyers, clerks, small business owners, farmers, ranchers and survivalists have all contributed.

“While most of us are gray-hairs, we have a strong Facebook presence in all our counties, and young people are turning out for our fairs and events,” Baird said.

Whatever their age, background or profession, Jeffersonians share a common distrust of big-city, heavy-handed government, Mark Baird says. He knows plenty of folks who “hate California, they hate the taxes, rules and regulations.”

Baird and many other Jeffersonians have a distinctly libertarian flavor. They say their new state will largely be governed by individual counties that will enforce their own laws and fund their own police, courts, fire departments, schools, public officials and indigent medical care.

“Spending, except in rare cases such as the state Supreme Court, education above K-12 and prisons will be handled at a city/county level,” explained Steven Baird, the finance expert, who ran for the sprawling 1st Senate District in 2016 on a pro-Jefferson Platform and lost. Now, he argues that one district with 11 counties shortchanges almost every constituent.

“It is up to the people in those communities how they want their taxes and money to be spent. We will not force any county to fund any particular action.”

A new independence

Here’s what Jefferson would look like based on census records from the 23 counties that have signed on and two others on the fence, either through referendum or a vote of their board of supervisors: 2.5 million people, 69 percent Caucasian, 21 percent Hispanic, 4 percent Asian, about 3 percent multi-racial, 1.6 percent American Indian and 1.6 percent African-American. Nineteen counties voted for Trump, four (Mendocino, Lake, Nevada and Stanislaus) went for Clinton.

If secession happens, Jefferson would hold a constitutional convention to draw its own legislative boundaries.

Jefferson’s governor and courts would have less power to authorize or veto legislation—that responsibility would fall squarely on the legislature. Nearly all services—from police to fire to schools—would be run by individual counties, Baird said.

cover1-3.JPG
Jean Colegrove adorns a T-shirt that reads: “The moment has come for the 51st state.”
PHOTO BY STEVE MAGAGNINI

Critics both inside and out of Jefferson’s boundaries, including Chamber of Commerce officials and park rangers, fear a state made up of California’s poorest counties won’t have the resources to provide quality services—they say the state sends more money back to those counties than it collects from them.

But Jeffersonians argue that without having to pay income, sales or corporate taxes to the state, their financial model shows an aggregate county surplus without reducing current spending for schools, roads, public safety and infrastructure, according to their website.

The Jefferson movement welcomes all independent parties, and the Green Party, which has scored few victories elsewhere, would have a better chance running in freshly-drawn rural districts, Mark Baird said.

Not all Jeffersonians are crazy about their namesake, but Steven Baird says it fits.

“I guess we adhere to Thomas Jefferson’s principles of limited government. We would like to reboot the core beliefs of our Founding Fathers.”

America’s Founding Fathers believed every American would have the opportunity to succeed but there’s no guarantee of success: You will succeed on your own merits and resources.

The State of Jefferson has sparked plenty of opposition within its boundaries.

Keep it California, a nonpartisan group based in Sierra City, for one, is staunchly anti-Jefferson. The group claims the actual costs to Jeffersonians, ranging from having to pay out of state tuition to California universities to having to buy their way out of California’s $778 billion debt, which means Jefferson’s projected $3.16 billion annual budget will be sliced to $840 million.

“This proposal would create a very weak, Balkanized states with little uniformity throughout creating confusion and uncertainty,” declares Keept It California’s website. “It wouldn’t even guarantee that the few comparatively prosperous counties (Eldorado and Placer, both Jeffersonian bastions) would choose to help the poorer counties.”

Placerville’s Jamie Beutler, chair of the California Democratic Party, Rural Caucus, said Keep It California was formed in 2015 to counter Jefferson after its leaders began persuading county after county to join up.

“I think it’s crazy—I understand their frustration,” she said. “But they get more money from the state for roads, schools, hospitals, infrastructure than they would get if they broke away.

While Mark Baird says Jefferson would liberate mining, timber, farming and energy from California control, Beutler notes, “most of the water and forests are federally controlled, so nothing would change there.”

Baird hopes that Jefferson can become a reality in five years; Beutler counters that notion.

“I think there’s no chance of this passing, but there’s a populist mood sweeping the country and they have been emboldened, all these hate movements have risen up,” he says. “These are the same people who have been infused with fear by Trump, Rush Limbaugh, and alt-right media. They listen to what they want to hear and don’t listen to reason.”

Voters, lawsuits and true grit

While Jefferson’s plans to create a special Native American senate seat has generated support from some of the many Indians within its boundaries, Jessica Jim, an elder with the 5,000 member federally recognized Pit River Tribe who sits on the enrollment committee, said, “the problem is, who is going to get control of that seat?”

Jim, who lives and works in Burney, said she feels Jeffersonians are simply pandering.

“We have Karuk, Hoopa, Susanville and Pit River among the 37 tribes in Northern California. We all have different dances and beliefs. They’re trying to pacify us,” she said. “We said no, you treat us on a government-to-government, face-to-face basis.”

Mark Baird, who agrees many details need to be worked out, nonetheless insists they’ll be successful.

“We are picking up steam in the face of some pretty serious opposition from both political parties.”

Though Jefferson’s two U.S. Senators will likely be Republicans, he says, there’s no real alliance between the political party and secessionists.

“Republicans hate us more than Democrats, because they have literally more to lose,” Baird said.

In fact, three U.S. Representatives will shift from California to the new state, and those seats tend to be held by Republicans, who Baird says often ignore rural Californians.

Despite some 200 attempts to divide California into two or more states even before California entered the Union in 1850, including one effort that was on the verge of succeeding when, it too, was blown up by a war, in this case, the Civil War, these efforts have been derailed by political and legal opposition.

In January, Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper—claiming 40 million Californians were not adequately represented either in the state legislature or the United States—collected more than 400,000 valid signatures to split California into three states, qualifying it for the November ballot. Draper also launched failed campaigns to break up California into six states in 2012 and 2014.

Draper’s current bid fizzled when the California Supreme Court unanimously concluded “that the potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election.”

cover1-4.JPG
Mark Baird, a rancher and reserve deputy sheriff from Siskiyou County, started to breathe new life into the State of Jefferson separatist movement five years ago.
PHOTO BY STEVE MAGAGNINI

Even if voters had approved Draper’s proposition, it couldn’t become reality without Congressional approval—the same obstacle Jefferson faces, assuming it can persuade the California legislature to go along with it. But in the era of Trump, the possibility of giving California—the bluest of blue states—more Republican seats in the Senate and House of Representatives may not be that far-fetched.

Meanwhile, without mentioning the State of Jefferson, Citizens for Fair Representation sued California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, arguing that Californians have the worst proportional representation in the nation—each of the 40 senators represent about 1 million people, while each of the 80 assembly members represent about half a million. California’s 53 U.S. representatives each represent nearly 740,000 people.

The plaintiffs, which include the American Independent Party of California, the Libertarian Party of California, several northern counties, Mark Baird and other Jefferson leaders, have made a fairly strong case that the California Senate and Assembly need to increase their membership “so we can all have access, not just the lobbyists,” Baird wrote in his supporting document.

The plaintiffs sought to get the U.S. Supreme Court to have their case heard by a three-judge panel, but the court rejected their request. They lost that round, but they’re hoping the Sacramento federal judge who handled their case, Kim Mueller, can still be persuaded to let them argue their case in court. If not, they will appeal to the 9th circuit, Mark Baird said.

The Jeffersonians have no quit in them. Over barbecue at the House of Chicken in Antelope, Mark Baird, joined by Steven and Dianna Baird, said California has historically kept the number of state senators low to keep Chinese, African-Americans, Mexicans and other minorities from being represented.

“In 1879 there were six different African-American representatives when the legislature held a Constitutional Convention that led to the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act,” Baird explained. He said Californians took up the chant, “The Chinese must go,” leading to deportations that could have been prevented had Chinese communities had the right to elect state representatives. The same thing happened to disenfranchised Mexican immigrants, Baird said. Between 1929 and 1936, the United States launched the Mexican Repatriation program, which deported anywhere from an estimated 400,000 to 2 million Mexican Americans, the majority of them from California.

That “tyranny” continues today, he said, adding that the Jefferson movement embraces people of all races.

Despite its rebel beginnings, Jefferson has attracted an increasingly diverse following.

Lisa Pruitt, a UC Davis law professor specializing in rural and urban differences, said she has seen Jefferson signs in El Dorado, Amador and Calaveras Counties.

“I saw a Jefferson decal on a Prius in Fair Oaks, and on I-80 near Davis,” she said. “It’s all over rural California and creeping into urban California. I’ve seen their stickers on cars in Target parking lots.”

The further north you go, the bigger the signs, Pruitt said.

“There’s a lot of agitation on the part of rural Californians who feel their interests are not being heard or taken seriously in Sacramento,” Pruitt said. “The example is the state gas tax: people in rural areas who drive long distance don’t feel they get anything for their buck.”

Mark Baird argues that there’s a historic precedent for Jefferson: Vermont left New York and New Hampshire in 1791, Kentucky left Virginia in 1792, Maine bolted from Massachusetts in 1820 and West Virginia—which argued that Virginia committed sedition by breaking away from the union to join the confederacy—got its independence in 1863.

Pruitt, however, disagrees.

“It’s not a winning analogy,” she said, adding that West Virginia’s split happened more than 150 years ago.

“People are intrigued by it, but peeling themselves into a separate state would not solve their economic woes, and might make them worse,” she said. “I’m not convinced they would be in a better situation if they got more representatives, rural interests would still be greatly outnumbered by urban interests in Jefferson. Legislators represent people, not cows and trees.”

‘The moment has come’

The struggle ahead didn’t dampen the enthusiasm for Jefferson at the Auburn Home Show last month—the Jefferson booth proved to be one of the most popular destinations.

“We’ve filled up four sheets with about 20 people each today,” said Chris Page, a 55-year-old real estate appraiser from Granite Bay on a recent Saturday afternoon.

“Close to 90 percent said if we don’t regain our property and water rights, lower our taxes and restore our political representation, they will leave California,” said Page, a Republican who owns farmland in El Dorado County.

Jean Colegrove, 64, worked the booth in a pink State of Jefferson hat and a Jefferson T-shirt declaring “Ha Llegado El Momento De Los 51 Estados"—"the moment has come for the 51st State.” Colegrove said one of Jefferson’s strongest Hispanic voices, David Garcia of Valley Springs recently died, but there’s still solid Latino support.

Colegrove, a Libertarian, confessed she lives in Sacramento County, “behind enemy lines,” but said she sees support for Jefferson growing in Citrus Heights, Orangevale and Folsom.

“When Jerry Brown signed the anti-cow farting and manure legislation in October 2016, I said I’ll be leaving the state before I put a contraption on my cow’s butt,” said Colegrove of the state’s plan to curb cow-generated methane to reduce greenhouse gasses.

Stephen Johnson, a retired mechanic and chiropractor from Applegate, was doing a brisk business selling $15 shirts, caps, signs and flags. Some hats proclaimed “Jefferson Militia,” while others featured a gun and the slogan, “Mama Didn’t Raise No Victim.”

“We’re having fun with it,” said Johnson, 74. “Any militia will be done through our county sheriff’s departments. Jefferson’s going to have maybe 50 state agencies, while California has over 500.”

Aleksei Ugachenko, a 17-year-old student from Pioneer High School in Woodland, was intrigued by everything Jefferson has to offer.

“How would Jefferson deal with federally controlled resources and federal funds for schools? They might have to privatize their schools,” he pondered. “Still, I think we should have better representation up north.”

Mark Baird, Jefferson’s leader, agrees. His conversations with everyday people have made it clear that the State of Jefferson’s future holds promise.

“The oligarchy that runs Sacramento doesn’t care what the voters think,” he says. “We have been over-taxed and over-regulated, and more and more people every day are willing to stand up and fight.”

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
XXJefferson#51
1  seeder  XXJefferson#51    3 months ago

“On September 3, 2013, the modern state of Jefferson was born when Baird and about 100 supporters presented the Siskiyou Board of Supervisors with their Declaration of Independence and won approval by a 4-1 vote.

Baird, a walking encyclopedia of California history and constitutional law who’s fond of quoting Alexis de Tocqueville and Frederick Douglass, has sold his dream across a vast expanse of California.

“We’ve raised more than $500,000—$2 at a time, and I’ve been reading legal cases like a crazy law student for the last five years,” he said.

Teachers, mechanics, doctors, lawyers, clerks, small business owners, farmers, ranchers and survivalists have all contributed.

“While most of us are gray-hairs, we have a strong Facebook presence in all our counties, and young people are turning out for our fairs and events,” Baird said.

Whatever their age, background or profession, Jeffersonians share a common distrust of big-city, heavy-handed government, Mark Baird says. He knows plenty of folks who “hate California, they hate the taxes, rules and regulations.”

Baird and many other Jeffersonians have a distinctly libertarian flavor. They say their new state will largely be governed by individual counties that will enforce their own laws and fund their own police, courts, fire departments, schools, public officials and indigent medical care.

“Spending, except in rare cases such as the state Supreme Court, education above K-12 and prisons will be handled at a city/county level,” explained Steven Baird, the finance expert, who ran for the sprawling 1st Senate District in 2016 on a pro-Jefferson Platform and lost. Now, he argues that one district with 11 counties shortchanges almost every constituent.

“It is up to the people in those communities how they want their taxes and money to be spent. We will not force any county to fund any particular action.”

A new independence

Here’s what Jefferson would look like based on census records from the 23 counties that have signed on and two others on the fence, either through referendum or a vote of their board of supervisors: 2.5 million people, 69 percent Caucasian, 21 percent Hispanic, 4 percent Asian, about 3 percent multi-racial, 1.6 percent American Indian and 1.6 percent African-American. Nineteen counties voted for Trump, four (Mendocino, Lake, Nevada and Stanislaus) went for Clinton.

If secession happens, Jefferson would hold a constitutional convention to draw its own legislative boundaries.”

 
 
 
lady in black
1.1  lady in black  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1    3 months ago

Won't happen, no matter how much you wish it will.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  lady in black @1.1    3 months ago

It will happen.  All we have to do is wait for Puerto Rico and DC to apply for statehood and wait to be the senate offset for one of them.  Someone already proposed Eastern Washington for Puerto Rico so barring anything else we have that.  As long as we have a President and 34 senators or 41 senators otherwise or a house majority we are prepared to ride their coattails to statehood.  

 
 
 
lady in black
1.1.2  lady in black  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.1    3 months ago

Keep dreaming, it won't happen

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  lady in black @1.1    3 months ago

I remember hordes of progressive liberals saying exactly the same thing about Trump running for president...jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
lady in black
1.1.4  lady in black  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.3    3 months ago

Apples and oranges comparison.  jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  lady in black @1.1.4    3 months ago

Nice deflection.

 
 
 
StinkweedPete
1.1.6  StinkweedPete  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.3    3 months ago

Hi. I am sorry, I am new here, but I don't think that you are making an accurate comparison. I do not mean to be disrespectful but I don't personally see California voting to divide up their own state to appease a rather small minority. 

Just my two cents. 

 
 
 
cjcold
1.1.7  cjcold  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.3    3 months ago

So Russia is for Jeffersonian idiocy as well?

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.1.8  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  cjcold @1.1.7    3 months ago

The efforts of us political freedom fighters in the State of Jefferson to free ourselves from the occupation and tyranny of the evil that is Californication’s coastal urban regions and Sacramento and become America’s great 51st state has nothing to do with Russia unlike the Cal Exit which some progressives push to have Californication secede from the USA 🇺🇸 and form its own separate nation.  

 
 
 
lady in black
1.1.9  lady in black  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.8    3 months ago

It's a pipe dream, nothing more.  It will never happen just like splitting up NYS will never happen.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2  Dismayed Patriot    3 months ago

They really don't hide what this is really about do they.

"Here's what Jefferson would look like based on the census records from the 23 counties that have signed on and two others on the fence."

"69% Caucasian"

Might as well have just said "Are you white and feel like you're becoming a minority? Join us in Jefferson where we'll be back in charge!".

And of course the elephant in the room...these counties are a fucking drain on California and can't pay their own way now, how do they expect to fund their own State? And not many want to go spend tourism dollars in towns that remind them of a scene out of Deliverance.

"Critics both inside and out of Jefferson’s boundaries, including Chamber of Commerce officials and park rangers, fear a state made up of California’s poorest counties won’t have the resources to provide quality services—they say the state sends more money back to those counties than it collects from them."

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2    3 months ago

We aren’t the poorest counties when cost of living is taken into account.  The one thing we really don’t hide is our sheer and utter contempt for the secular progressive coastal urban regions and detest the government of the state.  

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.1  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.1    3 months ago
We aren’t the poorest counties when cost of living is taken into account. The one thing we really don’t hide is our sheer and utter contempt for the secular progressive coastal urban regions and detest the government of the state.

Yet, as has pointed out to you ad nauseum, your 'we' doesn't amount to the majority in the region. Your own seed proves that fact. 

“Taxation without representation,” the rallying cry of the American Revolution, now resonates with tens of thousands of Jeffersonians in 23 counties from Stanislaus to the Oregon border

See that bold part there Xx? Now let's look at the meme in you seed and see what it says about the WHOLE population of those 23 counties. 

Hmmmm, oh there it is, 2.5 MILLION.

So 'tens of thousands' out of 2.5 MILLION Xx.

In short, a small MINORITY. 

So this it just another failed attempt on your part to pretend that a 'popular' revolution is eminent. It's ridiculous and sad that you keep bringing this weak shit up.

Oh and one more thing Xx. You continue to pretend that those who live in your area hold 'contempt for secular progressive' politics. There was a recent survey done that shows the least and most 'politically' prejudiced counties in the country. Shasta county is rated as VERY open minded about the political 'other'. YOU are an outlier in your area Xx. 

READ it and weep:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/us-counties-vary-their-degree-partisan-prejudice/583072/

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.2  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.1    3 months ago

How'd you like that link Xx? Despite all of your vitriol, your peeps look to be pretty open to other's opinions. 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
2.1.3  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @2.1.1    3 months ago

Dulay,

You didn't bother reading the actual article, did you?  You just looked at the graphic and had the knee-jerk "RACISM!" reaction of most liberals.  What the graphic was a DEMOGRAPHIC breakdown of the counties that are in the Jefferson movement.  It's not about racism at all, it is just a bunch of statistics based on the last Census in those counties.  In other words, it is a SNAPSHOT of what it would look like and most likely it has changed from that snapshot.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.4  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @2.1.3    3 months ago
You didn't bother reading the actual article, did you? 

Actually tom, I went to the link and slogged through the pablum there. 

You just looked at the graphic and had the knee-jerk "RACISM!" reaction of most liberals. 

That's utter bullshit tom.

There was NOTHING in my comment about RACE.

Your comment obviously has NOTHING to do with the actual content to my comment.  It looks like YOU are the one having a knee-jerk reaction to ME. 

There seem to be a lot of irritated conservatives around here lately. Touchy, touchy. 

What the graphic was a DEMOGRAPHIC breakdown of the counties that are in the Jefferson movement. 

No shit tom. My comment wasn't about DEMOGRAPHICS, it was about POPULATION. 

It's not about racism at all, it is just a bunch of statistics based on the last Census in those counties.  In other words, it is a SNAPSHOT of what it would look like and most likely it has changed from that snapshot.

Is that supposed to be a revelation tom? 

 
 
 
cjcold
2.1.5  cjcold  replied to  Dulay @2.1.2    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
cjcold
2.1.6  cjcold  replied to  cjcold @2.1.5    3 months ago

So if this is to be a learning experience I have to be able to see the terrible thing that I wrote.

The vine would show one what one's transgression was.

As a writer I don't even remember half the stuff I wrote last night.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1.7  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Dulay @2.1.1    3 months ago

The. far north that overwhelmingly voted for Trump is much more open minded toward others than coastal urban areas that overwhelmingly voted for Hillary are. Thanks for pointing that out. Our issue is not with liberals who live among us.  It is with secular progressives from afar who desire to rule over us.  We discern the difference.  The article said that the most politically bigoted people in the country are white secular progressives who live in gentrified inner urban areas on the two coasts.  It got that right.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1.8  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  cjcold @2.1.6    3 months ago

Go check out your ticket and it will say.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.9  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.1.7    3 months ago

The. far north that overwhelmingly voted for Trump is much more open minded toward others than coastal urban areas that overwhelmingly voted for Hillary are. Thanks for pointing that out.

Don't be misleading Xx. Their openness is for the political other. Your comments are not. 

Our issue is not with liberals who live among us.  

You've commented multiple times on needing to circumvent the liberals in your local government so you obviously DO have an issue with them and those who elected them. 

It is with secular progressives from afar who desire to rule over us.  

How do they rule you from afar? 

We discern the difference.

Really? How do you 'discern the difference' Xx? How do you know that YOUR liberals aren't 'secular progressives' too? 

The article said that the most politically bigoted people in the country are white secular progressives who live in gentrified inner urban areas on the two coasts.  It got that right.  

Really? How are your comments about 'white secular progressives' less politically bigoted Xx? 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1.10  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Dulay @2.1.9    3 months ago

We really don’t have any real liberals in elected office at the city council and board of supervisors level.  We do have some establishment GOP members who are comfortable dealing with the state regime and taking its money.  On non Jefferson issues most of them are fairly decent and competent officials.  We had to go around them on that issue because they and their business allies in the GOP establishment want those state dollars even if they like what’s going on in Sacramento as little as we do.  Like I said, they are loyal to the states dollars not to the state itself or anything it stands for. We are also a non sanctuary county.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2    3 months ago
"69% Caucasian"

So? The United States - as of the 2010 census - is 72.4% white. Jefferson would be more racially diverse than the country as a whole.

The graphic lists nine characteristics and you can only focus on the one you think makes these people racists so you can feel superior to them.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @2.2    3 months ago
The graphic lists nine characteristics and you can only focus on the one you think makes these people racists so you can feel superior to them.

The fact that the graphic is all about what the State would look like based on race shows the intent of the graphic. The constant rants from "Jeffersonians" about the browning of California, about the growing Hispanic population legal and illegal, the anger they exhibit towards diversity and the urban areas where many minorities live, all goes to prove this graphic was obviously trying to garner support from other like-minded xenophobes. It's their attempt to claim the bottom two thirds of California are gangrenous and need to be amputated to save their white majority. If they ever succeed they'll find the amputated leg thriving while they shrivel up on the bone since their livelihood comes from the part they are trying to cut off, the heart and lungs of California. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.1    3 months ago

Gee, whatever they will do with the 21% hispanic population? Or did you even read that far? Maybe you think they'll all go into concentration camps.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.2    3 months ago

They won't get rid of them. Who else is going to do those labor-intensive, low-paying jobs like picking produce and cleaning toilets?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.2    3 months ago
Gee, whatever they will do with the 21% hispanic population? Or did you even read that far? Maybe you think they'll all go into concentration camps

Considering it's about half the 39.1% Hispanic makeup from the rest of the State it's still a selling point for these xenophobes. Why else put up a graphic spelling out the racial divides? It's pointing to low minorities and high percentage of non-Hispanic whites compared to the rest of California which has just over 40% non-Hispanic white population and 39.1% Hispanic population according to the 2010 census. That's what this graphic is selling to xenophobes, a difference between being nearly tied with Hispanics versus making their own State where they are again the majority with nearly 70% non-Hispanic whites to Hispanics 21%.

"Maybe you think they'll all go into concentration camps."

More likely to just be discriminated against, spit upon and abused by the xenophobes who unjustly blame them for all their problems. And with the majority firmly back in non-Hispanic white hands they believe they'll be able to defend their discrimination and prejudice. Of course it's always disguised by claims of reverse racism, violations of their supposed religious freedoms, or blaming illegal immigrants for all their problems and taking out their anger on anyone they suspect of having Mexican heritage.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.2.5  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.1    3 months ago

The article was written by a neutral Sacramento paper with no particular agenda.  The graphic was strictly theirs.  

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.6  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.2.5    3 months ago
The article was written by a neutral Sacramento paper with no particular agenda.

The article wasn't 'written by' N&R. N&R publishers is a PR company that publishes promotional pieces. It's an 'entertainment' rag. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2    3 months ago
They really don't hide what this is really about do they.
"Here's what Jefferson would look like based on the census records from the 23 counties that have signed on and two others on the fence."
"69% Caucasian"
Might as well have just said "Are you white and feel like you're becoming a minority? Join us in Jefferson where we'll be back in charge!".

Is there anything that isn't related to race for you?

 
 
 
cjcold
2.3.1  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3    3 months ago

I tend to focus on ignorance of facts. The GOP/far right wingers here display that in abundance.

This WASP hates far right wing fascism.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @2.3.1    3 months ago
I tend to focus on ignorance of facts. The GOP/far right wingers here display that in abundance.
This WASP hates far right wing fascism.

Ah. So it is about race with you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.4  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2    3 months ago
"Critics both inside and out of Jefferson’s boundaries, including Chamber of Commerce officials and park rangers, fear a state made up of California’s poorest counties won’t have the resources to provide quality services—they say the state sends more money back to those counties than it collects from them."

That wouldn't be the concern of the state of California anymore than Texas financial health is a concern for California.

Residents of Cali should be demanding their reps support this--maybe without sending all that money to the "poor counties", California could reduce taxes and stop the flight of residents and businesses fleeing the state.

 
 
 
StinkweedPete
2.4.1  StinkweedPete  replied to  Texan1211 @2.4    3 months ago

You may be right, but last I checked, CA. has one of the best economies in the country. Ultimately economies, on a state to state basis, rely heavily on taxes. Yes? I hate paying taxes, just like most people, but if we want things, we have to pay for them. We can certainly bash CA. as being, "liberal", "socialist", "democratic", etc...(add your own insult if you wish), but they have a fantastic economy. This goes for most blue states. Most red states do indeed pay less in state and local taxes, but they are also quite poor, and tend to take more in federal dollars than they contribute. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2    3 months ago
They really don't hide what this is really about do they.

Oh, You tell us..

"Here's what Jefferson would look like based on the census records from the 23 counties that have signed on and two others on the fence."

"69% Caucasian"

Oh, So you are looking at race!!! What a shock! As opposed to what? All the illegals living in the state?

And of course the elephant in the room...these counties are a fucking drain on California and can't pay their own way now, how do they expect to fund their own State? And not many want to go spend tourism dollars in towns that remind them of a scene out of Deliverance.

A drain on the state? I'll tell you what a drain on the state is: 1) taxing the middle class away 2) Spending $23 Billion on illegal aliens.  I have an old friend who lives ion San Fransisco. He tells me there are homeless tents under & along highways. He also told me it was a running joke about homeless people being paid $10 each to go in and vote the democratic ticket. All this from an area of the country where an illegal immigrant was cleared from the murder of Kate Steinle despite admitting it. A state who's officials stand in defiance of the Constitution of the United States and are most likely violating election laws.



"A lawsuit brought by forth by the watchdog group Judicial Watch is forcing Los Angeles County to excise an estimated 1.5 million inactive voters from its voter rolls, and the state of California must update its voter registration rules so it complies with federal law."

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/01/04/judicial-watch-wins-suit-california-forced-to-remove-up-to-1-5-million-inactive-voters-and-clean-up-its-rolls-709972

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.6  Split Personality  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2    3 months ago
"69% Caucasian" Might as well have just said "Are you white and feel like you're becoming a minority? Join us in Jefferson where we'll be back in charge!".

Actually if you look at the counties surrounding Shasta, they are all in the very high 80's or very low 90% range.

Now, being California, it's not surprising to to find a few of the counties who are actually listed as 69% to 72% have up to 12% who chose "other", refusing to identify with any of the dozen options for race.

So, the area is much, much whiter than 69%

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.6.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Split Personality @2.6    2 months ago

Actually it is the stats and not you who is right on those numbers.  Based on Los Angeles Times numbers and adding in Stanislaus county, our latest addition along with the other counties they listed the seeded article graphic is correct. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.6.2  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.6.1    2 months ago

Why the heck would you say, take the graphic and add in Stanislaus County, which is 76.4% white?  Averaging 76.4%  into the equation will raise the White number.

Sorry, to disagree, but the farther north you travel in the state, the whiter it gets.  Been there, done that, have the tee shirts,

and like I said, it IS typical of California to allow people to arbitrarily choose "other" which skews the data by more than 12% for several counties.

When you can get people to meeting or a protest, with or without raffling off booze and guns, they are predominately older white people.

Maybe a few of these Counties should consider merging  if times are that tough.

I mean, like Trinity County has less than 13,000 people, Alpine, about 1,200, Modoc 8,000, Sierra 3,000.

Statistics? Lies, more lies, and damnable lies...

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.6.3  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Split Personality @2.6.2    2 months ago
The racial/ethnic makeup of the county was 69.3% White, 2.6% Black, 4.2% Asian, 1.3% Native American, 0.3% Pacific Islander, 16.8% from other races, and 5.4% from two or more races. 31.7% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race. 8.4% were of German, 6.3% English, 6.0% American, 5.5% Irish, and 5.1% ...

Stanislaus County, California - Wikipedia    

The racial makeup of Yuba County was 49,332 (68.4%) White, 2,361 (3.3%) African American, 1,675 (2.3%) Native American, 4,862 (6.7%) Asian, 293 (0.4%) Pacific Islander, 8,545 (11.8%) from other races, and 5,087 (7.1%) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 18,051 persons (25.0%).
Named for: Yuba River
State: California

Yuba County, California - Wikipedia.  

The racial makeup of the county was 64.3% White, 0.6% Black or African American, 2.3% Native American, 1.2% Asian, 0.4% Pacific Islander, 26.7% from other races, and 4.5% from two or more races. 46.5% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race. 8.5% were of German, 5.6% English, 5.5% American and 5.4% Irish ...

Colusa County, California - Wikipedia   

The racial makeup of the county was 67.5% White, 1.9% Black or African American, 1.6% Native American, 11.3% Asian, 0.2% Pacific Islander, 13.0% from other races, and 4.6% from two or more races. 22.2% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race. 10.3% were of German, 9.0% American, 7.1% English and 6.1% ...

Sutter County, California - Wikipedia   

The 2010 United States Censusreported that Glenn County had a population of 28,122. The racialmakeup of Glenn County was 19,990 (71.1%) White, 231 (0.8%) African American, 619 (2.2%) Native American, 722 (2.6%) Asian, 24 (0.1%) Pacific Islander, 5,522 (19.6%) from other races, and 1,014 (3.6%) from two or more races.
 
 
 
Dulay
2.6.4  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.6.3    2 months ago

Only 2 of those counties have voted to join Jefferson Xx. Why are you citing the other counties. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.7  dennis smith  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2    2 months ago

didn't take long for racism to be brought into the issue. Typical of the left thought

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.7.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  dennis smith @2.7    2 months ago

no, it didn’t.  Yes it is.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.7.2  Split Personality  replied to  dennis smith @2.7    2 months ago

Well if racism wasn't part of the equation why is the graphic from the Jefferson promoters

promoting a racial balance that just is not evident by more supporting evidence?  Why mention race at all?

go here

https://statisticalatlas.com/state/California/Race-and-Ethnicity

and check out the

Map of Race and Ethnicity by County in California

The predominate area "claimed" by the secessionists is dominated by the dark red 71% to 86% white population.

The two colors representing the highest percentage of white citizens clearly mirrors the shape of the proposed new state with few variations.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.7.3  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Split Personality @2.7.2    2 months ago

Race has absolutely nothing to do with the Jefferson secession.  It is a political and economic freedom and representation issue.  The politically liberal counties around here are as much white or more so  than the others.  Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, Nevada.  Humboldt is not a part of Jefferson but the other three are.  To them our differences in politics is far less important than our common ground as largely rural counties.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.7.4  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @2.7.2    2 months ago

The two maps are remarkably similar, no?384

384

 
 
 
Dulay
2.7.5  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.7.3    2 months ago
Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, Nevada. Humboldt is not a part of Jefferson but the other three are.

That is a LIE Xx. NONE of those counties have joined Jefferson. 

To them our differences in politics is far less important than our common ground as largely rural counties.

Didn't you JUST SAY:

It is a political and economic freedom and representation issue.

Political and representative are POLITICS Xx. So the only common ground you are pretending to have is economic and the economy of the counties that HAVE joined Jefferson is bankrupt without the state of California . Your own link to their financials PROVES that fact. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.7.6  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Split Personality @2.7.4    2 months ago

Not really.  Del Norte and Humboldt are not a part of our effort despite that map above though that six state initiative guy did include them.  Del Norte is purple and Humboldt the deepest of blue.  Mendocino, Lake and Nevada Co. are blue as well and part of our effort.  Glenn, Colusa, Yuba, Sutter are as well and they are very strongly into it even with their relative diversity.  Stanislaus just joined and San Bernardino has expressed interest.  

 
 
 
Dulay
2.7.7  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.7.6    2 months ago

 You blather about counties and pretend that the yellow area in your map is all signed up but it's bullshit. I cited the 5 counties that have joined, only ONE of which has had a popular vote. 

Stanislaus just joined

Prove it. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
3  Ronin2    3 months ago

Parts I find hilarious from the article.

Draper’s current bid fizzled when the California Supreme Court unanimously concluded “that the potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election.”

Democratic BS for we have no law to base the denial on; so we are making something up.

Placerville’s Jamie Beutler, chair of the California Democratic Party, Rural Caucus, said Keep It California was formed in 2015 to counter Jefferson after its leaders began persuading county after county to join up. “I think it’s crazy—I understand their frustration,” she said. “But they get more money from the state for roads, schools, hospitals, infrastructure than they would get if they broke away.

What she really is saying.

"I understand their frustration; but we don't really give a shit. We have the system rigged to make sure they are underrepresented."

"I have nothing to prove they get more money for anything; but it is the standard Democrat response whenever anyone questions where their tax payer money is going. So I am sticking with it."

Pruitt, however, disagrees.

“It’s not a winning analogy,” she said, adding that West Virginia’s split happened more than 150 years ago.

“People are intrigued by it, but peeling themselves into a separate state would not solve their economic woes, and might make them worse,” she said. “I’m not convinced they would be in a better situation if they got more representatives, rural interests would still be greatly outnumbered by urban interests in Jefferson. Legislators represent people, not cows and trees.”

Forgetting that people actually own those cows and trees and want to actually be represented by someone that will protect their interests. Something the current Californian government has not interest in. "Shut up, pay your taxes, and we will gift you whatever we feel you deserve to maintain your roads, schools, and utilities.  Don't think for a second you will get back what you put in. We have our constituents that keep us in power to placate.  Also any laws we pass are for your own good, since you don't know what is good for you."

The state of Jefferson will never be formed; but it is funny watching Democrats defend not representing people (under representation is what they like to call it) .  I hope the rebels keep it up if only for the entertainment value. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Ronin2 @3    3 months ago

We are going to Keep it up.  It is an effort well worth pursuing.  One I’m proud to be a part of. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.1.1  r.t..b...  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1    3 months ago
We are going to Keep it up.  It is an effort well worth pursuing.  One I’m proud to be a part of. 

Surely 'good people on both sides' of this issue as well.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.1    3 months ago

No one is contesting that.  

 
 
 
SteevieGee
3.2  SteevieGee  replied to  Ronin2 @3    3 months ago
Democratic BS for we have no law to base the denial on; so we are making something up.

The jefferson supporters weren't supporting that initiative anyway because the map of jefferson included San Francisco.  It's not about representation in the legislature.  Representation in the legislature is based upon population.  They have the same as everybody else in CA.   It's about carving a tiny new red state and seating 2 conservative US senators. jefferson is nothing but the gerrymandering of state lines.  This is a bubble dream.  Seems like a great idea from inside the bubble but bubbles have a way of distorting reality.

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.2.1  Ronin2  replied to  SteevieGee @3.2    3 months ago

So it is OK to keep them under represented and under the Democratic gerrymandered thumb? Will have to remember that next time someone posts any article about Republicans repressing Democrats by gerrymandering. 

The jefferson supporters weren't supporting that initiative anyway because the map of jefferson included San Francisco. 

As for their legal block garbage. They based that off of zero laws on the book. Would it have won support, probably not- but not letting get to a vote is inexcusable.  More legislating from the bench.

Representation in the legislature is based upon population.  They have the same as everybody else in CA.

In case you didn't read the article they are already suing the Secretary of State for under representation; but chances are that will be blocked as well given CA overly liberal judges.

It's about carving a tiny new red state and seating 2 conservative US senators.

No, it is about "shut up and pay your taxes. We will tell you what laws are good for you." Also keeping as many conservatives as possible under Democratic rule. As for tiny, not according the map that is provided. Or do you mean by population? That doesn't matter either.  Congress (not the Senate) is based on population. If we can have small population states like Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming with less than a million people then Jefferson can be a state as well.

This is a bubble dream.

I agree it is a dream; but anything the rebels do that point out the Democrats hypocrisy is worth it.

 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.1    3 months ago
So it is OK to keep them under represented and under the Democratic gerrymandered thumb?

They are represented based on population, just like everyone else in CA. 

CA doesn't draw their districts via the legislature, it's done by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. 

FAIL. 

but not letting get to a vote is inexcusable

But Xx didn't support THAT initiative. 

In case you didn't read the article they are already suing the Secretary of State for under representation; but chances are that will be blocked as well given CA overly liberal judges.

Repeating stupid doesn't make it smart. They want an outsized political voice that isn't supported by their population. 

That suit you're talking about was laughed out of court last year. It was written be a legal neophyte and contained more whining than legal citations. It was like reading a Trump speech. 

As for tiny, not according the map that is provided.

LAND MASS doesn't qualify for representation. 

Or do you mean by population? That doesn't matter either. Congress (not the Senate) is based on population.

So every other American is represented based on population but ONLY in the 'State of Jefferson' population doesn't matter? The REASON Xx and his Jeffersons didn't like the Cal 3 thingy was that it  the Northern area wouldn't be religiously regressive enough and out of the 6 total Senators, the 2 from the North wouldn't be RW. 

 
 
 
SteevieGee
3.2.3  SteevieGee  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.1    3 months ago

Legislative districts are drawn by population.  They have the same legislative representation as any other districts in the state.  By tiny I meant by population.  It would be the smallest state by population.

 
 
 
cjcold
3.2.4  cjcold  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.1    3 months ago

Sooooo,,, you realize it is a stupid idea and you're only doing it to piss democrats off? Insanity!

 
 
 
DRHunk
4  DRHunk    3 months ago

“Close to 90 percent said if we don’t regain our property and water rights, lower our taxes and restore our political representation, they will leave California,” said Page, a Republican who owns farmland in El Dorado County.

I say good riddance, California is already over populated. If more people leave property value might stabilize and allow people who actually like living there an opportunity to get in on the cheap.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
4.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  DRHunk @4    3 months ago

We intend to leave Californication by taking the cities and counties we live in out with us. 

 
 
 
cjcold
4.1.1  cjcold  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1    3 months ago

So I assume you will be fencing it in? 

What will you do with the secularists who greatly outnumber you and want nothing to do with this insanity? 

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.2  katrix  replied to  cjcold @4.1.1    3 months ago

These folks who want a theocracy should really move to the Middle East.  It's more their speed. 

What they don't seem to realize is that if they succeed in becoming a separate state, they are STILL subject to our Constitution and still cannot force their ignorance and mythology into their state laws.  I suppose they'll try to outlaw teaching geology since it harms their ability to brainwash their children into abject ignorance ...

 
 
 
cjcold
4.1.3  cjcold  replied to  katrix @4.1.2    3 months ago

The LDS thought that Salt Lake would be far enough to escape persecution. Oops.

 
 
 
StinkweedPete
4.1.4  StinkweedPete  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1    3 months ago
Californication

Great show, BTW. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5  Tacos!    3 months ago
“People are intrigued by it, but peeling themselves into a separate state would not solve their economic woes, and might make them worse,” she said. “I’m not convinced they would be in a better situation if they got more representatives

I don't know if it's a good idea for the people of Jefferson, but shouldn't that be their concern? The economic viability of the area isn't really the concern of people who aren't going to be living there. Places like New Mexico and Louisiana have lots of poverty but we don't have referendums to decide if they should remain states.

This shouldn't surprise us though, considering we're talking about California. The compulsion to make judgments like that for other people has been a feature of progressivism from its earliest days.

When he and his finance expert, Steven Baird (no relation) of Sacramento, showed up for a scheduled appointment with Gov. Brown to present their secession plan, for example, a California Highway Patrol officer outside the governor’s office told them the state’s chief “had more important things to do.”

I also don't know if it would ultimately be a good deal for what remains of California, but I do believe that the matter should be seriously considered and with humble respect for the wishes of the people who are talking about leaving.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
5.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Tacos! @5    3 months ago

Because of the state constitution and certain state laws regarding environmental and educational matters the state would actually save itself a lot of money 💴 if we were no longer part of it. Much of what little opposition there is to Jefferson locally is about those dollars and not any loyalty to the state of Californication 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @5.1    3 months ago

Considering the way SoCal has historically leeched the resources of Inyo and Mono counties, I'm a little surprised they aren't part of this, too. Maybe they're just geographically too disconnected.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
5.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.1    3 months ago

It could evolve down there. We just added Stanislaus county with Modesto to our effort connecting with the four counties south of El Dorado.  Alpine wants to remain in Ca. And would be isolated if Inyo and Mono join us.  On the other hand Del Norte and Humbolt will likely stay Ca even isolated. So those two Inyo and Mono could join.  Highway 395 connects Inyo to the north.  I’d like Kern county to be in and people in San Bernardino county have expressed interest.  We could have a state from San Bernardino to Oregon on the east side of it. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.4  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @5.1.2    3 months ago

Get real. How many counties have VOTED to separate Xx? 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.5  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @5.1.2    3 months ago

Did Shasta County VOTE to separate Xx? 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
5.1.6  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Dulay @5.1.5    3 months ago

We did it by petition.  Getting the signatures of over half the total registered voters in the county, including mine.  We overrode our city council and county board of supervisors who inhale state regime government butt for that revenue you all suport is with.  Most counties have gone this route.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1.7  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @5.1.6    3 months ago

Pico succeeded once at the state level, but it never passed Congress. It will never get the majority it needs  in Congress.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.8  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @5.1.6    3 months ago
We did it by petition.  Getting the signatures of over half the total registered voters in the county, including mine.  We overrode our city council and county board of supervisors who inhale state regime government butt for that revenue you all suport is with.  Most counties have gone this route.  

You're DEFLECTING Xx. I asked you a simple question. Did Shasta VOTE to separate? Answer? 

BTFW Xx, WHAT does your petition actually MEAN legally? Please DO tell me all about it...

How about a link for that petition Xx? 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.7    3 months ago
It will never get the majority it needs in Congress.

They can't even get the majority it needs in the counties they claim to represent. Hell, they can't even get 10% of the voters to sign a petition to get a referendum on the county ballots. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.10  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @5.1.6    3 months ago

Still waiting for an answer Xx. 

 
 
 
lib50
6  lib50    3 months ago

This is just such utter bullshit.  Instead of living in a fantasy, either go to a state that fits your requirements or quitcherbitchen.  California will NEVER split.  NEVER.   Texas might be a good fit. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @6    3 months ago
Instead of living in a fantasy, either go to a state that fits your requirements or quitcherbitchen.

You mean like immigrants who think borders and language don't matter? Should we tell them to go back to their home country?

 
 
 
lib50
6.1.1  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @6.1    3 months ago

I don't care enough to help you out of the fantasy.  Continue.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
6.1.2  Studiusbagus  replied to  Tacos! @6.1    3 months ago
You mean like immigrants who think borders and language don't matter? Should we tell them to go back to their home country

I'm guessing you missed the demographics of that region?

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Studiusbagus @6.1.2    3 months ago
I'm guessing you missed the demographics of that region?

I don't see how that has anything to do with whether or not these people should have the liberty to chart their own course in the land where they already live.

Is race seriously all you people think about?

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.3    3 months ago
I don't see how that has anything to do with whether or not these people should have the liberty to chart their own course in the land where they already live.

They have the exact same opportunity to 'chart their own course' as you and I do. 

Is race seriously all you people think about?

Since race isn't the ONLY demographic, perhaps you are the one thinking about it... 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
6.1.5  Studiusbagus  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.3    3 months ago
Is race seriously all you people think about?

You think demographics are just about race? "Why must all you people always so defensive about race?"

Touche'

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @6.1.4    3 months ago
Since race isn't the ONLY demographic

It's the only demographic I have seen leftists talking about here, but I would be happily surprised to be wrong. Which demo were you referring to then if not race?

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.7  Tacos!  replied to  Studiusbagus @6.1.5    3 months ago

Apparently you missed the "69% Caucasian" cracks. It's ok. I admit I don't always read the whole thread either.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
6.1.8  Studiusbagus  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.7    3 months ago
Apparently you missed the "69% Caucasian" cracks

You can assume that if it makes you feel better.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.6    3 months ago
Which demo were you referring to then if not race?

Perhaps the same one you were refereeing to when you mentioned immigrants.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.10  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @6.1.9    3 months ago
Perhaps

Perhaps? You mean to say you don't know what you were talking about?

Ya know what? That actually explains a lot.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.11  Tacos!  replied to  Studiusbagus @6.1.8    3 months ago

It wasn't an assumption. It was a logical inference based on the information available. Considering your vague, evasive response, I'd say you just confirmed it.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
6.1.12  Studiusbagus  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.11    3 months ago
It wasn't an assumption. It was a logical inference based on the information available.

So, the only thing available to you is race when none was mentioned?

Is race seriously all you people think about?
 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
6.1.13  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.10    3 months ago

It would indeed.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.14  Tacos!  replied to  Studiusbagus @6.1.12    3 months ago

You just keep making it clear that I wasn't wrong.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
6.1.15  Studiusbagus  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.14    3 months ago

Keep telling yourself that.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
6.1.16  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.14    3 months ago

He wasn’t wrong.  He was exactly right.  

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.1.18  dennis smith  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.3    2 months ago

Yes it is Tacos. they repeat it every day.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
6.2  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  lib50 @6    3 months ago

You are right. If we can’t have our own state we could join up with the state of Texas!  It wouldn’t add senators and at least  we have far more in common with Texas than with coastal Californication cities.  That would be a good arrangement. After all, when there are disputes between the governors of or governments of the two states we openly side with Texas every time.  

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.1  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.2    3 months ago
You are right.

It looks like you missed the 'go to a state' part of that comment...

BTW Xx, I'm still waiting for you to tell me how many counties VOTED to separate and for a copy of this petition you were talking about. 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
6.2.2  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.2    3 months ago
You are right. If we can’t have our own state we could join up with the state of Texas!  It wouldn’t add senators and at least  we have far more in common with Texas than with coastal Californication cities.

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
6.2.3  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Dulay @6.2.1    3 months ago

No, I meant that we would go join Texas while staying where we are.  Being a part of that state would be far preferable than any continued relationship with Californication.  The state we hate.  

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.4  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.2.3    3 months ago
No, I meant that we would go join Texas while staying where we are.

I know what you meant Xx. 

I'm still waiting for that information Xx. 

How many counties have VOTED to separate?

Please provide a link to this alleged petition you said was signed by over 50% of the voters in your county. 

Or is this just like 10 months ago when you made the same BULLSHIT claims and couldn't support your FALSE comments?  

 
 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.6  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.2.5    3 months ago

That is the EXACT same answer you gave 10 months ago Xx. 

I will post my reply from 10 months ago:

Wow! Thanks for clearing things up by posting a wiki article. /s

I note that nowhere does the article support the LIES in your comments.

FAIL

https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/39815/another-conservative-revolt-in-california-the-state-of-jefferson#cm777024

I told you then that I would call you out on the inevitable false comments that you post in your desperate attempt to justify this Jefferson BULLSHIT. 

So when you stated that over 50% of Shasta County voters signed a petition that circumvented the local government, it was a LIE. 

When you state that there are 23 counties that have joined the 'state of jefferson', the TRUTH is that a couple of people in those counties are screaming at the sky, just like you've been doing here. 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
7  Studiusbagus    3 months ago

This is what I'm hearing...

"We're tired of being the dependent child of California, we want our independence so we can be the dependent child of the US Government"

   That's just what we need, another Red State to suck taxpayer money nationwide. Another Republican debtor state that will never straighten out their books.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Studiusbagus @7    3 months ago
 That's just what we need, another Red State to suck taxpayer money nationwide. Another Republican debtor state that will never straighten out their books.

Exactly. Red States constantly scream and yell about having to pitch in to the Federal government in any way and claim they believe everyone should pay their own way and pull themselves up by their bootstraps as it were, but a few hours into a big storm and they're all crying about the Federal government not giving them more aid or giving it fast enough. They bitch and moan about Democrats or those in blue States on welfare or other federal entitlement programs, yet red State conservatives are actually slightly more likely (+4%) to use those benefits than liberals, yet still they claim it's the liberals who want all the "free stuff".

"the survey finds virtually no difference in the share of conservatives (57%), liberals (53%) or political moderates (53%) who have been assisted by at least one entitlement program."

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/12/18/a-bipartisan-nation-of-beneficiaries/

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
7.2  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Studiusbagus @7    3 months ago

actually we would be self sufficient as a state.  The budget and tax rates have already been worked out.  No longer being a part of California alone would make us all better off.  As to the federal government, it’s outlays to all the cities, districts, and counties comprising Jefferson would not change from what they already are.  The state of California is who would gain the most financially from us leaving.  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
7.2.1  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @7.2    3 months ago
As to the federal government, it’s outlays to all the cities, districts, and counties comprising Jefferson would not change from what they already are.

Who sold you that bag of weed? How can you be self sufficient and assume outlays?

Yes, California would probably prosper after fighting you in court about water rights and administration of control structures.

But, they will probably get to keep the money they poured in to your area. Again, I don't believe there's a plan, just a multiple county marathon game of dungeons and dragons.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8  JohnRussell    3 months ago

No one is going to give a region of crackpots their own state. There are enough right wing extremists in Congress already without adding more.

Your own seeds and comments are a perfect reason why it will never happen.

Whatever slim chance you had passed away Democrats began to retake governorships and statehouses in the last election.

There are not enough red states to ratify statehood for Jefferson into existence.

I think we should make Cook County a state and we can stop having the leeches from downstate getting benefit of our tax base.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
8.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  JohnRussell @8    3 months ago

The three GOP members of the house are already there.  They would simply be like my Rep. Doug La Malfa R-Jefferson instead of Ca.  No change and yes he supports the effort.  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
8.1.1  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.1    2 months ago

https://anewscafe.com/2018/04/17/redding/doug-lamalfa-religious-freedom-and-the-first-district-whose-dominion-is-it/

LaMalfa and 13 other Republicans who had opposed increases in SNAP were receiving millions of dollars in federal farm subsidies. He also noted that 11 percent of LaMalfa’s constituents depend upon SNAP benefits, a higher percentage than most districts. According to Environmental Working Group, which tracks issues involving the Farm Bill, including the subsidies doled out, LaMalfa’s family farm received $5.3 million in federal aid between 1995 and 2016. He remains biblically opposed to social welfare programs for the needy.
 
 
 
Studiusbagus
8.2  Studiusbagus  replied to  JohnRussell @8    3 months ago
No one is going to give a region of crackpots their own state. There are enough right wing extremists in Congress already without adding more.

I just had a chilling thought about Waco, Tx.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Studiusbagus @8.2    3 months ago

Why? Nothing even close to this.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
8.2.2  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.1    3 months ago

It was just a cheap insult toward us and the great state of Texas.  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
8.2.3  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.2.2    3 months ago
It was just a cheap insult toward us and the great state of Texas. 

Not really. But I didn't expect a reply much in terms of depth either.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
8.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @8    3 months ago

Funny, the British had a lot of the same feelings about their colonies in America...jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
9  Trout Giggles    3 months ago

First thing I noticed on that poster was the "69.1%" white population.

 
 
 
DRHunk
10  DRHunk    3 months ago

"69.1%" white, [deleted]

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  DRHunk @10    3 months ago
69.1%" white,removed for context

I could see some pro-Jeffersonian T-shirts that could say:

"69.1% white, removed for context

They would match the "Proud Deplorable" T-shirts I've seen them wear.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
10.2  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  DRHunk @10    3 months ago

Being trash in your eyes is a badge of honor for me.  Thanks! 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
10.2.1  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @10.2    3 months ago

Do they have a grocery cart sharing program?

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
10.2.2  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Studiusbagus @10.2.1    3 months ago

Need one?  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
10.2.3  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @10.2.2    3 months ago

No thanks, I live in a multi-room refrigerator box.

 
 
 
Dulay
11  Dulay    3 months ago

I'll let the ONE person who commented on the seeded article @ the source tell it like it is:

Posted 11/08/2018 9:44AM by johnssmith
Legislative representatives are apportioned by population, not acreage, there’s that. Also, these are anti-gubmint people making a great show of their flinty independence and self-reliance, all of which shows character, but they and their area are already receiving way more state and federal money than they contribute, which is something that greatly infuriates rural White people when it isn’t them doing it. State resources should be allocated in such a way that all Californians receive the same level of state services, representation, and respect. Maybe they should just send better representatives to Sacramento and Washington. These insurgent folk seem to believe that carving themselves out of California will be better because they’ll keep whatever funds can be squeezed out of their meager local tax base and they’d have 2 senators who could would make it rain federal money.
 
 
 
bbl-1
11.1  bbl-1  replied to  Dulay @11    3 months ago

Information long forgotten.  When this 'Jefferson Succession' was first announced, the trail led back to the FSB in St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.

Democracies are being undermined all over the world.  The best tactic to achieve this is to use the populations against each other.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
11.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1    3 months ago

Actually that’s not true.  It was the move to split California away from the USA 🇺🇸 (Cal-Exit) to be its own country in response to Trumps election that had some Russian connections.  Jefferson efforts have been around since 1940.    Besides Jefferson voted as strong for Trump as the coastal counties voted for Hillary.  

 
 
 
bbl-1
11.1.2  bbl-1  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @11.1.1    3 months ago

No.  And no to that too.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
11.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1.2    3 months ago

No to what?  

 
 
 
livefreeordie
11.1.4  livefreeordie  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1    3 months ago

512Democracies are just a form of Communism. Our founders thankfully adamantly opposed democracies 

 
 
 
Split Personality
11.1.5  Split Personality  replied to  livefreeordie @11.1.4    3 months ago
Hans-Hermann Hoppe (/ˈhɒpə/;[4]German: [ˈhɔpə]; born September 2, 1949)

is a German-born American Austrian School economist, and paleolibertarian anarcho-capitalist philosopher.[5][6][7] He is Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), Senior Fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and the founder and president of the Property and Freedom Society.

Hoppe identifies as a culturally conservative libertarian. Some of his remarks and ideas have provoked controversy among his libertarian peers and his colleagues at UNLV. His belief in rights of property owners to establish private covenant communities, from which homosexuals and political dissidents may be "physically removed," has proved particularly divisive. Hoppe also garners controversy due to his support for restrictive limits on immigration which critics argue is at odds with libertarianism and anarchism.

In other words Hans is pissed off about not being born into a Caucasian royal family during the Middle Ages.

 
 
 
Texan1211
12  Texan1211    3 months ago

The way some folks are talking about the supporters of this movement, why in hell are they not jumping at the chance to rid themselves of those folks they consider deplorables?

Why are they clinging so tightly?

Afraid California would lose some of its importance in Democratic politics?

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
12.1  Studiusbagus  replied to  Texan1211 @12    3 months ago

Nope, because it would just be another Red State sucking the government dry. They can't support themselves.

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Studiusbagus @12.1    3 months ago
Nope, because it would just be another Red State sucking the government dry. They can't support themselves.

Don't you even realize what an ignorant statement that is?

/s

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
12.1.2  Studiusbagus  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.1    3 months ago
/s

I do hope that was your note for sarcasm?

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Studiusbagus @12.1.2    3 months ago

Do I need to explain it to you?

Never mind, just consider it a rhetorical question.

Probably easier for all of us that way.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.1.4  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.1    3 months ago

And yet by clinging to us and occupying us against our will they are doing what they supposedly fear, supporting us.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
12.1.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.1.4    3 months ago

Seems like the very thought of another potential red state, especially another one on their border along with Arizona scares the Hell out of some blue state progressive liberals in California and elsewhere...

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.1.6  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @12.1.5    3 months ago

Exactly.  Well said

 
 
 
Dulay
12.1.7  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.1.6    3 months ago

There is no 'potential red state' Xx. Your own county has rejected the Jefferson movement. You can't even get 10% of the registered voters in Shasta county to sign a petition to get a initiative on the county ballot. Only two counties have, that was back in 2014 and their total population is UNDER 100,000. The lawsuit that you touted the last time you posted this crap was dismissed, they laughed it out of court.

Your 'State of Jefferson' is a delusion. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
12.1.8  Split Personality  replied to  Dulay @12.1.7    3 months ago

But some Northern Californians have had enough of talk of breaking away from California. After several county boards began considering Jefferson proposals, Kevin Hendrick, a retired municipal employee from Crescent City, in Del Norte County, formed a political action committee in 2015 called Keep It California to oppose the idea.

“You’ve got a handful of residents that are grumpy and pining for the good old days, but that shouldn’t represent all the good people living in rural counties,” he said.

Hendrick said there are rural issues that do need more attention, such as access to affordable healthcare and the internet, but that separating from California would be financially devastating.

“People need hope, yes,” he said. “They don’t need false hope.”

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-state-of-jefferson-activists-20180317-htmlstory.html

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
12.1.9  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.1.4    3 months ago
And yet by clinging to us and occupying us against our will they are doing what they supposedly fear, supporting us

Sorry but special needs people have to be supervised, otherwise we'd have traffic jams and bodies to scrape up.

 
 
 
Kavika
12.1.10  Kavika   replied to  Dulay @12.1.7    3 months ago

States need their village idiots and in CA it's called the ''State of Jefferson''....

They require adult supervision at all times. 

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12    3 months ago
The way some folks are talking about the supporters of this movement, why in hell are they not jumping at the chance to rid themselves of those folks they consider deplorables?

The supporters of the movement are a small minority of the 2.5 million who live there. There aren't even enough of them to get referendums on the ballot in the vast majority of the counties that they pretend support the division. It's all smoke and mirrors and it has been for decades. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.2    3 months ago
The supporters of the movement are a small minority of the 2.5 million who live there. There aren't even enough of them to get referendums on the ballot in the vast majority of the counties that they pretend support the division. It's all smoke and mirrors and it has been for decades.

Which doesn't change anything in my post.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
12.2.2  Studiusbagus  replied to  Texan1211 @12.2.1    3 months ago
The way some folks are talking about the supporters of this movement, why in hell are they not jumping at the chance to rid themselves of those folks they consider deplorables?

Because, by themself they are an even bigger drain on the economy.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.2.1    3 months ago
Which doesn't change anything in my post.

Great. So how do you propose that CA rid itself of those folks? Those 'tens of thousands' equate to the population of a small city. Is there a small island you'd like to donate? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  Studiusbagus @12.2.2    3 months ago
Because, by themself they are an even bigger drain on the economy.

Projections are not facts.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.2.4    3 months ago
Projections are not facts.

Yet all of the 'sunshine and lollypops' envisioned by Xx are just that, projections and delusional projections at that. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.2.5    3 months ago
Yet all of the 'sunshine and lollypops' envisioned by Xx are just that, projections and delusional projections at that.

Then you would be advised to post your replies to him. Might be more effective.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.7  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.2.6    3 months ago

You're the one that called them projections, not Xx. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.2.7    3 months ago
You're the one that called them projections, not Xx.

I didn't say anything about what XX posted other than to say you should address your comments to him.

You stated that he was posting projections. Don't you remember that?

Here: "Yet all of the 'sunshine and lollypops' envisioned by Xx are just that, projections and delusional projections at that."

I specifically responded to what Studiusbagus posted.

He stated that they would be a bigger drain on the economy by themselves, and thus my reply. What he stated is projection, or do you consider it a stone-cold fact?

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.2.8    3 months ago
You stated that he was posting projections. Don't you remember that?

No I don't remember because I didn't say that. But you can go on pretending if you want. 

What he stated is projection, or do you consider it a stone-cold fact?

Much of what is stated in the seed and by Xx is projection too, yet your issue is with Stud's 'projection'. Got ya. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.2.10  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Studiusbagus @12.2.2    3 months ago

That’s silly.  Californication pays more money up here than we pay in in taxes.  So we are the economy we have because of Californication. The federal government spends the same either way, whether we are occupied by Californication or our own separate sovereign state of the USA.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.2.11  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Texan1211 @12.2.6    3 months ago

We have done our research and with the state we want we would run a surplus and still sufficiently fund our state.  There are plenty small states of comparable size and population to us and they do just fine.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.2.9    3 months ago
No I don't remember because I didn't say that. But you can go on pretending if you want.

Whether you remember or not really doesn't matter. You did write this, whether or not you remember it:

Yet all of the 'sunshine and lollypops' envisioned by Xx are just that, projections and delusional projections at that.   Post 12.2.5. Much of what is stated in the seed and by Xx is projection too, yet your issue is with Stud's 'projection'. Got ya.

So? WTH does that have to do with what I wrote? I clearly wrote "Projections aren't facts". Please note and quote where I stated that didn't apply to anyone's projections. Or is that simply your way of deflecting?

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.2.13  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Dulay @12.2.9    3 months ago

Actually the article was an objective piece about our efforts by an enemy capital city’s weekly newspaper with a relatively liberal editorial page. 

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.2.12    3 months ago
I clearly wrote "Projections aren't facts".

I merely pointed out to you that the seed and the seeder's claims are based on projection and therefore, based on your standard, aren't facts either. Why is that so hard for you to understand? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.2.14    3 months ago
I merely pointed out to you that the seed and the seeder's claims are based on projection and therefore, based on your standard, aren't facts either. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Oooh, obtuseness. I like it.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.16  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.2.13    3 months ago

News review is NOT a 'newspaper' Xx. 

They have an OPINION page, not an EDITORIAL page. Hell they don't even have a editor. 

Sheesh! You're making demonstrably FALSE statements again Xx. 

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.17  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.2.15    3 months ago
Oooh, obtuseness.

Actually, I understand perfectly. 

I like it.

You would. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.2.17    3 months ago
Actually, I understand perfectly.

Apparently not.

You would.

Yep. I like it when you confirm what I am thinking.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.19  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.2.18    3 months ago
Apparently not.

How is that apparent Tex?

Did I mischaracterize your standard?

If so, how so? 

Yep. I like it when you confirm what I am thinking.

Again, how so Tex? Please be specific.

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.2.20  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.2.19    3 months ago
How is that apparent Tex?

If you have to ask, it is quite clear you didn't understand, Had you, you wouldn't have asked that.

I clearly wrote "Projections aren't facts". Please note and quote where I stated that didn't apply to anyone's projections. Or is that simply your way of deflecting?

Again, how so Tex? Please be specific.

I wrote "Projections aren't facts" and it certainly looks like you thought I meant to exclude someone's projections based on ideology. Which is merely your ill-conceived notion of what the words "Projections aren't facts" actually mean.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.21  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.2.20    3 months ago
If you have to ask, it is quite clear you didn't understand, Had you, you wouldn't have asked that.

Utter bullshit. 

Please note and quote where I stated that didn't apply to anyone's projections. Or is that simply your way of deflecting?

Where did I say that it didn't apply to anyone's projections Tex? I presumed that you meant that Stud's comment was a projection and I pointed out that the seed was too. 

I wrote "Projections aren't facts" and it certainly looks like you thought I meant to exclude someone's projections based on ideology. Which is merely your ill-conceived notion of what the words "Projections aren't facts" actually mean.

Oh I see. You're holding ME responsible for YOUR misinterpretation of my comment.

READ MORE CAREFULLY and try to do so without an inherent bias. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.2.21    3 months ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.23  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.2.22    3 months ago

Finally a well stated and poignant comment.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
12.2.24  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.2.10    3 months ago
The federal government spends the same either way, whether we are occupied by Californication or our own separate sovereign state of the USA.  

You have no idea how that math works out. 

And because you were partially funded with California tax dollars directly, that needs to be solved as well. 

Your tax base isn't worth a shit you'd be more dependent on the Fed than if you were as an area of California. 

OR DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A "PROJECTION"?

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.2.25  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Studiusbagus @12.2.24    3 months ago

We already solved the issue with the money from the state.  Our state would be fully funded and run a surplus on our own. We don’t need or want your state we have nothing but contempt for or it’s money.  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
12.2.26  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.2.25    3 months ago
Our state would be fully funded and run a surplus on our own.

No, you already showed that you would be taking federal outlays to survive. And your area doesn't have enough tax base to take on the services California provided, nor any viable long term commerce.

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.2.27  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @12.2.23    3 months ago
'Finally a well stated and poignant comment.'

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.2.28  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.2.23    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
DRHunk
12.2.29  DRHunk  replied to  Studiusbagus @12.2.26    3 months ago

can you explain please, according to your article:

"Critics both inside and out of Jefferson’s boundaries, including Chamber of Commerce officials and park rangers, fear a state made up of California’s poorest counties won’t have the resources to provide quality services—they say the state sends more money back to those counties than it collects from them.

But Jeffersonians argue that without having to pay income, sales or corporate taxes to the state, their financial model shows an aggregate county surplus without reducing current spending for schools, roads, public safety and infrastructure, according to their website."

now I'm no expert but if you are paying income, sales and corporate taxes to California already yet you still receive more back than you paid, then how will you all of a sudden get a surplus by not paying those to the state, you would pay yourself, sure, but it is still the same amount and without reducing spending that amount is not enough...im confused.

 
 
 
DRHunk
12.2.30  DRHunk  replied to  DRHunk @12.2.29    3 months ago

sorry was a reply to C4P in 12.2.5 not Studius.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.31  Dulay  replied to  Studiusbagus @12.2.26    3 months ago

What these people desperately try to ignore is that there will be an exodus out of their 'State'. The 'brain drain' would be devastating to their economy. Xx admits that they have had to go 'around' local government. How many in county and local government [the people who RUN things] would stay in their 'State'.

One of the biggest employers in all of these low population counties is the STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Those employees aren't going to walk away from security and their pensions, they're going to take reassignment to another county. There goes all of the institutional expertice to RUN THINGS. Not to mention all of the equipment that they use to do so.

I guess they think that CA Secretary of State, Judges, DOT, Highway Patrol, DMV, DNR and Fire Marshalls are just going to leave all their stuff out of the goodness of their hearts...

It's utterly delusional...

 
 
 
lady in black
12.2.32  lady in black  replied to  Dulay @12.2.31    3 months ago

Delusional pipe dream. jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.33  Dulay  replied to  DRHunk @12.2.29    3 months ago
but it is still the same amount and without reducing spending that amount is not enough...

Actually, it would be far less. Specifically, they decry the state gas tax. Take that out and one has to wonder how the hell they're going to pay for maintenance and repair of their roads. 

That's just ONE of the taxes they intend to eliminate or reduce. So they can't compare the revenue they are producing 'for' the state today and compare it to what they will be producing after they create their 'smaller government' dystopia. 

im confused.

Rightly so. 

 
 
 
lady in black
12.2.34  lady in black  replied to  Dulay @12.2.33    3 months ago

Circular logic and circular math

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.2.35  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Studiusbagus @12.2.2    3 months ago

It is the state of Californication that is the drain on our economy.  It is our cancer.  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
12.2.36  Studiusbagus  replied to  DRHunk @12.2.30    3 months ago

That's okay....I doubt you"ll get an answer intellectually above the rambling of a four year old if you get responded to at all.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
12.2.37  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.2.35    3 months ago
It is the state of Californication that is the drain on our economy.

You have no "economy" , if it were not for California you'd be too busy starving to be bitching.

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.2.38  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.2.23    3 months ago
Finally a well stated and poignant comment.

Who told you?

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.2.39  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Studiusbagus @12.2.26    3 months ago

We have as much a tax base as any other small state with 1 million to 3 million pop.  As for federal spending here, that would not change change with our becoming a state from what it is now.  And we’d manage our forests better so we don’t have another sommer and fall like what happened in Redding, Paradise, and Lake county.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.2.40  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Studiusbagus @12.2.37    3 months ago

We have an economy. It’s not like no one is working up here and nothing is being produced.  We have vibrant communities and a viable economy.  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
12.2.41  Studiusbagus  replied to  Texan1211 @12.2.4    3 months ago
Projections are not facts.

Maybe this will help.....

http://www.keepitcalifornia.org/fact-sheet.html

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
12.2.42  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.2.40    3 months ago
We have vibrant communities and a viable economy

No, you don't. You have a local economy that is going to get even more stressed when you assume your portion of the debt, fund your education, pay for law enforcement, etc. Which at this time you pay none of.

Most of the land around you is federal. Your infrastructure will be collapsed shortly after your dream starts. 

Going to be calling it the State of Walmart.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.2.43  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Studiusbagus @12.2.42    3 months ago

Our counties and cities pay for all that already.  There are other low population western states with large amounts of federal land on them.  Our % of the state debt by population and income level is being paid by us now.  Nothing would change.  We have the economic vitality to stand on our own.  

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.44  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.2.43    3 months ago
Our counties and cities pay for all that already.

How are you going to pay CA for that millions of acres it OWNS into perpetuity? In Shasta County alone, the California Department of Conservation’s California Farmland Conservancy Program OWNS  millions of acres. 

There are other low population western states with large amounts of federal land on them.

Yet you pretend that once you establish you dystopia, you're going to manage 'your' forests. The Carr fire [near Redding] started in a NATIONAL FOREST Xx. If there is any managing to do, it's Trump that needs to do it...

Our % of the state debt by population and income level is being paid by us now. Nothing would change. We have the economic vitality to stand on our own.

Then why the need for the state grants that you boasted about in your other seed? 

With a financial assist from the state, downtown Redding is expected to undergo an approximate $200 million renaissance over the next several years that includes a new Shasta County courthouse and two multi-story, mixed-use developments.

Your 'economic vitality' is kept afloat by state GRANTS, in short free stuff from the state you loath.

Gonna pay the state back for those grants Xx? 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
12.2.45  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.2.43    3 months ago
Our counties and cities pay for all that already

Nah, stop trying to bullshit me. You get more back than you contributw. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.2.46  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Studiusbagus @12.2.45    3 months ago

Not by enough that would prevent our tax and regulatory structures from making our ends meet.  We neither need nor want your part of the state though we will consider adding additional interested counties other than Yolo, Sacramento, and the Bay Area region counties beyond our present footprint.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.2.47  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Dulay @12.2.44    3 months ago

They should have built that court house 20 years ago.  Not to mention the UC University our region never got. What did West Virginia pay back to Virginia?  What did Maine pay Massachusetts?  What did Vermont pay New York?  

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.48  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.2.47    3 months ago
They should have built that court house 20 years ago.

Why? You claim to be a 'vibrant economy' despite the fact that you also admit that your whole area sucks money from the state. Buck up and pay for your own fucking courthouse.  

Not to mention the UC University our region never got.

Tissue? You abhor the state but still want them to invest in higher education in your dystopia. Hypocrisy at it's finest. 

What did West Virginia pay back to Virginia?  

Actually, Virginia separated from the union and West Virginia stayed loyal. 

What did Maine pay Massachusetts?  

Massachusetts refused to defend Maine against British invaders. Mass. agreed to Maines secession as part of the Missouri compromise to keep a balance in slave vs. non-slave states.  

What did Vermont pay New York?  

$30,000 for less than half of the acreage in 1790-91. 

That's about $268 an acre in today's money. We'll start there and add the value of CA state facilities on top. We'll have to figure out a leasing arrangement for the dams, fisheries, ect.

Since y'all can't be trusted to protect the environment, we will retain ownership of all of the State Parks and we'll be charging you out of state admission fees to all of the parks within your dystopia. 

Just the acreage of Shasta County will be about $1 Million. Pay up...

 
 
 
DRHunk
13  DRHunk    3 months ago

California's Department of Finance says the CA portion of the State of Jefferson receives about $20 million more from the state than it provides.  Proponents of secession say that secession would create new opportunities and funding. (How? It takes money to make money, the state has to be willing and able to invest in these new industries, which it would not be able to)

  • The poverty rate in the State of Jefferson territory was 20.3 percent in 2012, higher than California (17.0%) and Oregon (17.0%), as well as the United States (15.9%).
  • Payroll employment in the territory declined 3.3 percent between 2003 and 2013 while payroll in the United States increased 4.8 percent in the same period.
  • Jefferson State's average wage would have been behind all 50 states in 2013.
  • The unemployment rate in the territory was 10.4 percent in 2013, down from a peak of 13.4 percent in 2011. This was higher than all 50 states in 2013.

https://oregonemployment.blogspot.com/2014/09/state-of-jefferson-economic-perspective.html

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
13.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  DRHunk @13    3 months ago

And it’s a lot lower now.  Also our poverty rate is quite low when cost of living is adjusted for.  

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
14  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉    3 months ago

Will i need a passport when travelling to the State of Jefferson or do I just take magic mushrooms?

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
14.1  Studiusbagus  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @14    3 months ago

No, for the appropriate emotion and visual effects you have to volunteer to be fed botulism. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
15  livefreeordie    3 months ago

I gave up on Stalinist Kalifornia and fled that cesspool of totalitarianism like many of my friends

its such a welcome change to now live where open carry is welcomed in stores, where there immorality of the left is universally repulsed, where gas prices just across the the state line from Kalifornia are 30% lower.  Where farmers and ranchers are still respected and appreciated. Where there isn’t a Starbucks on every corner and churches are still centers of influence and respected

 
 
 
Tessylo
15.1  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @15    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
pat wilson
15.2  pat wilson  replied to  livefreeordie @15    3 months ago
I gave up on Stalinist Kalifornia and fled that cesspool

You probably "fled" because you couldn't afford to retire in Cali.

 
 
 
Texan1211
15.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @15.2    3 months ago
You probably "fled" because you couldn't afford to retire in Cali.

There are very good reasons that California isn't considered a great retirement state. Pretty poor, in fact.

https://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/retirement/T006-S001-all-50...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
15.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @15.2    3 months ago

ou probably "fled" because you couldn't afford to retire in Cali.

Are you trying to make his case for him?

If a state costs too much for it's residents to retire in, it seems like a failed state to me. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
15.2.3  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.2.2    3 months ago

If I were in a red state and left cause I couldn't afford to retire there would you be singing the same tune ? No, you'd say it was my fault for not saving enough.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
15.2.4  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.2.2    3 months ago

Unless they retire to the valley or the northern or eastern foothills of this state virtually no one can afford to retire here.  Even with a paid off mortgage in some places the property taxes would prevent one from retiring on Social security alone in the coastal cities.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
15.2.5  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  pat wilson @15.2.3    3 months ago

What red state is too expensive to retire in?  

 
 
 
livefreeordie
15.2.6  livefreeordie  replied to  pat wilson @15.2    3 months ago

I left because I despise the radical leftist ideology of the state.

as I said I now live in a state that rightfully allows open firearms carry without any licensing or registration 

a state that doesn’t lead the nation in welfare and food stamp recipients

a state that doesn’t give illegals free medical care, drivers licenses, and discounted college education over US citizens

a state that isnt run by the extremist environmentalists

 
 
 
pat wilson
15.2.7  pat wilson  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @15.2.5    3 months ago

There aren't any because those states are not destinations. Supply and demand, xx, supply and demand.

 
 
 
Kavika
15.2.8  Kavika   replied to  XXJefferson#51 @15.2.4    3 months ago
Unless they retire to the valley or the northern or eastern foothills of this state virtually no one can afford to retire here.  Even with a paid off mortgage in some places the property taxes would prevent one from retiring on Social security alone in the coastal cities.  

There a lot of other places in CA then the ones you named that you can afford to retire in if you choose. Your property tax depends on when you purchased the home and the price paid. I have two properties in CA. one urban elite enclave of Huntington Beach and the property tax is $2500 year. It was purchased in 1983. The other is a ranch in Siskiyou county. Right up there in the mythical kingdom of Jeffrerson...LOL...You have not been able to get this Jefferson nonsense on the ballot in 5 years and there are a very large number of people there that have no intention or wish to become part of the mythical kingdom. 

So I'm fairly familiar with the state and what areas are high rent and those that are not. Also how property tax works in the state. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @15.2.6    3 months ago
Stalinist Kalifornia and fled that cesspool of totalitarianism

So you consider it 'Stalinist' totalitarianism to have restrictions on firearms, strong welfare, sanctuary cities, liberal benefits to illegals and strong environmentalism?   

Do you just toss labels about regardless of meaning?   After all, Stalinist totalitarian rule involved a brutal dictatorship murdering millions of people, controlling the economy into poverty for all (except officials of the state) and basically a horrid standard of living for everyone.    To compare that to American contemporary liberalism (even when it is extreme) makes absolutely no sense.    

It is not Stalinism you see, it is   s t a t i s m   with a liberal agenda.   (And California is not Marxist, facist, socialist, communist, ... either.)

 
 
 
pat wilson
15.2.10  pat wilson  replied to  TᵢG @15.2.9    3 months ago

Many thumbs up !!

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
15.2.11  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  TᵢG @15.2.9    3 months ago

He’s right.  I live in a Stalinist totalitarian state.  It is by far the single worst run state in the country and it’s coastal urban areas have no redeeming value whatsoever.  It’s a total animal farm like dystopia 

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @15.2.11    3 months ago

Describe to all of us how California is totalitarian.  First look up the meaning of the word.

Describe to all of us how California is a Stalinist state.   First review what Stalinism was - take close note of the brutal murder of political opponents (and suspected opponents) by the millions.   Take note of the centrally planned economy and the exploitation and oppression of the people to benefit party officials.

You will need to buy more than one vowel.

 
 
 
Dulay
15.2.13  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @15.2.12    3 months ago
You will need to buy more than one vowel.

Stealing...

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.2.14  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @15.2.13    3 months ago

Given freely to those, like you, who know how to use it.    jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kavika
15.2.15  Kavika   replied to  XXJefferson#51 @15.2.11    3 months ago
 I live in a Stalinist totalitarian state.

You shouldn't be surprised when that Stalinist totalitarian state starts putting the mythical Jeffersonians into the gulags that they are building in the lava fields in NE CA...

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  Kavika @15.2.15    3 months ago

It is disgusting that some diminish the horrors of the Stalinist USSR by equating it with the state of California.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
15.2.17  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Kavika @15.2.15    3 months ago

The ones FDR had built at Tulelake are still there though the feds would not let the fascists running Californication put us there.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
15.2.18  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @15.2.17    3 months ago
are still there though the feds would not let the fascists running Californication put us there.  

Oh, please, provide us links for this accusation.

perhaps it's because A - it never happened

or B

the National park Service runs it as an educational program acknowledging the shameful racism that was practiced during WWII.

( instead of bulldozing and erasing it as if it never happened, like some other countries have tried to do )

But please, put on your MAGA hat and tell us about almost being interned at The Tule Lake Unit, WWII Valor in the Pacific National Monument.

At least you could spell Tule Lake correctly.

 
 
 
Kavika
15.2.19  Kavika   replied to  XXJefferson#51 @15.2.17    3 months ago

The ignorance of your of your statements regarding Stalinist/totalitarian/fascist is symptomatic of the entire Jefferson movement.

You're aware that Earl Warren (republican) was a strong advocate of Japanese interment as AG of CA and the as Governor of California. Learn your history XX.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
15.2.20  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Kavika @15.2.19    2 months ago

All efforts at this point in time are for the present and for secession from Californication.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
16  seeder  XXJefferson#51    3 months ago

It's OK for Jefferson to be a "poor state" within California but not as its own State?   http://soj51.org/finances-fundraising/                      All the proof needed to prove our fiscal and financial viability is reality.  

 
 
 
Dulay
16.1  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @16    3 months ago
It's OK for Jefferson to be a "poor state" within California but not as its own State?   http://soj51.org/finances-fundraising/                      All the proof needed to prove our fiscal and financial viability is reality.  

Oh that IS a treasure trove of financial information Xx. 

The first data of note is that after 2 YEARS the GoFundMe has collected a whopping $26,651. That's about 1 CENT per adult over 2 YEARS. 

WOW, that's some overwhelming support there Xx.

The second set of data that's interesting is the county by county income numbers. 

Though I have asked you to provide information on counties that have ACTUALLY voted to join your dystopia, you've avoided posting any. So that leaves me to review wiki for that information. 

Per Wiki, ONLY ONE county has EVER voted to join the 'State of Jefferson' and that is Tehema, which has a ($103,545,655) deficit per YOUR link's data. 

Then there are 4 other counties whose councils have voted to leave but they have NEVER but such a initiative has been placed on the ballot. They are Siskiyou with a deficit of ($46,719,183), Modoc with a deficit of ($45,098,971), Glenn with a deficit of ($79,721,345) and Yuba with a deficit of ($128,728,322).

NOW, we come to your dystopia's reliance on the federal government.

Your link ASSUMES that your dystopia will be in the TOP third of taker states by calculating that the Feds will return 140% of Federal taxes. Any lower percentage ADDS to the deficits of those counties. It appears that this 140% is based on tax base of counties that are NOT a voluntary part of your dystopia. The ACTUAL percentage of FREE STUFF that your dystopia will need from the Feds could be much higher. 

So your own link makes it clear that the ACTUAL financial status of the State of Jefferson would be insolvency. 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
16.1.1  Studiusbagus  replied to  Dulay @16.1    3 months ago

Excellent research! 

 
 
 
Dulay
16.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Studiusbagus @16.1.1    3 months ago

All praise should go to Xx for his fine source. Of course, I don't think that Xx actually READ the financials. Propaganda is easily spread. 

The sleight of hand of these 'Jeffersonians' is disgusting and there are far too many gullible suckers that let themselves be 'lead' down the primrose path. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
16.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Dulay @16.1.2    3 months ago

We have more than enough resources to be economically viable and maintain a state budget.  The research is clear about that.  We are sick of being oppressed as a poor state within Californication which has done little for us and we know our economic situation improves dramatically as soon as we shake off the chains of bondage from our occupation by the hostile enemy state.  

 
 
 
Dulay
16.1.4  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @16.1.3    3 months ago
We have more than enough resources to be economically viable and maintain a state budget.  The research is clear about that.

Your OWN reference proves that to be false Xx. You said:

All the proof needed to prove our fiscal and financial viability is reality.

I used YOUR data and it PROVES that the 5 counties I cited are BROKE. THAT is a numeric reality. 

 We are sick of being oppressed as a poor state within Californication which has done little for us

Well judging from the deficits of those 5 counties, the State of California has saved them from abject poverty...

and we know our economic situation improves dramatically as soon as we shake off the chains of bondage from our occupation by the hostile enemy state.

That's delusional. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
16.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dulay @16.1.4    2 months ago

Is anybody besides me thinking of Kevin Bacon in "Animal House" where he's screaming "All is Well! All is Well" while chaos ensues around him?

 
 
 
Dulay
16.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.1.5    2 months ago

Not a fan of 'how stupid can guys be' movies. I could never make it through Animal House. 

But 'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain' comes to mind...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
16.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dulay @16.1.6    2 months ago

You're missing out if you haven't seen Animal House. And it's not a "how stupid can guys be" movie...much....but it's a classic.

 
 
 
Dulay
16.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.1.7    2 months ago

I tried to watch it, couldn't make it through. Not my kind of humor. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17  seeder  XXJefferson#51    3 months ago

March 15, 2018
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE!

We the people of the 23 counties of Northern California, hereafter known as Jefferson, formally demand an immediate Article 4, Section 3, (U.S.) state split. We declare the State of California is in open rebellion and insurrection against the government of the United States.

Governor J. Brown, Lt Governor G. Newsom, Senate Pro Tem K. León, Speaker A Rendon, States Attorney General X. Becerra, Senator K. Harris, and the majority of voting members of the California Legislature, have openly and publicly declared war on the government of the United States.

Governor Brown and the above named politicians are in violation of USC 8, Section 1324, harboring and shielding illegal aliens, a felony under federal law. Governor Brown and the above named criminals are in violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 U.S. that clearly gives Congress lawful jurisdiction over immigration. Governor Brown and the above named politicians are in violation of California Constitution, Article 3, Section 1, which states that California is an inseparable part of the United States, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Governor Brown and the above named politicians, are in violation of Article 20 of the California Constitution which describes the oath of office requiring support and defense of the United States Constitution....without any mental reservation. Governor Brown has openly and publicly made several agreements with foreign powers in violation of the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 10, clause 3. Governor Brown does so with the aid of the above named politicians.

Is this or is this not a nation of laws? Or have we citizens simply become subjects to the monarchs and despots who know themselves to be above laws which are applied only to us?

We the people of The Jefferson Counties have repeatedly and humbly requested an end to the lawlessness, which issues from Sacramento. We have repeatedly and humbly requested redress of our grievances from both the executive and legislative branches of government. Our requests are met only with further abuses and assaults on our Liberty and property rights. We are now attempting to gain justice from the Article 3 Court in the Eastern District of California, only to be told that since all Californians are equally tyrannized by the institutional felons named above, there is nothing the court can do to help us. This is unacceptable and further, is an outrage against liberty. See CFR v Padilla.

We the people, established government with the sole duty to protect the rights of the governed. Government derives all its just power from the consent of the governed. Whenever ANY Government is destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it and to establish government more suitable to their needs. California Constitution Article 2, Section 1, and Declaration of Independence.

We the people of the Jefferson Counties are not playthings of the criminals who rule over California. We the people, do not yield our sovereignty to the government that was formed to serve us.

We the people of the Jefferson Counties have absolutely no access to representation, nor are we allowed a republican form of government guaranteed us in Article 4, Section, 4(U.S).

We declare the above named criminal politicians have breached their sacred oath and thus the social compact referred to as the Constitution of the State of California is now null and void.

We demand the United States Congress and the United States Senate immediately introduce and pass, legislation for an Article 4, Section 3, state split along the geographic lines which the Jefferson Declaration Committees will supply to this esteemed body.

The Jefferson Declaration Committee has prepared a draft constitution and guidelines for a committee of separation. We declare our allegiance to the United States of America and to the Constitution of the United States. We beg relief from the long train of abuses heaped upon us, our families, and our liberties.

Declare the 51st State, Jefferson, to free us from tyranny! We appeal to almighty God for the rectitude of our intentions because we declare that in order to escape tyranny, He can be our only judge!   http://soj51.org

 
 
 
Split Personality
17.1  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17    3 months ago
Declare the 51st State, Jefferson, to free us from tyranny! We appeal to almighty God for the rectitude of our intentions because we declare that in order to escape tyranny, He can be our only judge!

Well, so much for separation of church and state.

Has the JDC submitted this to the current Governor of California?

SACRAMENTO — The latest attempt to split California into smaller states elicited little more than eye-rolling and smirks Wednesday at state Democratic Party headquarters, where the majority party held a rally to throw support behind Gavin Newsom’s gubernatorial campaign.

It won’t pass, Democratic Party Chairman Eric Bauman said.

It’s the least of his worries, said Newsom.

“California’s success is in being a cohesive state, particularly in a time of Trump and Trumpism,” Newsom said. “And now we’re the fifth-largest economy in the world — why would we cede that?”

The measure from venture capitalist Tim Draper to split California into three states didn’t earn support from the California Republican Party, either, which voted overwhelmingly to oppose it at the party’s April convention, said Chairman Jim Brulte.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Gavin-Newsom-shrugs-off-three-Californias-12992416.php
 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Split Personality @17.1    3 months ago

The words mirror the US Declaration of Independence in its references to God and we stand by both.  Our declaration is a great document.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Split Personality @17.1    3 months ago

California will never be a cohesive and unified state for as long as we are unwillingly a part of it.  As for fighting Trump and Trumpism, we in Jefferson stand with him and against the state of Californication on each and every issue between them.  We are your enemy within and Trumps allies from within.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
17.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.1.1    3 months ago

Typical drivel of the mutinous.

 
 
 
Split Personality
17.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.1.2    3 months ago
We are your enemy within and Trumps allies from within.  

You are not my enemy any more than a flea or tick would be.

Fleas and ticks are either by God's designs or the result of evolution

blood sucking parasites that do what they are destined to do, right?

What is your excuse?

What keeps you from selling your house and moving to your imaginary paradise in Texas.

The real answer is nothing.

You prefer to stay and bitch, for almost a decade now, about things you cannot know, or control or cause to happen.

As POTUS often says,

Sad.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.1.5  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Split Personality @17.1.3    3 months ago

No, we are openly secessionist and proudly so.  

 
 
 
Dulay
17.1.6  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.1.1    2 months ago
The words mirror the US Declaration of Independence in its references to God and we stand by both. Our declaration is a great document.

That is utter BULLSHIT Xx.

The xenophobia contained in that document is palpable. 

It's 'legal argument' is so obtuse it's unworthy of being taken seriously. 

Much like the CFR lawsuit y'all filied.

The MOST hilarious thing about the lawsuit it that it whines about lack of representation based on California's POPULATION. Y'all would NOT gain ground in representation because your population doesn't support it. The 'secular progressives' will merely gain a LARGER majority.

[Removed]

 
 
 
Dulay
17.1.7  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.1.5    2 months ago
No, we are openly secessionist and proudly so.

And utter failures in everything except propaganda. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.1.8  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Dulay @17.1.7    2 months ago

And attracting a shadow that follows me all over the site.....

 
 
 
Dulay
17.1.9  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.1.8    2 months ago
And attracting a shadow that follows me all over the site.....

Who would that be Xx? You should report a stalker to the RA. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
17.2  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17    3 months ago

How about Tim Draper?

SALT LAKE CITY — It’s over: California won’t vote to split into three states.

Billionaire Tim Draper wrote in a letter to the California Supreme Court, which was made public Thursday, that he’s ending his effort to restructure California into three separate states this November, according to The Associated Press.

“The political environment for radical change is right now,” Draper said in his letter. “The removal of Proposition 9 from the November ballot has effectively put an end to this movement.”

Back in July, the state Supreme Court struck down Draper’s measure after a lawsuit contested the idea of splitting California into three states, according to my report for the Deseret News.

Draper had an opportunity to fight the ruling to help bring back the measure on future ballots. The venture capitalist, who spent $1.7 million to help bring the initiative to the ballot, will not move forward with the case.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900027750/its-over-billionaire-kills-plan-to-split-california-into-3-states.html
 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.2.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Split Personality @17.2    3 months ago

We were doing our thing long before he came along with his idea and we will continue on with it for as long as it takes.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
17.2.2  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.1    3 months ago

Like I said before, your dream died with Andres Pico's failed attempt to get Congress to pay attention.

Now your state, regardless of whether you are in a good tourist area or a political backwater ( that happens in every one of the 5o states, even HI )

is the 5th best economy in the WORLD

and will NOT bow to a faction of the politically disappointed citizens.

The very very first step of the 12 step program is admitting that you have a problem.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.2.3  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Split Personality @17.2.2    3 months ago

I’ve already recognized that we have a problem and the state of California IS the problem.  It is an oppressive regime of no redeeming value whatsoever. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
17.2.4  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.3    3 months ago

Nope, you are the problem.  Creating a new state will not cure what is inherently wrong with people.

But as i have stated before, you are free to join us here in Texas.

It's a free country, that way.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.2.5  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Split Personality @17.2.4    2 months ago

No, it is the people of the state of Californication who are our problem and the problem.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
17.2.6  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.5    2 months ago

you ARE a people of California...jrSmiley_85_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
DRHunk
17.2.7  DRHunk  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.5    2 months ago

Every time you use the word Californication the Red Hot Chili Pepper song jumps into my head. I don't see Californication as a disparaging comment, I think it is the ability to have a place where you have so many choices and opportunities to live your life the way you want, and do the things that make you happy that makes California so unique and a great place to live. Keep calling it Californication like its a disease and I will keep hoping it spreads across the nation.

 
 
 
katrix
17.2.8  katrix  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.3    2 months ago
I’ve already recognized that we have a problem and the state of California IS the problem.  It is an oppressive regime of no redeeming value whatsoever. 

So move, if you hate it there so much.

 
 
 
TᵢG
17.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  katrix @17.2.8    2 months ago

Exactly.  KAG would probably like Kentucky.   Especially somewhere close to Petersburg (home of the Creation Museum).

Plus one can get substantially more land and home square footage for the same price one pays in California.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.2.10  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  katrix @17.2.8    2 months ago

I hate the government of the state.  I don’t hate the area I live.  I know that we have a certain degree of latitude being remote from big coastal population areas and having local rule and lax enforcement of certain aspects of things.  We could live better if our parasite occupier was not a part of our lives.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.2.11  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  TᵢG @17.2.9    2 months ago

My area of the state is more expensive than some other places but a heck of a lot cheaper than most other Californication cities.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.2.12  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  DRHunk @17.2.7    2 months ago

The government of the state and its coastal urban populations are a disease....

 
 
 
Split Personality
17.2.13  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @17.2.9    2 months ago

No, I am thinking Northern Ireland.

 
 
 
Kavika
17.2.14  Kavika   replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.12    2 months ago
The government of the state and its coastal urban populations are a disease....

I hope that you're vaccinated because that diseased population is going to be your master for as long as you live in CA....

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.2.15  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Kavika @17.2.14    2 months ago

I’m immune to the sickness that is Californication.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
17.2.16  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.15    2 months ago

Me too. That's why I'm so glad I live in Southeastern Arizona...

 
 
 
Dulay
17.2.17  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.10    2 months ago
We could live better if our parasite occupier was not a part of our lives.

Based on the plethora of your comments about sucking off the state tit, it looks like your area is the parasite. 

 
 
 
Dulay
17.2.18  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.12    2 months ago

Without which your county and those who actually volunteered to be in you state of dystopia would be in abject poverty. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.2.19  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Dulay @17.2.18    2 months ago

We would be rich and in need of nothing from anyone if we were our own state that set our own tax, regulations, and budget priorities.  The only reason we are less well off than we could be is because of the state of California.  Californication is not the solution,Californication is the problem.

 
 
 
Dulay
17.2.20  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.19    2 months ago
We would be rich and in need of nothing from anyone if we were our own state that set our own tax, regulations, and budget priorities.  

Xx, the financial data that YOU linked prove that to be a LIE. 

The only reason we are less well off than we could be is because of the state of California.  

The only reason your area isn't in abject poverty is because of the state of California. 

Californication is not the solution,Californication is the problem.

Childish name calling is not the solution, it's the problem. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.2.21  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Dulay @17.2.20    2 months ago

Then stop engaging in it.  Bye now.  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
17.2.22  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.21    2 months ago

So...you can't back up the lies and then just dismiss the poster?

Is that censorship or admission of lying?

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.2.23  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Studiusbagus @17.2.22    2 months ago

The fact is that our numbers do work as to our viability without Californication holding us back.  Him saying they won’t work over and over again changes nothing.  I’ve seen enough to accept that we would not only be viable w/o Californication but better off.  Personally even if we would be a bit poorer it would be worth it to no longer be associated with such scum.  

 
 
 
Kavika
17.2.24  Kavika   replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.23    2 months ago
Personally even if we would be a bit poorer it would be worth it to no longer be associated with such scum.  

So your fellow Californians are ''scum''...You realize that some of that ''scum'' are members of NT. 

A couple of things XX...The Jefferson movement is a joke, you can't even get it on the ballot. Your lawsuit was laughed out of court and your contention that most people in the counties calling itself Jefferson are in favor of it is more BS...

As long as you want to believe your own hype go right ahead, but to try and pass it off as legit and truth, you are lying to the entire NT membership....

It's sad that your so filled with hate that you insult members of NT. Your hate filled rhetoric has come to define you XX.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.2.25  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Kavika @17.2.24    2 months ago

The Bay Area and LA co. Area regions sans Palmdale and Lancaster are what they are.  We’d be happy to have Riverside, San Bernardino, and Kern counties in our state connected to the rest by Mono and Inyo .  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
17.2.26  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.23    2 months ago

All your figures show is that you're going to be extremely poor and a drag on the economy.

You're going from mooching off California to mooching off the Fed which means you'll be mooching off the donor states.

I'm not interested in paying for more right wing mooch states.

 
 
 
Dulay
17.2.27  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.23    2 months ago
The fact is that our numbers do work as to our viability without Californication holding us back.  

 No Xx, that is NOT a fact and your own link to the financials PROVES it. 

Him saying they won’t work over and over again changes nothing.

Your comments saying that they will work are just lies. Again, your own link PROVES it. 

I’ve seen enough to accept that we would not only be viable w/o Californication but better off.  

I've seen enough to accept that you are incapable of seeing the truth about your dystopia. 

Personally even if we would be a bit poorer it would be worth it to no longer be associated with such scum.  

Tell you what Xx. When you get Shasta and Placer county to VOTE to join Jefferson, give me a call. Until then, your dystopic state is doomed to abject poverty. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.2.28  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Studiusbagus @17.2.26    2 months ago

So it’s ok for Californication to repress us and keep us poor with our bare necks under the jack boot of their thugs so to speak but not ok for us to be on our own and significantly improve our financial situation.  Our economic situation is what it is because of the state of Californication. 

 
 
 
Dulay
17.2.29  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.28    2 months ago
Our economic situation is what it is because of the state of Californication. 

That is a lie. You admitted that the state is investing millions in Shasta county alone. Want me to repost your statement on all the shit the state is building for you? How's that County Courthouse coming along Xx? 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
17.2.30  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.28    2 months ago
So it’s ok for Californication to repress us and keep us poor with our bare necks under the jack boot of their thugs so to speak but not ok for us to be on our own and significantly improve our financial situation

What part of "you are getting more dollars from the state than you contribute to the state" is California keeping you poor?

Your own reference makes this clear that you would even be poorer. Which indicates, and you confirmed, that you would then be funded by the Fed rather than be financially independent.

And really....""CALIFONICATION", "Jack booted thugs"?

Grow up for goodness sakes!

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
17.2.31  Studiusbagus  replied to  Dulay @17.2.29    2 months ago

Remember this post when you get another "I don't lie" crock o' shit.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.2.32  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Studiusbagus @17.2.31    2 months ago

I can’t see that post.  What does it say?  Here is the truth for you.    

 
 
 
Dulay
17.2.33  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.32    2 months ago
I can’t see that post. What does it say? Here is the truth for you.

So Xx, you didn't see my post from 2 DAYS ago? 

Another lie...

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.2.34  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Studiusbagus @17.2.30    2 months ago

Their taxation and regulatory regime cost us and our economy far more than their puny little subsidies they have to provide benefit us.  They are the reason we are where we are economically.  The amount the federal government sends to each zip code or region up here would not change if we were a state instead of an occupied territory.  I never said we would be poorer if we became a state.  Clearly we would become better off.  Our battle for statehood is exposing for the world to see the abuse and mistreatments of the state of Californication of our region.  What I said was even if we were to be a bit poorer financially after the breakup, it would be worth it just to be free of all political associations with them.  The loyalists to the crown used similar arguments to try to hold down the colonies and they chose risking their economic well being for freedom and so do we. We just know that once from from the progressive bureaucratic evil regime in Sacramento elected by our coastal urban oppressors that we’d be better of in every way.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.2.35  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.34    2 months ago
 
 
 
Split Personality
17.2.36  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.35    2 months ago

Not one, but two state funded Courthouses built with local contractors? Shasta & Siskiyou.

https://www.redding.com/story/news/local/2018/01/10/browns-budget-plan-includes-new-shasta-courthouse/1021638001/

 
 
 
Dulay
17.2.37  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.34    2 months ago
Their taxation and regulatory regime cost us and our economy far more than their puny little subsidies they have to provide benefit us.

https://www.redding.com/story/news/local/2018/06/21/theres-200-million-coming-downtown-redding-heres-why/718317002/

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

The loyalists to the crown used similar arguments to try to hold down the colonies and they chose risking their economic well being for freedom and so do we.

The arguments in your 'Declaration' are fabricated [LIES] and not based on the Constitution.

The founders made their arguments based on FACTS, not lies. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
17.2.38  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Split Personality @17.2.36    2 months ago

So?  The state has built court houses in every county over time.  We are as usual at the bottom of the barrel getting them last just like our UC system school, our library, and our roads.  

 
 
 
Dulay
17.2.39  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.38    2 months ago
So?

So, you've BOASTED about sucking the state dry, making yourselves as expensive as possible to retain your area in the state. You bragged about how much money the state the you abhor is spending in your area.

Now you're whining about them not spending $200 MILLION FAST enough...

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
17.2.40  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @17.2.34    2 months ago
The amount the federal government sends to each zip code or region up here would not change if we were a state instead of an occupied territory.  

And that's a lie. With the amount of poverty in your area the Medicaid claims in just your state will shoot up. You do understand that Medicaid is a shared responsibility and not fully funded by the Feds don't you?

I'm absolutely positive those coastal communities won't mind sharing those revenues with you...heh, right.

Our battle for statehood is exposing for the world to see the abuse and mistreatments of the state of Californication of our region.

That's downright funny!

That may be what you think the message is exposing, but it's not. What's being received is a caricature drawing of Jethro Bodine.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
18  seeder  XXJefferson#51    2 months ago

I can’t see or respond to your posts on this article/seed.  Everywhere else on the site I can. The first few words are visible when looking at responses to the seed from the tracker.  There’s no one on this site as hostile to the region of the state where I live as you are and there is no point in an endless argument or being called a liar so...

 
 
 
Split Personality
18.1  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @18    2 months ago

You have her on ignore which is article specific.

Please do not respond to her or talk around her while YOU have HER on Ignore.

 
 
 
 
Dulay
19.1  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @19    2 months ago

Take that crap elsewhere. 

 
 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Bob Nelson
lady in black


30 visitors