Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

A lot of that came from grants and tax breaks granted by the Canadian government, quite a few of them have ended now IIRC.

As I recall, the ending of those subsidies was a key factor in "Haven" ending when it did.

Quite simply, the only people to loose from a Calexit is the rest of the USA. Ok, you get rid of some Ebil Libuurals, but that's about as far as it goes.

Getting rid of 55 almost guaranteed Democratic electoral votes, as well as getting rid of alot of liberal congresscritters is worth quite a bit.

[aretood2]

and let's not forget perfectly acceptable to question whether fledgling thermonuclear weaponry should've been used on Japan

Except no one is questioning whether or not Japan ever got nuked. People are questioning (and by people I mean nazis) whether or not the holocaust ever happened, not its merits. It's comparing apples to sauerkraut.

Thank you and I apologise too for flying off the handle the way I did, I could, infact should, have put it across differently.

In answer to your followup about UK law, I fell into the trap of generalising something, the law here on the matter is covered under EU legislation, there is also civil case law (the film Denial is about this) that covers it for a civil process, it's complicated and as I said last night it depends what you say, but as we've found one persons interpretation of something said can be completely different to the next persons interpretations. There is no specific 'Holocaust Denial' offense no, you would be prosecuted under a different term.

Going back to my original point, I think we can all agree anybody who denies what happened is a few fries short of a happy meal, all I was trying to convey is these people who deny what happened, it probably feeds their conspiracy that by it's nature denying/questioning the events has a specific law against it in some countries where discussing other events from that time doesn't have the same level of law surrounding it.

My response to them is similar to what I wrote above. The argument is moot when in so many countries, like the US, it is perfectly legal if not constitutionally protected to question it. The problem is that the idea of disproving an event requires an alternative to explain all of the sources and the established narrative. And there isn't any. It really does go back the quote from the US holocaust museum.

I don't really know were anyone would start in order to disprove the holocaust considering all of the accounts, areal photos, intelligence briefs, documents from companies that used death camp labor, court records (audiovisual and documents), accounts from allied soldiers (UK, US, Russian et al).

But nothing really is keeping people from examining the text of Anne Frank's diary and all that. It's just...there's no motive to. And you are right, it would seem to a Nazi in their warped perverted minds that there is a "reason" why people don't want to and why people would get offended at such a notion. I just wouldn't cross their minds that they are the barbaric savages. I am going to go watch that clip of nazi getting punched again. Let me post it here!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rh1dhur4aI

Pure gold

I dread to think what this Country is going to be like after Brexit, she seems intent in taking us out of everything with a name that begins Euro, customs union, ECJ, Human Rights Act etc. As we've discussed here before some of these bare no relation to the European Union and some even pre-date it by decades but this stupid unelected leader we have is going to take us out of everything that has Euro in its name regardless of whether its actually EU related

And all because her predecessor allowed himself to be goaded in Parliament into blurting out a random date instead of just responding 'I've promised a referendum during the next Parliament' like he should have done.

Oh and let's not forget not clarifiying what 'Leave the EU' actually meant because he was so obsessed with lying and deluded in his own self importance that he never ever considered those outside the square mile might actually think 'wow there's an idea' and vote leave.

But there's more, in his rush to push the Referendum Act through and be everybody's best mate, he forgot to specify the majority amount and didn't include the almost guaranteed get out of jail free card of holding the referendum to the same level of majority as every Act passed before it in that same Parliament (i.e. 2/3rd majority).

So yes, point a laugh to your hearts content, you think Trumps an idiot, well the UK is genuinely that stupid, from the top down and our Mrs May is about to give you a prime example of how to **** things up completely

You could always join NAFTA. I can be called "North American United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement" or NAUKFTA

This is iirc, the 4th time they have tried this.
BUT as long as CA realizes if they DO leave they don't get any sort of federal aid/funds etc, then go for it.

You're joking, right? California doesn't really need federal aid/funds, not anymore than the UK needed EU funds.

And how much fed aid do they get to help with the forest fires that consistently ravage the state? OR for all the illegals they have there?

Not really a deal breaker.

[Gatefan1976]

As I recall, the ending of those subsidies was a key factor in "Haven" ending when it did.

I think so yeah. I never watched much haven, it was onto S3 I think before it hit my radar. I am pretty sure it had an effect on SGA and SGU however.

Getting rid of 55 almost guaranteed Democratic electoral votes, as well as getting rid of alot of liberal congresscritters is worth quite a bit.

You would get rid of the congresscritters, sure. I don't know how much of a real impact loosing the 55 EC votes would have however, I have read contradictory viewpoints on that -from republicans- Some say it would help a lot, some have opined that might make more states blue.

[Annoyed]

I think so yeah. I never watched much haven, it was onto S3 I think before it hit my radar. I am pretty sure it had an effect on SGA and SGU however.


You would get rid of the congresscritters, sure. I don't know how much of a real impact loosing the 55 EC votes would have however, I have read contradictory viewpoints on that -from republicans- Some say it would help a lot, some have opined that might make more states blue.

Haven was one of the best shows I've seen on SyFy since the days of Galactica. I've got the the series on BD, and have rewatched twice since it went off the air.

Well, consider the last election. W/out Calif., the EC vote count would have been 177 to 300+ for Trump. And, Trump would have won the popular vote count, too.

[Falcon Horus]

Someone needs some nap time...........
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-a-madman.html

Oh dear, oh dear...

Sound like he needs a naughty room...

Or safe space... Oh wait doesn't he want to ban them...?

Poor snowflake... LOL! Now, I have a visual of Pence telling Trump to go stand in the corner until he's ready to apologize. SNORT

[SGalisa]

WOW..! *Awesome* birthday present!! CalExit!! if it were only true and happen soon! Please *make it so* (as per Captain Picard often said in ST-TNG=) That translates -- leave the rest of the USA alone, and STOP protesting and occupying up places outside your California/west coastal zone, *please*..

Woohoo!!

Officials announce proposal that would establish California as separate nation


Here's your hat, here's your coat. Why are you still here?

I see you've thought through what them leaving will mean for the rest of you...

Of course.
But obviously the rest of you (non-USA) folks haven't. Please refer to the info further below.

The loss of a huge bastion of liberalism can only be good for the rest of the country.

Along with their electorial vote whining. They'll automatically be totally democrat/socialist or communist, if they leave.

And the loss of income, food, ports, tech sector etc is good for you as well.

Losing all the money Hollywood brings in..

An independent California could easily survive on that income alone.

Oh, boo-hoo. What Hollywood money? Taxes? Let the state keep it, cause they're gonna need every penny and peso they get. They currently suck out the life from the rest of us. It's the rest of the USA that *gives* the Hollywood folks in business, by attending their movies and buying their DVDs, etc. Doesn't take much energy to boycott Hollywood or stop watching TV.
..it's NOT *us* relying on them (Hollywood, that is). Hollywood doesn't grow food. Hollywood *entertains*.. Thus, it makes movies and rents props and makes costumes, mostly in their own state/locality. Not all props come from the California side, either. They either buy from outside their state or improvise and make illusions to create their *Hollywood* stories.

Also, lots of people I know, including my family, have snipped connections to viewing the cable Tv/movie channels. Been 2 years now for my immediate family (got the internet to amuse us, and Amazon, if needed).

Several times yearly, for many years now, California crops often end up on the RECALL list due to urine found in the crops sent. NOT good. So, as a matter of necessity, most of us buy locally in our own states, as a result, instead.

Nevada will make a killing.

On water?

No. On skiing. Vegas.. Colorado river water, if it gets redirected. California and the western states have been pushing bills for declaring things of nature "do not belong to a landowner, or homeowner" -- it must run-off naturally and NOT be collected, or pooled, or the person(s) doing so will be fined BIG bucks by Uncle Sam (at least, that's the way the system works now in that region). Oregon and I think Washington state are also subject to that particular regulation.

Portions of the USA east of those regions are permitted to collect water in large containers to use in feeding their trees and gardens (veggie and flowers, unless there is an extreme drought.. then, gray water must be used). Otherwise, grassy lawns suffer, unless under a tree, where the tree's root system resides and requires water.

On water?
Any price gouging they make towards Cali will be returned in kind. I believe Nevada did in fact say "no water for you", to which Cali responded "no food for you"
However, I don't think it would get that petty.

We don't need to rely on California for food. Please see further below on *why*..

Quite simply, the only people to loose from a Calexit is the rest of the USA. Ok, you get rid of some Ebil Libuurals, but that's about as far as it goes.

Not true. Otherwise, time-wise, we shall see. Here's an in-depth batch of reasons on why.

Let California carry out their exit threat and fend for themselves for a change, and take those sections of Washington state and Oregon too. Join Mexico, if they wish, since they're half way there anyway with their mixed populations. This discussion has been debated before.


California DOES have WATER and PETA issues -- they've forced legislative on -- don't dam up the Colorado river, because the dam was killing off the 3-inch parasite (vampire) fish, or something like that further downstream on the California side.

As for Desalination facilities -- the west coastline of America will only do that if they put their Hollywood monies toward it and take care of the in/out take filter systems. However, Hollywood is too busy taking vacations, going elsewhere in the USA to do various protests, or buying pyscho drugs and smoking dope to be concerned about food and water, at the moment. They may find out quickly that the rest of the USA can live quite comfortably without them They can grow their own cattle for meat, but I think most of them are vegans, not meat eaters. And they have strict regulatory issues about pulling FISH out of the nearby Pacific coastline, too, because of "OMG, we're killing the fishes.. and they're gonna go extinct!" etc.

(BTW, I see California's environmental regulations on a regular basis.. *very* strict regulatory stuff that recently got even more strict with severe penalty fines over the past year.)

..And they (California) can keep their Monsanto's GMO, which currently has nationwide regulations that makes it illegal (and punishable by extreme penalty fines) to grow non-GMO near GMO infected fields, so says California..

Tech industry solely based in the West Coast American continent could be imported just like the rest of the world. 20% import tax to the rest of the more eastern states? Or, some brainy folks in the rest of the USA (which I know several tech data geniuses, personally) could start up their own industry and programming, if Microsoft and Bill Gates' wishes to be too much of a PITA.

Produce crops -- Not a problem! The rest of the USA can make those indoor veggie food buildings, and we'll have what California already has. Such (smaller sized) foods can be grown year round, and protected from outdoor environmental pests. Epcot/Disneyworld in Florida has proven this (self-sustaining) eco/system works and can be done on a larger scale in other states, including tornado alley regions. It just needs to be built-- thus more jobs for the rest of the USA!! Don't need to rely on California for veggies. Besides, more indoor eco/system control means (hopefully) less possibility of people & animals peeing on the plants!

As for "wine" products, NY state already grows vineyards and so does NJ. California isn't the only state growing vineyards. NJ also has educational buildings for hydroponic gardening, so very little specialized soil is needed there.

Also, New Mexico is where the luxury (Virgin's "Virgin Galactic" branch company) high tech airline/spaceport launches take off. The place already exists, but it's not spoken of as often as the other space launches.

BTW, Hollywood isn't much praised in parts of the rest of the USA, and neither are most of their movies/Tv programs. We already have NYC, Atlanta (Georgia), and NC areas making movies. NJ started out as the movie industry with Thomas Edison, and there are mobile film/prop agencies filming thruout the east coast.
So, Hollywood can support the whole west coast America for everything they need. See how long that lasts, before they start (attempting to) stealing from the rest of the USA.

And, as a finishing touch-- perhaps put a border fence against the isolated California side, too while the rest of the USA's southern border gets secured.

So, yes, this whole CalEXIT situation has been thoroughly thought out before. Let them go. They've already made their own beds.. so let them proverbially lay (and stay) in them. BTW, there is a portion of northern California (and southern Oregon) that desires to stay with the rest of the more eastern USA. So, we can open a Pacific shipping port at that location, instead of relying on any existing places already along the current coastline.

[Annoyed]

Along with their electorial vote whining. They'll automatically be totally democrat/socialist or communist, if they leave.

For a short period of time. Remember, Liberals spend other people's money, not their own. Once on their own, the movers and the shakers will realize that they are now the ones paying for all the pipe dreams with their own cash. Soon thereafter the states' politics will take a decided turn to the right.

As for "wine" products, NY state already grows vineyards and so does NJ. California isn't the only state growing vineyards. NJ also has educational buildings for hydroponic gardening, so very little specialized soil is needed there.

Might not be able to count on that for too long.
Once Calif. leaves of its own accord, if the rest of the country has the brains God promised a doorknocker, it will eject NY from the union too, liberal cesspool that it is.

[garhkal]

Except no one is questioning whether or not Japan ever got nuked. People are questioning (and by people I mean nazis) whether or not the holocaust ever happened, not its merits. It's comparing apples to sauerkraut.
[/COLOR]

Exactly. People who think someone questioning the holocaust, NO MATTER what those questions are, must be anti-semitic cause they must be deniers...
Heck one of my navy mates was doing his history teacher masters degree in Bonn, and was caught questioning some locals about what THEY knew of the holocaust, so he could finish some research.. AND almost got into hot water CAUSE merely questioning it, seemed to be verboten.

[Coco Pops]

So what do y'all think of the new ambassador at the UN making the threat "you are either with us or against us, and we will take down names of those against us?"

[Falcon Horus]

CalExit!! if it were only true and happen soon!

You are not well versed on your Constitution, are you?

California can vote on it but they can't actually seceed soon, because there's no amendment in the Constitution to do it. There's one for joining, but not leaving.

Here's how it could happen:

Option 1:

"A member of the California federal delegation to Washington would propose an Amendment to the US Constitution allowing the State of California to withdraw from the Union. The Amendment would have to be approved by 2/3 of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate. If the Amendment passed it would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered (to satisfy the 'consent of the states' requirement in Texas v. White, Supreme Court 1869). It would need to be accepted by at least 38 of the 50 state legislatures to be adopted."

Alternatively:

"California could call for a convention of the states (which is currently being organized to tackle other constitutional amendments as we speak) and the Amendment granting California its independence would have to be approved by 2/3 of the delegates to this convention. If it passed, the Amendment would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered and 38 of the 50 states would have to approve the measure in order for it to be adopted."

No state has ever seceded from the union, despite Texas' best efforts.

It also won't be on the ballot until 2018 and a lot can happen between now and then -- Trump might not even be in office by then.

So what do y'all think of the new ambassador at the UN making the threat "you are either with us or against us, and we will take down names of those against us?"

The definition of diplomacy is lost on Nikki Halley or Haley -- but sure let her try.

----

Oh, and I almost forgot, Trump's EO on Holocaust Memorial Day to ban travel from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, ... but not from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, Egypt... even thought that's where the 9/11 terrorists originated from. Guess those business dealings need to be taken care. Don't piss off the money.

[Coco Pops]

You are not well versed on your Constitution, are you?

California can vote on it but they can't actually seceed soon, because there's no amendment in the Constitution to do it. There's one for joining, but not leaving.

Here's how it could happen:

Option 1:

"A member of the California federal delegation to Washington would propose an Amendment to the US Constitution allowing the State of California to withdraw from the Union. The Amendment would have to be approved by 2/3 of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate. If the Amendment passed it would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered (to satisfy the 'consent of the states' requirement in Texas v. White, Supreme Court 1869). It would need to be accepted by at least 38 of the 50 state legislatures to be adopted."

Alternatively:

"California could call for a convention of the states (which is currently being organized to tackle other constitutional amendments as we speak) and the Amendment granting California its independence would have to be approved by 2/3 of the delegates to this convention. If it passed, the Amendment would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered and 38 of the 50 states would have to approve the measure in order for it to be adopted."

No state has ever seceded from the union, despite Texas' best efforts.

It also won't be on the ballot until 2018 and a lot can happen between now and then -- Trump might not even be in office by then.



The definition of diplomacy is lost on Nikki Halley or Haley -- but sure let her try.

----

Oh, and I almost forgot, Trump's EO on Holocaust Memorial Day to ban travel from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, ... but not from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, Egypt... even thought that's where the 9/11 terrorists originated from. Guess those business dealings need to be taken care. Don't piss off the money.

I'm not surprised that he did that. Of course no bans from the UAE or such because OIL and money deals. Can't tick those folks off yet the people who support him won't notice that, not that they'd listen to anything the press tells them because why have facts when you can have "alternative facts" to spin your own narrative and stick your head in the sand.

[Annoyed]

Does everybody remember back in 2013 when the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow some of the LSoS's court appointees to be confirmed because they didn't have the votes to stop Republican?

I wondered how long it would be before that little stunt bit them in the arse. And it's going to be a damned big bite.

McConnell refuses to say whether 'nuclear option' in Supreme Court nomination is on table

For those who can't read politispeak, this means they're gonna nuke 'em till they glow.

The top GOP senator refused Friday to say whether Republicans would use the so-called “nuclear option” during the confirmation process for President Trump’s Supreme Court pick but promised that his nominee will be “confirmed.”

“My answer’s going to be ... [Democrats] have set the standard,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told Politico.

If Republicans are unable to secure enough Democratic votes for Trump’s pick, they can change the rules and curb the filibuster.

Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., did that for lower court nominees and other nominations in 2013.

People continually underestimate the importance of the voters handing the Presidency and the Congress to the Republicans at this point in time. But they knew what they were doing.

While Trump will no doubt make some good and valuable changes during his time in office, the SCOTUS is going to be the most important aspect, his choices will turn the court to the right for decades.

What I want to see is how the left reacts to this; they were happy as hell when the rules were changed to benefit them in 2013, I wonder how loud they will be whining when the shoe is on the other foot. It's gonna be hilarious.

[Annoyed]

It also won't be on the ballot until 2018 and a lot can happen between now and then -- Trump might not even be in office by then.

Quite true. There is a very small chance he could die, an even smaller chance that he could get bored & quit, or a still smaller chance that he could be impeached, which will go over about as well as attempts to impeach Clinton did when the Democrats controlled congress.

But, other things can happen too. He is moving swiftly to carry out campaign promises, which in and of itself is a rarely seen positive trait for any politician. If his agenda is well received by the people who voted him into office, and by late 2018 appears to be doing good by those voters, the electorate may very well increase the Republicans strength in Congress, particularly the Senate.

There is a huge flaw in the Democrats' strategy in politics. They attempt to target minority sections of the population for support, I believe the current term for this is "identity politics", while ignoring the majority of the people. Up until now, that majority hasn't been saying much. But that majority might be waking up; This is a possible explanation for Trump's surprise victory last November.
If this is indeed the case, and it continues, The Democrats might find themselves on the outside looking in, unable to wipe their nose without Republican approval for a long time.

Ordinarily, I would expect Congress to flip in the mid-terms, it often does. But if this theory is correct, that likely goes right out the window.

[Gatefan1976]

The -voters- didn't hand trump a damn thing, it's the reason he has been whining like a whipped puppy for a week, sending out spicer to -lie- to the press core and create "alternative facts"

The force can have a powerful effect on the weak minded.

[Falcon Horus]

The force can have a powerful effect on the weak minded.

Love that analogy.