I VOTE YES ON CALEXIT!

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-07-2017, 05:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-06-2017, 11:54 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-06-2017, 11:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: NO DEAL. We'll get Alberta, and with the help of its state government, we'll shut the whole crap dirty oil machine down. No deal without Alberta!

And sorry, we are not dealing with Drump, so no artful deals.

OK, then I suppose Dan can shut this thread down.  No deal = no Calexit.   That's 'cause I'm the one who set up the deal, not Trump. That means California can continue to send $ Oklahoma's way. You see, I'm dealing for Oklahoma's sake. It's an exchange of slush $ California to Oklahoma for Oil transport from Alberta through Oklahoma to the Texas refinery complex. Like I said, I'm the one who is engineering this deal, not Trump, man.

No, *I* set up this thread, so it's MY deal

Okies need to be forced to fend for themselves, if they want oil. Canada/Pacifica understand that we don't need it, and that it's wrong to even use it. We need to transition out of it. The red states don't get that; this is a major reason for Calexit. If we join Canada, then we can maybe get Canada to shut the whole tar sands disaster down, man!

Uh, no.  Canada is a sovereign nation, regardless of how lots of Americans think of it as the 51st state. The same goes for the several provinces as well. That means if pieces of the west coast states decide to join Canada, then it's only fair to extend the same privileges to Canada/its provinces.  I accept said sovereignty in my deal, which makes it much better for Canada. As for Oklahoma, California's exit opens up all sorts of money making possibilities that I'm OK with. I'm sure we can make money hand over fist by accepting nuclear waste, pyrolysis plants for toxic waste reformulation, etc. Desperate times call for desperate measures!

http://wastepyrolysisplant.net/  <-  huge new oil source
http://www.oecd-nea.org/trw/index.html  <-  source for expensive nuclides, like Tc99