Is California becoming a National Security Risk to the U.S.?

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

15 hours ago, Janet Alderton said:

20 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

But they got Trump elected, so he could make the disparity even bigger... 

Hi Rasmus,

The United States democracy has quite a few quirks that give minorities a larger say than their absolute percentage of the population would otherwise grant them:

Each state's governor and state legislature that are in power after the census that occurs every 10 years can draw up new boundaries for the legislative districts. This usually results in favoring the political party that is in control at the state level. At the federal level, the House of Representatives is also affected by this "redistricting". For presidential elections, the structure of the Electoral College affects how each political party chooses its Presidential candidate. Primary elections are held in each state to choose the "electors" who are sent to each party's presidential nominating convention. The temporal order of the presidential primaries has great influence on who is ultimately selected as each party's candidate. Some proportion of the electors are selected by the party's leadership instead of via the primary elections.

Additionally, the Senate in Washington, D.C. has two Senators that represent each state -no matter how large or small the state's population. In the history of the United States, some states were able to divide themselves into two states and thus gain greater influence in the U.S. Senate. North and South Dakota, North and South Carolina, East and West Virginia were formed in this manner.  

Then there are the rules governing the financing of political campaigns. The U.S. Supreme Court threw out earlier rules that more strictly limited campaign contributions. The Court ruled that Corporations are "people' that can contribute unlimited amounts to candidates. Political Action Committees can also spend large amounts during campaigns as long as they advocate for policies and not for candidates.

I may have gotten some details of this very complex system wrong and am open to correction.  

Janet,

My comment was more me trying to make a joke... If you read several of my posts you will see a recurring theme is that I do not think much of the politicians that claim to have best interest of the poor blue collar middle class, but enact policies that do not benefit these.... 

[vmr 0]

Ridiculous. Period. Full stop. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

31 minutes ago, vmr said:

Ridiculous. Period. Full stop. 

Uh, ok.  What is ridiculous, exactly?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 11/22/2018 at 10:56 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

But they got Trump elected, so he could make the disparity even bigger... 

Your statement flies in the face of truth. President Trump has created the best employment rate for Blacks and Hispanics since records have been kept. The stock market was doing great until Democrats won control of the House of Representatives, then it dived. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 hours ago, DA? said:

What take the deal that Europes given them or none. Britains bent over the barrel so they have to take what they are given. Brexit was the biggest con out there.

Britain needs to do the "Hard Brexit" and screw the EU. The politicians in Britain will pay the price if they do not. They are continuing to betray the people of Britain by not following their will. The same is true of the leaders of Germany and France. Macron is next to lose power. Merkel is on her way out. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

7 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Your statement flies in the face of truth. President Trump has created the best employment rate for Blacks and Hispanics since records have been kept. The stock market was doing great until Democrats won control of the House of Representatives, then it dived. 

But Ron, Trump is a racist.  I've seen it in the news, so it must be true.  And, since it's Trump, it simply can't be true that employment numbers are the best in, what, 70 years!  It MUST be because of Obama and would have been more believable if Hillary was in the White House.

(That's sarcasm, or is at least meant to be sarcasm, in case anyone was wondering.)

[Sorry_But_Youre_Wrong 0]

California's piddly 3 billion barrel reserve wouldn't run the USA for more than a few months. It may be consequential in monetary terms to the oil industry, but in terms of quantity of net energy, the impact is trivial.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Sorry_But_Youre_Wrong

[ronwagn + 6,290]

21 hours ago, DA? said:

You can't see me face palming can you. The reason why California has a high homeless rate is the climate and they actually help them rather than treating them as vermin to be chased out of town.

They need to be removed from the streets and taken to appropriate facilities. They are destroying California's finest areas. I spent half of my life in California and spend a lot of time there. Tourism dollars are a big part of the California economy. I got out long ago because I prefer rural life and an abundance of greenness and water, but have a lot of family there.

By appropriate facilities I mean new developments with the full services they need. Social workers, food, housing, bus transportation etc. Most homeless can still do some work such as picking up litter on the roads etc. Work should be required when appropriate for the individual. 

I realize that not all homeless would be willing to go and there are many legal obstacles. I think, especially in California, that going to better housing would possibly have to be voluntary unless stricter laws were passed. 

[Robert Shuler 0]

The comments here all fall along ideological lines.  The east and west coasts along with certain poverty-stricken areas subscribe to one ideology, most of the central part of the country (excepting a region west of and including Chicago) another.  The "rust belt" used to be part of the coastal group, but no longer, which is the key to the current power balance.  Most likely this divide will continue to become more acute.  I am in agreement with Guillaume Albasini (above).  Let them secede.  In this way, natural selection can decide which ideology works.  As it is, the two sides only drag each other down.  It is possible both may prosper, and if not, so be it.  The US is entirely too large, and throws its weight around too much, and one thing I am certain of is that such a move would increase net influence of the (former) US in the world by providing diversity of approach to both domestic and global problems.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

38 minutes ago, Robert Shuler said:

The comments here all fall along ideological lines.  The east and west coasts along with certain poverty-stricken areas subscribe to one ideology, most of the central part of the country (excepting a region west of and including Chicago) another.  The "rust belt" used to be part of the coastal group, but no longer, which is the key to the current power balance.  Most likely this divide will continue to become more acute.  I am in agreement with Guillaume Albasini (above).  Let them secede.  In this way, natural selection can decide which ideology works.  As it is, the two sides only drag each other down.  It is possible both may prosper, and if not, so be it.  The US is entirely too large, and throws its weight around too much, and one thing I am certain of is that such a move would increase net influence of the (former) US in the world by providing diversity of approach to both domestic and global problems.

The whole country is actually divided. Only a few states are overwhelmingly conservative or socialist. Californians are still about 40% conservative. New England also. Russia and China would love to see us divided. It is one of the dreams of the communist world. It won't happen though. E-Pluribus Unum. We fought our worst war over the separation of the states. 

The real division in America is between the rural and exurban areas and the densely populated areas whether cities or dense suburbs closest to the core. If the bluest states abuse the rights of the rural and exurban freedom lovers they will end up having battles all over the country. I am oversimplifying though. The cities also have many freedom lovers and will also resist the assault on their Constitutional rights. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

22 hours ago, DA? said:

I'm out of the UK. Maybe this will teach many there that it's no longer a Empire ruling half the world.

Were you for or against Brexit and why? If you don't want to answer that is OK too. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 11/22/2018 at 7:27 AM, John Gammage said:

SERWIN, Eric, OK, I stand corrected on the coal transportation issue through CA, my source was clearly at fault, but please tone down your rhetoric a bit too. There's a real person here who's a Brit/US citizen, just retired after >40 years in the O&G industry after working on some of the most environmentally sensitive jobs in the history of the industry. 

Are you glad that Britain is making a stab at fracking? I am delighted but haven't kept up on the results thus far. I would like Britain to be a showplace for fracking. Europe needs to get on board IMHO. 

[jaycee + 348]

41 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Are you glad that Britain is making a stab at fracking? I am delighted but haven't kept up on the results thus far. I would like Britain to be a showplace for fracking. Europe needs to get on board IMHO. 

Been some problems with earthquakes in Blackpool everytime they start fracking. If you have ever been to Blackpool you may consider that a positive mind you.

[DA? + 301]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Were you for or against Brexit and why? If you don't want to answer that is OK too. 

Against, but didn't vote as not living there. So many reasons, but without being in Europe they are just a has been now. They have stuffed over so many countries in the past it will come back to haunt them. As Spain is doing now.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

4 hours ago, DA? said:

Against, but didn't vote as not living there. So many reasons, but without being in Europe they are just a has been now. They have stuffed over so many countries in the past it will come back to haunt them. As Spain is doing now.

I disagree, I am now for a "Hard Brexit" but that may not happen. Regardless the voters of each nation have a right to vote and have their votes count. Britain is doing well economically with the hope of Brexit and the populace has turned towards it in a greater percentage. Please see https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/23/eurozone-growth-stumbles-german-economy-contracts-meanwhile-uk-tops-gdp-growth/

IMHO the people of Europe are turning against an overbearing European Union. These are the words of Merkel : Merkel condemned the fact that, in discussions over whether Germany should join a fast-growing number of nations pulling out of the agreement, “there were [politicians] who believed that they could decide when these agreements are no longer valid because they are representing The People”.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 hours ago, jaycee said:

Been some problems with earthquakes in Blackpool everytime they start fracking. If you have ever been to Blackpool you may consider that a positive mind you.

The kind of earthquakes you are talking about are mainly less than that of a large truck rumbling by your house.http://www.geo.mtu.edu/UPSeis/magnitude.html 

https://earthquaketrack.com/gb-eng-blackpool/recent

https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/19/blackpool-hit-by-four-earthquakes-just-days-after-fracking-started-again-in-the-area-8056505/

Edited November 24, 2018 by ronwagn
added reference

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

18 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Your statement flies in the face of truth. President Trump has created the best employment rate for Blacks and Hispanics since records have been kept. The stock market was doing great until Democrats won control of the House of Representatives, then it dived. 

Ron, 

I am not disagreeing with that. Seriously. What I am saying is that the income disparity - or inequality - is increasing under Trump / Republicans (it might have already been doing so under Obama, not sure.. I think the GFCs kind of makes it difficult to compare, but anyways). Read @Jan van Eck posts about the rural poor in Vermont. I can tell similar stories about rural poor in the South. 

I believe in capitalism and the free market and true classical liberalism. The about it though is that they are all about free choice, individual liberties etc. However, to me the real question is when is a choice a real choice? Something to ponder.. 

Edited November 24, 2018 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

11 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I disagree, I am now for a "Hard Brexit" but that may not happen. Regardless the voters of each nation have a right to vote and have their votes count. Britain is doing well economically with the hope of Brexit and the populace has turned towards it in a greater percentage. Please see https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/23/eurozone-growth-stumbles-german-economy-contracts-meanwhile-uk-tops-gdp-growth/

Ron, 

You really need to get better sources of information. Do as @mthebold would... talk to people in the ground. Travel to the UK and you will see that whilst GDP has grown large parts of the population live in poverty. Real poverty. Latest estimate I saw was that something 20% of the bristish population live in poverty. 

As to the populace getting more pro Brexit that is just complete and utter nonsense. I live in Europe. I do business in UK, so I travel there a lot. I have several Bristish friends. Wage earners and SMEs Owners. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

18 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

But Ron, Trump is a racist.  I've seen it in the news, so it must be true.  And, since it's Trump, it simply can't be true that employment numbers are the best in, what, 70 years!  It MUST be because of Obama and would have been more believable if Hillary was in the White House.

(That's sarcasm, or is at least meant to be sarcasm, in case anyone was wondering.)

Fair enough.

See my clarifying comment though. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

36 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Travel to the UK and you will see that whilst GDP has grown large parts of the population live in poverty. Real poverty. Latest estimate I saw was that something 20% of the bristish population live in poverty.

There seems to be a fair amount of correlation between the large influx of refugees and immigrants into the U.K. and the percentage of the population falling into poverty, even with the GDP rising.  I'm no expert and I have not read on this widely, nor have I travelled to the U.K. much in recent years, so I'm just offering the following piece for further discussion:

Growing number of refugees and asylum seekers falling into poverty in Britain

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

3 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

There seems to be a fair amount of correlation between the large influx of refugees and immigrants into the U.K. and the percentage of the population falling into poverty, even with the GDP rising.  I'm no expert and I have not read on this widely, nor have I travelled to the U.K. much in recent years, so I'm just offering the following piece for further discussion:

Growing number of refugees and asylum seekers falling into poverty in Britain

If you are interested a very good blog in the topic is

https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/ 

I do not agree with all his opinions, but his analysis' is very good for understand situation in Europe. If you are gonna read it - do yourself a favor a read most of the posts in detail. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

23 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

If you are interested a very good blog in the topic is

https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/ 

I do not agree with all his opinions, but his analysis' is very good for understand situation in Europe. If you are gonna read it - do yourself a favor a read most of the posts in detail. 

Man, I wish I could write and convey my thoughts like that guy. Hell, I wish I could organize my thoughts like him!

He puts into words and easy to understand explanations many of the reasons that I actually believe our next financial wipeout will be, just that, a financial wipeout.  Credit, with virtually nothing, or very little, to support it or sustain it.  It's good to get some form of agreement for what I "feel" is an impending event in our history that will change governments, wealth distribution, and even survival for many people on this little planet of ours.

#135: Still not (wholly) about “Brexit” - Finally!  I get the answers to my Brexit questions.  This guy gets to the meat of the matter.  He's absolutely right: I read all kinds of comments and assorted other opinions about how Brexit is going to happen or not going to happen; but nothing about why it should or should not happen and what implications there are for the TYPE of exit that happens, or doesn't happen.  Very interesting way of looking at it: it is a Brexit situation, not an event.

Next up:  Trump (Excerpt)

Just to recap, then, a government which became persuaded about zero-sum global prosperity could be expected to ditch huge swathes of what has been the economic consensus for more than three decades.

It would pursue policies of national advantage which would be hostile to free trade, and opposed to the free movement of capital and labour. It would abandon the substance (and, very probably, the rhetoric, too) of mutuality. It would face very stiff, often visceral opposition both from internationalist and from globalist persuasions.

So much for theory – what about practice?

The government which comes closest to our theoretical outline is the Trump administration. Mr Trump’s political platform can be described as ‘populist-nationalist’, and his opposition to globalisation is palpable. If Mr Trump has an identifiable enemy, that enemy resides, not in Beijing or in Moscow, but in Davos.

Anyway, there is a lot to digest there and I thank you for sharing it!  I signed up to follow the blog as well.  👍🖖🙏🤝

 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

12 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Man, I wish I could write and convey my thoughts like that guy. Hell, I wish I could organize my thoughts like him!

He puts into words and easy to understand explanations many of the reasons that I actually believe our next financial wipeout will be, just that, a financial wipeout.  Credit, with virtually nothing, or very little, to support it or sustain it.  It's good to get some form of agreement for what I "feel" is an impending event in our history that will change governments, wealth distribution, and even survival for many people on this little planet of ours.

#135: Still not (wholly) about “Brexit” - Finally!  I get the answers to my Brexit questions.  This guy gets to the meat of the matter.  He's absolutely right: I read all kinds of comments and assorted other opinions about how Brexit is going to happen or not going to happen; but nothing about why it should or should not happen and what implications there are for the TYPE of exit that happens, or doesn't happen.  Very interesting way of looking at it: it is a Brexit situation, not an event.

Next up:  Trump (Excerpt)

Just to recap, then, a government which became persuaded about zero-sum global prosperity could be expected to ditch huge swathes of what has been the economic consensus for more than three decades.

It would pursue policies of national advantage which would be hostile to free trade, and opposed to the free movement of capital and labour. It would abandon the substance (and, very probably, the rhetoric, too) of mutuality. It would face very stiff, often visceral opposition both from internationalist and from globalist persuasions.

So much for theory – what about practice?

The government which comes closest to our theoretical outline is the Trump administration. Mr Trump’s political platform can be described as ‘populist-nationalist’, and his opposition to globalisation is palpable. If Mr Trump has an identifiable enemy, that enemy resides, not in Beijing or in Moscow, but in Davos.

Anyway, there is a lot to digest there and I thank you for sharing it!  I signed up to follow the blog as well.  👍🖖🙏🤝

 

When you get through more of the blog you will start see that a large part of my opinions are influenced by these analysis'.. The answer to the challenges that the West faces is not the easy way of building wall or blaming immigrants. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

When you get through more of the blog you will start see that a large part of my opinions are influenced by these analysis'.. The answer to the challenges that the West faces is not the easy way of building wall or blaming immigrants. 

Yes, but a wall and controlling immigration are even evident in those writings as pieces of what may be necessary in the near future to prepare for the fundamental changes that countries and peoples of the world will most likely face.  Two sides of the same coin?

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

1 minute ago, Dan Warnick said:

Yes, but a wall and controlling immigration are even evident in those writings as pieces of what may be necessary in the near future to prepare for the fundamental changes that countries and peoples of the world will most likely face.  Two sides of the same coin?

I see these more as analysis of the current situation. In my view it says that we are on the way over the edge... it doesn't necessarily say anything about the medicine, but once we can agree on the problems, we can start to discuss the medicine.