4 ms·

that's by dollar value not calories. california produces a lot of fancy water-intensive stuff. flyover country produces mass nutrition.

Der_Einzige 4y ago
Wheat and potato's can grow in California too. California and the PNW are extremely fertile. They don't need flyover country.
- rayiner 4y ago
  California couldn’t exist without massive army crops of engineers projects bringing water to most of the state.
  - Der_Einzige 4y ago
    - bart_spoon 4y ago
      They also are in a drought are they not? Virtually the entirety of the country west of Missouri is. And that’s only going to get worse and worse. They may still have enough for their needs, but it’s unlikely they have enough for California’s needs, especially for its agriculture.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      You’re very mistaken about what kind of hippies PNW folks are if you think they’ll happily give their water to Californians. They’re hippies, but surly ones with guns who don’t look kindly on capitalists who adopt liberalism as an affect. My wife, whose family were among the first settlers in Oregon, gets mad seeing Tillamook cheese in stores here in Maryland. (“That’s our cheese. Fuck you.”)
      - lukas099 4y ago
        Capitalists are liberals, but there might be truth to what you said.
        rayiner 4y ago
        But they’re not “hippie liberals.” Oregonians are probably the most anti-capitalist and anti-industry (really, anti-economy) people in the country.
        Kye 4y ago
        I think this gets closer to the point I tried to make. There is no unified "blue" or "red," so there wouldn't be a split along the colors cable news paints on election maps. Our FPTP system papers over a lot of diversity of thought that gets wrapped up under the big tents, but doesn't match geography. There are tankies in conservative-run states and evangelicals in Blue Country. Any attempt to split the country along ideological lines would make the most ridiculous gerrymandered district blush.
        rayiner 4y ago
        I think you're mixing up different things. You're correct that teams "blue" and "red" are actually coalitions of people who believe quite different things. But in part that's because of geographic and cultural commonalities that cut across party lines. Both Oregon Democrats and Oregon Republicans skew libertarian, because the state does. In Georgia, both Democrats and Republicans skew more religious. A lot of the intractability of our national politics is because geographical and cultural differences are overlaid on top of normal political differences. Splitting the country up along geographic lines would allow us to just fight over politics, instead of over deep-rooted cultural patterns.
        Kye 4y ago
        That's an easier position to take if you aren't one of the people who'd suffer worse religious persecution in a state unconstrained by the constitution. I would still be fighting against those deep-rooted cultural patterns, but I would be overrun quickly without support from enforcement of the 1st and 14th Amendments. State equivalents would be quickly discarded.
    - collegeburner 4y ago
      you realize most of the area by land in oregon and washington is very very red. and in a secession scenario they have a shitload more guns than the cities. and even the parts that are less red probably wouldn't want to pipe the water down to cali latifundia. a lot of that area seems very culturally independent so i doubt they'd like being the breadbasket for something like the cali big cities. and regardless yeah y'all do because population along the coast is very dense. you don't have enough space there to grow all that food for especially the big cali cities. we don't need y'all, though.
    - dang 4y ago
      We've asked you repeatedly to stop posting flamewar comments and you've continued to do it. If you keep this up we will ban you, so please stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - Der_Einzige 4y ago
        Please renounce your moderatorship since you are obviously unable to correctly deduce what is a real argument and what is designed to cause flame wars. I have no idea why people here fawn over your moderating. Please spare this website of anymore of it.
  - modeless 4y ago
    So? The projects are already built and the water comes from within the state, for Northern California and most of the agriculture. Only the cities of Southern California rely on water from other states.
- collegeburner 4y ago
  they are also way too small to grow enough food for colossal cali cities. and most of that agricultural land east of the coast is very red. look how many people in east oregon want to deadass secede to idaho because they're so sick of portland's bullshit. they'd go join "flyover country".

Der_Einzige 4y ago

Wheat and potato's can grow in California too. California and the PNW are extremely fertile. They don't need flyover country.

rayiner 4y ago
California couldn’t exist without massive army crops of engineers projects bringing water to most of the state.
- Der_Einzige 4y ago
  - bart_spoon 4y ago
    They also are in a drought are they not? Virtually the entirety of the country west of Missouri is. And that’s only going to get worse and worse. They may still have enough for their needs, but it’s unlikely they have enough for California’s needs, especially for its agriculture.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    You’re very mistaken about what kind of hippies PNW folks are if you think they’ll happily give their water to Californians. They’re hippies, but surly ones with guns who don’t look kindly on capitalists who adopt liberalism as an affect. My wife, whose family were among the first settlers in Oregon, gets mad seeing Tillamook cheese in stores here in Maryland. (“That’s our cheese. Fuck you.”)
    - lukas099 4y ago
      Capitalists are liberals, but there might be truth to what you said.
      - rayiner 4y ago
        But they’re not “hippie liberals.” Oregonians are probably the most anti-capitalist and anti-industry (really, anti-economy) people in the country.
        Kye 4y ago
        I think this gets closer to the point I tried to make. There is no unified "blue" or "red," so there wouldn't be a split along the colors cable news paints on election maps. Our FPTP system papers over a lot of diversity of thought that gets wrapped up under the big tents, but doesn't match geography. There are tankies in conservative-run states and evangelicals in Blue Country. Any attempt to split the country along ideological lines would make the most ridiculous gerrymandered district blush.
        rayiner 4y ago
        I think you're mixing up different things. You're correct that teams "blue" and "red" are actually coalitions of people who believe quite different things. But in part that's because of geographic and cultural commonalities that cut across party lines. Both Oregon Democrats and Oregon Republicans skew libertarian, because the state does. In Georgia, both Democrats and Republicans skew more religious. A lot of the intractability of our national politics is because geographical and cultural differences are overlaid on top of normal political differences. Splitting the country up along geographic lines would allow us to just fight over politics, instead of over deep-rooted cultural patterns.
        Kye 4y ago
        That's an easier position to take if you aren't one of the people who'd suffer worse religious persecution in a state unconstrained by the constitution. I would still be fighting against those deep-rooted cultural patterns, but I would be overrun quickly without support from enforcement of the 1st and 14th Amendments. State equivalents would be quickly discarded.
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    you realize most of the area by land in oregon and washington is very very red. and in a secession scenario they have a shitload more guns than the cities. and even the parts that are less red probably wouldn't want to pipe the water down to cali latifundia. a lot of that area seems very culturally independent so i doubt they'd like being the breadbasket for something like the cali big cities. and regardless yeah y'all do because population along the coast is very dense. you don't have enough space there to grow all that food for especially the big cali cities. we don't need y'all, though.
  - dang 4y ago
    We've asked you repeatedly to stop posting flamewar comments and you've continued to do it. If you keep this up we will ban you, so please stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - Der_Einzige 4y ago
      Please renounce your moderatorship since you are obviously unable to correctly deduce what is a real argument and what is designed to cause flame wars. I have no idea why people here fawn over your moderating. Please spare this website of anymore of it.
- modeless 4y ago
  So? The projects are already built and the water comes from within the state, for Northern California and most of the agriculture. Only the cities of Southern California rely on water from other states.
collegeburner 4y ago
they are also way too small to grow enough food for colossal cali cities. and most of that agricultural land east of the coast is very red. look how many people in east oregon want to deadass secede to idaho because they're so sick of portland's bullshit. they'd go join "flyover country".