[Tail Gunner]

(03-29-2018 01:03 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

You guys have to understand the local scene to understand is in fact NOT liberal.

Liberals in LA called OC "The Orange Curtain" for a reason.

The majority of OC is middle/upper class conservative.

A few spots like Santa Ana/Anaheim/Tustin/Garden Grove is home to a large Mexican community and liberal policies.

In fact Santa Ana was a sanctuary city BEFORE the state wide law was enacted.

Santa Ana/Anaheim is where this homeless issue started - now that they're cleaning it up they're realizing how BIG this problem is.

Another thing is alot of these homeless people refuse help, if they refuse help then they should be escorted out of Orange County and sent somewhere else.

Another big thing is the closure of asylums where half these people belong for treatment or over watch.

You are correct. At one time, OC was a huge Republican stronghold in California but demographics have slowly changed that. This is why the battle over immigration is so important.

Quote:

Make no mistake: GOP remains Orange County’s dominant party, controlling most of the elected offices — and the county GOP remains of central importance to the state party. But evolving demographics — particularly the growth in Latino voters and the shift from red to blue among the county’s younger voters — indicate that those days may be numbered.

The Republican share of county voters has been steadily declining since the high-water mark of 1990, when they had a 22-percentage point advantage over Democrats. By last November, that advantage had fallen to 3.8 points, which helped Hillary Clinton become the first Democratic presidential nominee to win the county since 1936.

The GOP edge has now slipped to 3.5 points. And that’s a GOP oasis compared to the state overall, where Republicans account for just one in four voters and Democrats have a 19-point edge in voter registration.

https://www.ocregister.com/2017/08/21/go...c-battles/

[fiasco360]

I've lived in SoCal for about 6 years now. A lot of OC is conservative and the people by the beaches give zero fucks. They have guards with rifles guarding their communities in some areas. Even though a lot of the younger generation there grew up with money their culture is different from the typical LA/SF liberal. They laugh and joke about being rich and they crack a lot of non-PC jokes. Combine that with the Persian/Chinese population in Irvine and it will be tough to turn OC completely liberal. The only thing that has been working for the left is pouring latinos/koreans into places like Santa Ana, Garden Grove and Anaheim.

A note on some of the middle eastern populations -groups like the Armenians and Persians are a little more traditional/conservative. However, the people who run and represent their political efforts are very liberal. I've interacted with some of their party representatives and they are trying to imitate Jewish political activism a little too much. Persians are a bit more left leaning than the Armenians and their perception of Trump's stance on Iran doesn't help.

I would venture to say a majority of the Christian middle eastern populations (Armenians, Assyrians, Lebanese Maronites etc) in SoCal are conservative. I would throw Greeks into the mix here since their culture is so similar but they are a mix of European and Anatolian.

[Barron]

Great video breaking down the history of California from the 1950's to the present on a social, political and economic level. The 2nd half focuses on the treasonous immigration policy of the state ever since the dems took over- for example: the current CA attorney general vowing to prosecute CA employers that cooperate with the federal government to find illegal immigrants.

[heavy]

Remember when California passed prop 8?

Oh wait it was less than 10 years ago.

Amazing how fast the culture is changing.

[Canopus]

As an aside, you gotta wonder how many of the death by a thousand cuts come from Prop 65.

An L.A. Superior Court judge has ruled Starbucks and other coffee distributors will need to put a cancer warning on their coffee:

Reuters, Nate Raymond Wrote:

(Reuters) - Starbucks Corp (SBUX.O) and other coffee sellers must put a cancer warning on coffee sold in California, a Los Angeles judge has ruled, possibly exposing the companies to millions of dollars in fines.

A little-known not-for-profit group sued some 90 coffee retailers, including Starbucks, on grounds they were violating a California law requiring companies to warn consumers of chemicals in their products that could cause cancer.

One of those chemicals is acrylamide, a byproduct of roasting coffee beans that is present in high levels in brewed coffee.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle said in a decision dated Wednesday that Starbucks and other companies had failed to show there was no significant risk from a carcinogen produced in the coffee roasting process, court documents showed.

We're already pretty notorious for this bullshit, and have been for over thirty years now. Prop 65 doesn't take dosage into account, so there is no requirement for an actual link to causing cancer. Thank you, every moron Californian who voted for it in 1986.

[PapayaTapper]

(03-29-2018 11:24 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 12:35 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 11:19 AM)heavy Wrote:  

Adam Carolla said on his show 3/28 (part 2, toward the end) (I just listened on my way in to work this morning):

Two things his producer Mike August predicted years ago, that he sees happening now:
- California will legalize pot, because they're too progressive to ignore the freedom and the budget-saving tax dollars
- Mexico will take back California without firing a shot

https://www.podcastone.com/episode/ACS-P...Paul-Rugg-

Meh...Likely not in our or our childrens', grand children's, or great grand childrens' life times.
People can say what they want about CA but (to kaotics point above) its too much of an important economic engine for the US. If there was ever an entity that was "too big to fail" then CA's economy is.

CA is the US's economic"fuel tank". In the 50's and 60's it was post war boom (aerospace and military spending) that topped off the tank. In the 70s and 80's it was the influx of Japanese cash, the 90's Saudi's and Iranian. Now it's the Chinese / Asian money still pouring in

CA has major dysfunctions for sure. But at the same time there's too much going for it. Even in the depth of the 2008 global crisis money was pouring in. The US is still the place a significant majority of the world sees as "safe" from economic and political oppression (relative to most any other). It isn't just migrant workers and other cultures' bottom dwellers that want to come here. The moneyed elite from around the world will for the foreseeable future also want to bring part, if not all of their wealth here as a hedge.

So where is that $ going? By and large the coasts (and that is true globally as well) Thats not going to change any time soon

Think globally. If the U.S. dollar loses its reserve status (and it will, just as the British Pound eventually lost its reserve status) then the liberal states, which are already the least competitive and have the highest debt levels will get hit the hardest. Entire books have been written on this issue. This is an excerpt from an article that touches on this issue:

Quote:

With 7 out of every 10 currency units in the banking system being dollars, and with 50% of the currency outside the U.S. banking system, America has been able to dodge runaway inflation, though any other nation would be Sodom & Gomorrah by now, given the size of the debt and the cost to finance it.

For the global commerce network to operate independently of the USD would mean that less of it is needed, which means reserve accounts throughout the world can begin emptying their balances from what are now excess dollars.

The U.S. banking system cannot afford to experience a tidal wave of currency coming back to the system in the form of bonds or cash.

It would devastate the already fragile system.

https://mailchi.mp/portfoliowealthglobal...816a398028

In other words, if 50% of all dollars currently reside outside the U.S. (e.g., Petrodollars) and the demand dries up for those excess dollars because the rest of the world decides to use another currency unit (or even a basket of currencies) as the world's reserve currency, the results will be devastating. This is simply a matter of time. In fact, the foolish way in which the U.S. runs its finances and racks up debt all but guarantees it.

Ive been hearing that since as long as I can remember. What do you see replacing the USD? The only currency that might possibly have a remote chance to supplant it in the foreseeable future is the Yuan (definitely not Euro)...Given that China has some serious simmering structural issues of its own problems that are going to come home to roost eventually I dont see that happeneing anytime soon.

Even the global financial crisis of 2008 proved that when everything, and I mean everything, turns to shit the US is the safest place for cash to be when the music stops.

Im not saying it isn't a possibility or even an eventuality...but I currently have zero concerns

[SamuelBRoberts]

I wish we could go back to the days of like 2010 when the dollar was weaker, and it was 80 yen to a buck instead of 110 or so.

I get paid in yen so I was making BANK.

But yeah, the demise of the petrodollar has been predicted so many times that I just completely tune it out when I hear it.

[speculator]

Quote:

In other words, if 50% of all dollars currently reside outside the U.S. (e.g., Petrodollars) and the demand dries up for those excess dollars because the rest of the world decides to use another currency unit (or even a basket of currencies) as the world's reserve currency, the results will be devastating. This is simply a matter of time. In fact, the foolish way in which the U.S. runs its finances and racks up debt all but guarantees it.

The moment some country decides to dump dollar, their leaders will be assassinated, their economy will be crippled, and American fighter jets will be flying over their capital. Last time Saudis threatened to dump US treasuries in 2016 in connection with 9/11 lawsuits blaming the Saudi government, their kingdom underwent a quiet revolution and Bin Salman was appointed as their ruler. There is no opposition to the United States and its military power and won't be for at least 50 more years. Russia may have nuclear weapons but they are still forced to buy US bonds and securities. China has only one military base in Eritrea. Europe, Japan, UK, Canada, Australia, and the rest are our bitches.

Dollar is a cult. It is ingrained in human consciousness through mass media and social networks. Hip-hop videos nowadays are all about advertising dollar. Have you ever seen a music video with euros or yuans? The only way that almighty dollar collapses is when US military collapses. That's not going to happen anytime soon.

[budoslavic]

[url=https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/980616053595295744][/url]

[PapayaTapper]

Great video Here's Victor D Hanson with pros and cons of what going on in CA

[RexImperator]

"Terrified" San Francisco Tourists Shocked By Aggressive Vagrants, Discarded Needles, Dead Bodies

Quote:

San Francisco - a Democratic stronghold known for cable cars, quaint architecture and its diverse culture, has become a bastion of squalor and crime as city dwellers and visitors alike dodge aggressive, drug-addled vagrants. And it's beginning to scare the tourists...

"Is this normal or am I in a 'bad part of town?' Just walked past numerous homeless off their faces, screaming and running all over the sidewalk near Twitter HQ and then a murder scene. Wife is scared to leave hotel now," reads a Wednesday posting by Reddit user /u/nashtendo.

"The streets are filthy. There's trash everywhere. It's disgusting," Joe D'Alessandro, president of S.F. Travel told the Chronicle's Heather Knight in April. "I've never seen any other city like this — the homelessness, dirty streets, drug use on the streets, smash-and-grabs."

The city, which hands out up to 4.8 million syringes each year, has struggled to figure out how to keep streets clean and safe for residents, while accommodating a growing homeless population and longstanding HIV and Hepatitis C epidemics. There are roughly 16,000 residents in San Francisco with HIV, and 13,000 with Hep C.

City Health Director Barbara Garcia estimated in 2016 that there were 22,000 intravenous drug users in San Francisco - around one for every 38.9 residents, while the city hands out roughly 400,000 needles per month.

Of the 400,000 needles distributed monthly, San Francisco receives around 246,000 back - meaning that there are roughly 150,000 discarded needles floating around each month - or nearly 2 million per year, according to Curbed.

Mayor Mark Farrell has said, repeatedly, in recent weeks that the problem of discarded syringes on city streets has become a sticking point for him, and the city promised millions of dollars to curb the problem of hazardous waste on sidewalks and streets.

Meanwhile, San Francisco Chronicle’s Matier and Ross chimed in Wednesday with an uncomfortable observation: Most of the needles littering streets in downtown neighborhoods came by way of the city itself, as part of the Department of Public Health’s 25-year-old needle exchange program. -Curbed.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-1...edles-dead

[Leonard D Neubache]

(06-18-2018 07:21 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

"Terrified" San Francisco Tourists Shocked By Aggressive Vagrants, Discarded Needles, Dead Bodies

Quote:

...
Mayor Mark Farrell has said, repeatedly, in recent weeks that the problem of discarded syringes on city streets has become a sticking point for him, and the city promised millions of dollars to curb the problem of hazardous waste on sidewalks and streets.
...

[Abelard Lindsey]

The homeless on Market Street were quite out of control when I last visited in 2007. I can tell you that downtown Portland's homeless problem is getting worse as well. I was last there about a week ago and saw people sleeping on the sidewalks (this was early morning) in areas that I used to not see them in. I don't know if its the rising housing costs that are driving the homeless problem (all of the west coast cities are experiencing housing costs increases) or if its something else. The job market is better than anytime in the last 20 years with "help wanted' signs everywhere. So, its not clear why the number of homeless keep increasing.

[Laner]

(06-18-2018 11:04 AM)Abelard Lindsey Wrote:  

The homeless on Market Street were quite out of control when I last visited in 2007. I can tell you that downtown Portland's homeless problem is getting worse as well. I was last there about a week ago and saw people sleeping on the sidewalks (this was early morning) in areas that I used to not see them in. I don't know if its the rising housing costs that are driving the homeless problem (all of the west coast cities are experiencing housing costs increases) or if its something else. The job market is better than anytime in the last 20 years with "help wanted' signs everywhere. So, its not clear why the number of homeless keep increasing.

Handouts. Keeping your life on track is far more difficult than just showing up.

Food: Line up
Housing: Show up
Clothes: Church
Drugs: Government
Spending money: Government
Entertainment: Drugs, petty crime

Its not hard to figure out yet progressive cities keep asking the same questions.

[TravelerKai]

(06-18-2018 07:21 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

"Terrified" San Francisco Tourists Shocked By Aggressive Vagrants, Discarded Needles, Dead Bodies

Quote:

San Francisco - a Democratic stronghold known for cable cars, quaint architecture and its diverse culture, has become a bastion of squalor and crime as city dwellers and visitors alike dodge aggressive, drug-addled vagrants. And it's beginning to scare the tourists...

"Is this normal or am I in a 'bad part of town?' Just walked past numerous homeless off their faces, screaming and running all over the sidewalk near Twitter HQ and then a murder scene. Wife is scared to leave hotel now," reads a Wednesday posting by Reddit user /u/nashtendo.

"The streets are filthy. There's trash everywhere. It's disgusting," Joe D'Alessandro, president of S.F. Travel told the Chronicle's Heather Knight in April. "I've never seen any other city like this — the homelessness, dirty streets, drug use on the streets, smash-and-grabs."

The city, which hands out up to 4.8 million syringes each year, has struggled to figure out how to keep streets clean and safe for residents, while accommodating a growing homeless population and longstanding HIV and Hepatitis C epidemics. There are roughly 16,000 residents in San Francisco with HIV, and 13,000 with Hep C.

City Health Director Barbara Garcia estimated in 2016 that there were 22,000 intravenous drug users in San Francisco - around one for every 38.9 residents, while the city hands out roughly 400,000 needles per month.

Of the 400,000 needles distributed monthly, San Francisco receives around 246,000 back - meaning that there are roughly 150,000 discarded needles floating around each month - or nearly 2 million per year, according to Curbed.

Mayor Mark Farrell has said, repeatedly, in recent weeks that the problem of discarded syringes on city streets has become a sticking point for him, and the city promised millions of dollars to curb the problem of hazardous waste on sidewalks and streets.

Meanwhile, San Francisco Chronicle’s Matier and Ross chimed in Wednesday with an uncomfortable observation: Most of the needles littering streets in downtown neighborhoods came by way of the city itself, as part of the Department of Public Health’s 25-year-old needle exchange program. -Curbed.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-1...edles-dead

I went to San Francisco a couple times like 5 years ago or so. Absolutely disgusting. I thought everything was gross, even the fat Asians walking around. Piss smells everywhere. It smelled like urine in every single area. Even New York does not smell that bad in all parts. Never went there ever again.

[Scoundrel]

(06-18-2018 11:04 AM)Abelard Lindsey Wrote:  

I don't know if its the rising housing costs that are driving the homeless problem.

Cities like San Francisco don't have a "homeless problem," they have a crazy people problem.

Instead of taking steps to eradicate the problem, liberal cities feed it. It's like setting out a buffet table for rats, flies and termites.

The areas that are still nice and are populated with decent people invariably have no resources for bottomed-out vagrants. The stinking shithole neighborhoods, on the other hand, are crammed with missions and charities intended to "help" these poor unfortunates.

[kaotic]

That's downtown LA beyond skid row nowadays also.

You'll always notice the homeless problem spreads out.

Orange County is getting all of LA's problems, but OC residents are pissed and fighting back.

Fun fact, ther's a map that tracks all the shit that is dropped by the homeless in SF:

(However this was a PR thing and last updated in 2015 I think)

http://mochimachine.org/wasteland/

[2 Cool 4 U]

(06-18-2018 12:29 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

I went to San Francisco a couple times like 5 years ago or so. Absolutely disgusting. I thought everything was gross, even the fat Asians walking around. Piss smells everywhere. It smelled like urine in every single area. Even New York does not smell that bad in all parts. Never went there ever again.

I would rather go to Pacifica, Half Moon Bay, Monterey, or Santa Cruz instead of San Fran. At least those places have nice ocean views and isn't filled with mass poverty and homeless

[Spectrumwalker]

Man, there's a lot of stuff in California that causes cancer. Those warning labels are on everything. Thank God I moved, one less thing to worry about.

[Canopus]

It never ends.

Quote:

California could soon become the first state in the nation to require public companies based within the state to have at least one woman on their boards.

SB 826 headed to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk Thursday after the state Senate passed it in a 23-9 vote. The Assembly had approved the bill Wednesday in a 41-26 vote.

If Brown signs the bill, the one-woman mandate will take effect by the end of 2019. By the end of 2021, the bill calls for at least two women on the board if a company has five directors, and at least three women if it has six directors. Companies would be fined for non-compliance.

“One-fourth of California’s publicly traded companies still do not have a single woman on their board, despite numerous independent studies that show companies with women on their board are more profitable and productive,” said the bill’s author, state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, in a statement Thursday. “The time has come for California to bring gender equity to our corporate boards.”

The bill was opposed by business groups and the California Chamber of Commerce. They say it violates the state and federal constitutions and is discriminatory against men, and warned that it could lead to legal battles.

In a Senate committee analysis of the bill, the business groups said, “Gender is an important aspect of diversity, as are the other protected classifications recognized under our laws. We are concerned that the mandate under SB 826 that focuses only on gender potentially elevates it as a priority over other aspects of diversity.”

Jackson introduced a similar resolution five years ago — also the first in the nation — but it was non-binding and expired in 2016. A few other states have since adopted similar non-binding measures. There is no such federal requirement.

Seventeen percent of companies in the Russell 3000 Index, which includes most public companies on major U.S. stock exchanges, had all-male boards in the second quarter, according to Equilar research cited by the Wall Street Journal. California, home to some of the country’s biggest companies, had 86 companies in the Russell Index that don’t have women on their boards, including Silicon Valley-based TiVo. The San Jose-based DVR maker told the Journal that because it is seeking strategic alternatives that include a potential sale, it is not looking for new board members.

The fact sheet for Jackson’s bill cites European countries’ example. Germany mandates that companies’ boards must be 30 percent female, while Norway, France and others require company boards to be 40 percent female.

Under the California bill, a first violation would draw a $100,000 fine, and subsequent violations would be $300,000. Companies that fail to file information about their board directors with the Secretary of State in a timely manner would also be fined $100,000.

I have no idea how this could possibly stand up to judicial review, let alone how any company could want to continue doing business in a state that fines them for not having a token hire, but this state is so pozzed that nothing surprises me anymore. Nothing.

[godfather dust]

Easy enough solution. Bring in a "chairwoman of cooking, cleaning, and sucking dick."

[armenia4ever]

All these companies need to do is have one of their board members identify as a woman whenever the scrutiny spotlight is shined on them.

In California gender is most certainly fluid, remember?

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(06-18-2018 12:29 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

City Health Director Barbara Garcia estimated in 2016 that there were 22,000 intravenous drug users in San Francisco - around one for every 38.9 residents, while the city hands out roughly 400,000 needles per month.

Maybe they should consider handing out 22 000 bullets instead...

On a more serious note, what's even the point of distributing free needles? It only provides tacit support to drug abuse, and if it's for preventing the spread of diseases, it's obvious that a homeless junkie will engage in plenty of other dangerous forms of behavior that will render the entire concept moot.

[debeguiled]

(08-31-2018 03:47 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 12:29 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

City Health Director Barbara Garcia estimated in 2016 that there were 22,000 intravenous drug users in San Francisco - around one for every 38.9 residents, while the city hands out roughly 400,000 needles per month.

Maybe they should consider handing out 22 000 bullets instead...

On a more serious note, what's even the point of distributing free needles? It only provides tacit support to drug abuse, and if it's for preventing the spread of diseases, it's obvious that a homeless junkie will engage in plenty of other dangerous forms of behavior that will render the entire concept moot.

A lot of the people who claim to be helping the outcasts of society are secretly very antisocial people themselves. Handing out needles allows them to simultaneously look virtuous and encourage criminal behavior at the same time.

We got a serious problem with these free needles in my city, and they turn up all the time on people's lawns, all over the parks, and most disgustingly, in the sand and bark in children's playgrounds.

There are actually scores of volunteers who spend their days collecting these from parks and playgrounds and they just can't keep up.

Do officials seem to care? Not really. Aside from irate parents on Facebook groups and a few letters to the editors, my compassionate city, my city that cares, will continue these programs and others because it works so well in the twisted realities of people who think they are doing good.

There is a homeless dining room downtown that was causing local businesses problems because the folks didn't eat and leave, they took their mess to the front doorways of local businesses, and did drugs, drank, got in fights, threw garbage everywhere.

I saw an interview with the woman who runs the dining room, she has even hired a a massive bouncer to make sure homeless people don't hurt each other, and when the interviewer asked why she didn't do anything about the problem, like have the bouncer ask them to move along, she got a really evil looking smile, dodged the question, and lectured for a while about how much she cared.

I came away from that interview pretty creeped out. It seemed like she actually enjoyed the fact that her establishment was causing chaos for its neighbors, and she could hide behind a humanitarian cover to remain untouched.

[RDF]

I'll provide my perspective as a native Californian who has spend extended periods of time in both LA and San Francisco.

In short, California is not "dying", but it is transforming in meaningful ways

California is very unlikely to ever die for these reasons:

-- Two massive industries - tech and entertainment - are centered in the two biggest CA cities, and for better or for worse, these industries are not going away in our lifetimes. If anything, they will likely continue to grow. I definitely think there is some sort of bubble in tech that should pop within the next few years, but it'll be a short lived crash. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Uber will probably remain in our lives for the next century. Meanwhile, the entertainment industry is still doing fine despite the bad press on "Hollywood". In the mid-2000s everybody thought the music industry was going to vanish by 2015, now its booming. The movie/TV industry will reinvent itself too.

-- The weather, beaches, and natural beauty are unmatched in the US. Sure there's niches of people who prefer other things but the majority of the world's population, given a choice, would prefer to live in a Mediterranean climate. This will always serve as a draw to CA. As they say in real estate, you can't build more beachfront property.

-- While mainstream liberal politics here suck and are obnoxious to even watch, I would argue that a lot of it is typical "limousine liberal" bullshit. These politicians are rich fuckers who spew typical liberal rhetoric to entice people to vote for them, but when the problems appear on their turf, they are quick to act on it. Kaotic's post regarding OC and the homeless issue is completely true. Taxes are shitty also without a doubt, but that's also the case in most of the big cities like NYC, Chicago, etc. If wealthy people begin to exit CA en masse, the politicians will figure it out.

Eventually, things will reach a sort of equilibrium. In 2030/2040, I can imagine California being essentially two different states for these reasons:

-- All housing within 10 miles of the coast or in the major cities will be out of reach for everybody who isn't at least middle-upper class, if not only the wealthy. This is already happening now, where previously affordable areas on the coast (Oceanside, Ventura, Venice, etc) have all increased like crazy in price, and it will only get worse. Shady areas in good geographic locations like the Tenderloin in SF, K-Town/Skid Row in LA, Santa Ana/Garden Grove in OC, will become almost completely gentrified. International demand for housing (*ahem* China) will [unfortunately] exacerbate this further.

-- Areas further from the coast as well as the outskirts of the cities will continue to get worse and worse. In some ways, places like Victorville, Palmdale, and Stockton never really recovered from the 2008 recession. Crime has consistently increased in all those areas and they are generally shitty places to live. There is no industry there and fundamentally it doesn't make sense for people to live there and commute 80 miles to the city.

-- As prices keep going up in the cities, all of the "undesirable" people will be forced to either move inland, or to move out of CA in general. Same with the homeless population. I'm not sure about SF (their policies on that front are more liberal), but I can absolutely imagine streets in Victorville will be filled with RVs and tent camps. Some parts of it already are. Many people will leave CA entirely for places like Phoenix, Vegas, and Abq, but some will stay.

There will be two Californias. The first will be on the coast and in the major cities, which will be a sort of wealthy-person utopia with beautiful weather, huge homes, and a shitload of money. The second will be inland, and will look almost like a horror movie set... think a desolate desert with crime, meth, and barely any people. The two will probably never formally split, if only because it is extremely complicated and would result in one state that has 90% of the GDP, but it will basically be two states.

The saddest (nostalgic?) part about this is that California used to be the embodiment of the American dream. You show up to Los Angeles with no money but ambition to chase your dreams, grind it out while living in a shitty apartment (at least in a paradise climate), and eventually you get your break and then buy your house on the beach. If you just want to surf all day, run a surf shop, and then grab a few brews at the local bar on the beach, you could do that too.

That California will probably be gone within 10 years. I doubt it ever comes back.