View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:55 pm




Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Tim Draper is at it again..... 
Author Message
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:25 pm
Posts: 499
Location: Elsewhere
Reply with quote
....trying to break up California, that is. Unlike his 2014 plan (which took California and split it into six states), now he wants three states (North California, South California, and the LA-San Fran-Silly Valley zone becomes "California"). The scam to get where Draper runs his business turned into a Libertarian wonderland is blatant.

Image

Notice that Draper is wearing a Bitcoin lapel pin - are the klaxon horns loud enough?

_________________
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.


Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:26 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:25 pm
Posts: 499
Location: Elsewhere
Reply with quote
The obligatory Alternet article:


Experts Say Splitting California into 3 States Is Just Another Silicon Valley Fantasy

“Breaking up and reconstituting California into three separate parts would be more complicated than Brexit."

Nicole Karlis / Salon (link to original)

In 2014, serial venture capitalist Tim Draper launched a new enterprise: a campaign to divide the state of California into six separate states. Two years later, the initiative — known as Six Californias — failed to qualify as a 2016 ballot measure.

That didn't stop Draper’s determination to split up California. Instead, he did what any tenacious Silicon Valley tycoon would do: refine his vision, in this case, by turning six into three. The simplification of the math led to an early triumph.

Thanks to Draper, Californians will have the chance in November to vote on whether or not they want California divided into three separate states — Northern California, Southern California and California. The measure, being marketed as "Cal 3," received over 402,468 valid signatures to secure itself a place on the ballot.....

.....Draper has the resources for this initiative. He donated $1 million, chump change for someone with an estimated $1 billion net worth. He comes from Silicon Valley money and royalty; Fortune magazine called the Drapers “the industry’s first family.” Draper is a cryptocurrency enthusiast; he reportedly won an auction by the US Marshals of nearly 30,000 Bitcoins, which were seized from the online black market Silk Road. He is an investor in Skype and Tesla. He was also an investor in the infamously perjurious biotech startup Theranos, and recently publicly defended its CEO Elizabeth Holmes — who was recently indicted on fraud charges — saying she did “a great job.” [Warning bells going off yet in your head, dear reader?]


https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-polit ... ey-fantasy

No mention in this article that splitting California up would mean that the poorer areas inland in "Northern California" and "Southern California" would get that much worse because the tax money in the wealthy "California" of Orange County, LA, and San Fran would stay in those areas. Literally this is Silicon Valley/LA treating the rest of the state like the Apollo moon rockets, with expendable boosters that are ejected in stages the farther the astronauts go towards the Moon.

The Draper plan needs to crash and burn badly.

_________________
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.


Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:33 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:30 pm
Posts: 7
Reply with quote
If any Calexit/Calsplit plans were any good to anyone I don't think there would be this many completely disapproved of ones.


Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:33 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:25 pm
Posts: 499
Location: Elsewhere
Reply with quote
Cruizir wrote:
If any Calexit/Calsplit plans were any good to anyone I don't think there would be this many completely disapproved of ones.


Allegedly there have been 200 plans to split the state since the 19th century. Draper's plan is a tax dodge scheme for Silicon Valley.

_________________
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.


Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:58 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm
Posts: 264
Reply with quote
An Alaskan once told me that if Texas didn't stop claiming to be the biggest state, they'd cut Alaska in two and then Texas would be the third biggest state of the Union.


Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:57 am
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1104
Reply with quote
Strelnikov wrote:
Allegedly there have been 200 plans to split the state since the 19th century. Draper's plan is a tax dodge scheme for Silicon Valley.

Yep, and every damn one of them went down in flames. Taxation was the primary beef they usually started with; since Californians are lightly taxed already (thanks to Howard Jarvis, "the asshole who sank a million ships"), it just looks silly.

When I lived and worked in the valley, I saw plenty, and heard even more, about the "venture capital biz" and Sand Hill Road. Got really sick of the boomer-aged libertarian publicity-chasers who were flopping around in that little scene. Now they're approaching retirement, and acting even loonier than ever. Draper is only an average example.

You ought to read about the history of the Institute For The Future. It moved to Sand Hill long ago, because the Massachusetts tech industry it started in was basically dead. The IFF was a major source in the 1990s of the hype that made Web 1.0 go; and it also helped make WIRED magazine (pure Valley propaganda) a success. Also a bullshit media factory for the venture-capital gang who had offices literally on the same block.

Sand Hill is amazingly like Hollywood: a gang of egomaniacs and narcissists babbling without restriction (or sanity) and chasing publicity. Sleazeville.


Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:40 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm
Posts: 264
Reply with quote
The acme of Silicon Valley libertarianism is the "seasteading" movement, the notion that techies should create their own floating country and sail the seven seas, paying no taxes to governments for any of those silly public services like welfare. I always thought this was an excellent idea -- those of us who pay taxes for such un-Randian things as a navy could then conquer them, take all their wealth, sell them into slavery and present the skulls of their leaders to be made into drinking vessels for our monarchs. After all, that's how things worked in the days before we invented international rules and laws.

Fortunately, it seems that seasteading is more of a scam for parting fools -- however clever they may be a tech stuff -- from their money. 'Twas ever thus.


Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:53 am
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:25 pm
Posts: 499
Location: Elsewhere
Reply with quote
Because I don't like leaving people hanging, the California Supreme Court shot Draper's plan down in the middle of July.

From a Los Angeles Times article on the subject:

.....“Whether you agree or not with this initiative, this is not the way democracies are supposed to work,” he [Tim Draper] said in an email. “This kind of corruption is what happens in Third World countries.”

He said the state’s “insiders” were “in cahoots.”

In a brief order, the court said it acted “because significant questions have been raised regarding the proposition’s validity and because we conclude 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.”

The court, meeting in closed session, also agreed to rule eventually on the measure’s constitutionality, a ruling that is likely to go against the initiative. The challenge was filed last week by the Planning and Conservation League, an environmental group.

“They would not have removed it from the ballot unless it was their considered judgment that it is very likely not a valid measure that can go to the voters,” said University of Illinois law school dean Vikram Amar, a former UC Davis law professor.

Draper’s quixotic quest to divide up the state was viewed by some outside the state as another wacky California plan. It was widely publicized across the nation and became the butt of jokes.

The environmental group contended in its challenge that the measure amounted to a proposed revision of the state Constitution, which can be placed on the ballot only if two-thirds of both houses of the Legislature approve.

Proposition 9 was aimed at triggering a process for dividing California, but ultimately any such change would have to be approved by the U.S. Congress.

Amar, who has written about the measure for a legal blog, has long argued that Proposition 9 amounted to an illegal state constitutional revision. But he said it also had a federal constitutional flaw.

Before new states can be created out of an existing state, a state’s elected legislature must approve, Amar said.

Draper, 60, was an early investor in tech companies that became wildly successful, including Skype. He also is one of the nation’s most ardent supporters of cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin.

“The concept of breaking this enormous state into smaller, more manageable states is not new,” Draper told the court in written arguments. “In fact, the voters of California were asked to, and did approve, the Pico Act in 1859, which asked Congress to approve splitting the state into two.

“Congress never acted on that request, as it might not do if Proposition 9 is approved,” Draper said.

Draper had said he was not properly served with the legal challenge and questioned why the environmental group waited until July to challenge the measure.

Opponents of the measure reacted with joy.

“Proposition 9 was a costly, flawed scheme that will waste billions of California taxpayer dollars, create chaos in public services including safeguarding our environment and literally eliminate the state of California — all to satisfy the whims of one billionaire,” said Planning and Conservation League Executive Director Howard Penn.

He called the order “very unusual and dramatic.” He said the court had only sparingly taken measures off ballots.

“The only further questions are whether something like this could be on future ballots, and we are confident we will prevail on that when it is considered in the fall,” he said.

Fabian Nunez of the OneCalifornia Committee said putting the measure on the ballot in the first place “was an act of political malpractice that gives direct democracy a bad name.”

“We are hopeful that Tim Draper will end his attempts to split up our state and use his resources to help California meet its challenges and become an even better place to live and work.”

Draper submitted more than 600,000 signatures for the measure in April, substantially more than the 365,880 required. He said the measure qualified for the ballot June 12.

Draper’s dream was to create three states: Northern California, Southern California and California.

Northern California would have consisted of 40 counties stretching from Oregon south to Santa Cruz County and east to Merced and Mariposa counties.

Southern California would have included Madera County in the Central Valley and extended south to San Diego and Orange counties.

California would have included Los Angeles County and extended north to Monterey County.

Draper argued the state was too large to have a properly functioning government and called the initiative an "opportunity to reboot and refresh our state government."

California has talked about breaking up for decades, said Larry Gerston, professor emeritus of political science at San Jose State University.

“In a state this big and diverse it's not surprising,” Gerston said Wednesday. “Hardly a day goes by when one group or another believes it would be better off without the rest of us. It's the cost and benefit of a massive demographic slab of real estate not equaled anywhere.”

The proposals sought to tap a feeling of disconnect by residents in the San Joaquin Valley and other rural parts of the state from the more liberal bastions of Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area.

However, residents of the far northeast part of the state who, for years, have talked about breaking off and forming a state of Jefferson, said they opposed the latest proposal because they would remain tethered to and dominated by the more left-leaning and more populated urban areas of the Bay Area and Sacramento.

Draper’s measure was proposed as a regular law. More signatures would have been needed to qualify it as a constitutional amendment.

A constitutional revision is more sweeping than a statute or a constitutional amendment because it changes the basic plan of government.

***

They don't mention that the Pico Act of 1859 was pushed by two groups: the former "owners" of California (the Californios, the Spanish upper class) and Southern slave owners trying to get a foothold into California. Their proposed Territory of Colorado (which would have included most of Southern California) never made it to US Congressional vote because of the election of Abraham Lincoln and outbreak of the Civil War.

_________________
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.


Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:07 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 8 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.