SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
This weekend comes word that two of the masterminds behind the United Kingdom’s ongoing divorce from the European Union, Nigel Farage and Arron Banks. The duo just returned from the United States, where they reportedly helped raise a million bucks for one of the Calexit campaigns floating around — a scheme that would split the state into two eastern and western regions.
Farage and Banks are known as the Bad Boys of Brexit, and for good reason. As the controversial leader of the UK Independence Party, or Ukip for short, the one-time broadcaster Farage stirred up the anti-immigration pot in England among the white British working class. Banks, who co-founded the Leave.EU group, angered many when he claimed that Britain’s UK membership is “like having a first class ticket on the Titanic.’’ He also got into hot water with his controversial move to commission a poll after the murder of British politician Jo Cox, asking respondents whether the crime would have an impact on public opinion.
Now the Bad Boys have brought their shtick to California, according to a report in the Daily Mail which says the pair are helping exit backers trying to pit the eastern, more rural side of California against the western ‘coastal elite’ liberals in Los Angeles and San Francisco. The plan would be to create a Republican stronghold in the new state cleaved off California’s eastern flank, thus giving the GOP two more senators and electoral college votes for a 2020 presidential election.
Mercury News continues:
Meanwhile, a second Calexit campaign is underway. It’s called Yes California and it would see the state seceding from America entirely. If that initiative successfully finds a place on the ballot, a Yes vote would repeal clauses in the California Constitution stating “California is an inseparable part of the United States and that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, ‘’ according to a statement from California’s Secretary of State Alex Padilla’s office said.
[Ed note: corrected typo in this story's last paragraph and expanded same to include the entire paragraph from which it was extracted. --martyb]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @01:15AM (14 children)
Outside the coastal cities, people prefer normal American values. They want constitutional carry (no permit needed to carry a gun; the right is presumed), stand-your-ground (the right to self-defense with deadly force, without a duty to retreat), removal of illegals, low taxes, etc.
Inside the coastal cities, people abhor that kind of freedom. They hate America; they are fake Americans.
It's long past time for a divorce. Besides, the state is just stupidly big. WTF. Might as well make the USA one giant state, hmmm?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @01:31AM (8 children)
Outside the coastal cities, people prefer normal American values. They want constitutional carry (no permit needed to carry a gun; the right is presumed), stand-your-ground (the right to self-defense with deadly force, without a duty to retreat), removal of illegals, low taxes, etc.
These are not American values, nor are they normal. These are Republican values, or, not to put too fine a point on it, ammosexual racist libertardtarian values. These are not normal human values. Found the lizard person!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @04:36AM (4 children)
The first one, constitutional carry, is just following the Constitution.
(Score: 2) by G-forze on Wednesday March 29 2017, @05:41AM (3 children)
It's funny how gun nutters always seem to forget the part that talks about "a well regulated militia". The regulation part is right there in the second amendment!
If I run into the term "SJW", I stop reading.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @12:05PM
Someone doesn't know the context of the word regulate within the Constitution! But glad you tried!
Hint: every other time a variation of the verb to regulate is used in the document, it tells exactly who does the regulating. Not in that pesky second amendment though! That section uses an older definition where regulated is synonymous with the modern term, trained. And how does a mikitia become well trained? Certainly never in a situation where the government owns monopoly on self defense.
Your third grade interpretation or the constitution is appalling.
Would you like government monopoly on self defense? Why not government monopoly on encryption as well? Backdoor for everyone who hasn't completed a polygraph!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @04:59PM
you're a dumb fuck or a liar. the "militia" part was an explanation/example not a requirement and you probably know it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @09:11PM
Funny how anti-gun nutters forget "well regulated militia" did not mean "well restricted" or "lots of rules". At the time of writing, it meant "well supplied and trained". Remember, at the time the founding fathers did not believe in a standing army. They believed the people would stand up in militias to defend themselves. Militias supplied their own firearms and supplies. The end result is that in order to have a good militia, people should be able to supply themselves with arms and munitions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @05:51AM
I like how this just devolved into:
Republicans - American
Democrats - Unamerican
Makes sense to me :)
I love America.
-- A love letter to America
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday March 29 2017, @06:09AM
Nah, it was those values among others that enabled European immigrants to take over the land of the buffalo. Said without hate (having few Roman tracts I am one of the barbarians too), Vae victis.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @07:51PM
Ammosexual libertardtarian values would be **open** carry, with a huge .45 Magnum on your belt for all to see as you shop in the local mall.
Racist would be banning affordable guns or making a license expensive, abusing the fact that some races tend to be less well off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @05:11AM
I've lived in both parts of the state and as far as I can tell the only difference between the coast and the Inland is that the coast is richer.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday March 29 2017, @03:04PM (3 children)
Your point about the state being too big is valid. Your point about the right to unlicensed carry is not. It's quite valid for rural areas and insanely stupid for urban areas. But it should be a city level choice, with possibly a state authorized uniform provision that can be either accepted or rejected by the city. I think that even Red Bluff would choose to ban unlicensed carry. Auburn probably wouldn't, though I haven't looked at it lately, so I don't know how big it's gotten.
Just remember, Matt Dillon brought the law to Dodge City by banning open carry within city limits. This isn't what they showed on Gunsmoke, but it's the way it actually happened. (I'm not actually sure whether he banned open carry, or banned carrying at all, though.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @05:03PM (2 children)
no american needs a license from the fucking government to carry a firearm. that's the whole point of the 2nd amendment. anyone who suggests otherwise is guilty of sedition and should be punished for that crime. we will probably see this carried out or civil war in my lifetime, since you socialist scum won't fuck off or move. I wonder who's going to when when this cold war goes hot?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @05:34PM
The second amendment doesn't mention americans. It says people.
According to the constitution anybdy in the USA (legally or not) can carry any weapon they like, anywhere they want to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @10:09PM
Glad you respect the Constitution so much. So how do you feel about the emoluments clause?