View Poll Results: Would you support the decision of Texas to peacefully and democratically secede, if voted upon

Voters
134. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    69 51.49%
  • No

    61 45.52%
  • Bumbershoot

    4 2.99%
Page 75 of 131 FirstFirst ... 2565737475767785125 ... LastLast
Results 741 to 750 of 1310

Thread: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

  1. #741
    Student Atiya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    03-22-17 @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    242

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    well, at least you are down to merely showing irrational hatred for a couple of individuals rather than an entire party/ideology... that's progress.
    I must admit I have a strong bias against right-wing Republicans who're consumed by the Tea Party. I am not too much of an ideologue and if shown a rational argument, can be persuaded. The Republican Party as it is today seems to lack a moral compass, the fact that they're willing to allow the American people to suffer by handicapping President Obama by obstructing everything he tries to do, like creating a bill for America's infrastructure, even things the GOP were once for. McConnell said at the beginning of Obama's first inauguration, that his aim was to make sure this newly elected president served only one term. Boy was that old man surprised when Obama won a second term! You wonder why I detest the current TeaPublicans?!
    "The only constant in life is change."
    __________
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."

  2. #742
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    21,267

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    well, i'm sure we do disagree on how to maintain those principles... thought i'm pretty sure casting them entirely away is not the best method to preserve them... even if doing so serves some simple utilitarian purpose.

    I mean, when we get right down to the meat and potatoes of the deal, we're talking about self-determination, we're talking about consent of the governed, the social contract..... that doesn't really mean you want to leave the union ( I don't, and neither do you) , only that you respect the right for people to do so if they so choose ( provided they do so following a just mechanism to reach a majority consensus followed by an amicable split)
    I do get your gist, Thrilla.

    The idea of the governors existing at the consent of the governed should be a vital concept with every nation (even though we know many don't believe in that concept). And we have to assume that within a given society, which subscribes to such a concept, there will be conflicts between people and between those who govern - about how this concept can be made into a reality.

    We can't ignore our history.

    The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was a document signed amongst the thirteen original colonies that established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states and served as its first constitution.[1] Its drafting by a committee appointed by the Second Continental Congress began on July 12, 1776, and an approved version was sent to the states for ratification in late 1777. The formal ratification by all thirteen states was completed in early 1781.
    The "Perpetual Union" part was established for a reason. Statehood was a greatly respected institution then - as it is now. But the union of states formed a nation. The union has become enmeshed. It's works much like the saying, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". And it also reminds me of the saying, "no man is an island unto himself."

    There was a social contract made ...along with a commitment...when it union was formed.

    If the people of the union are unhappy with its state and/or central government - then there already exist a system to change it. The frustration among many is: Factions of people aren't coming together to effectively change it in a way that forms a more perfect union (based on the opinion of a majority faction). That is entirely on We The People. And we already know that our central government will resist any efforts to forcefully overthrow it. The same would be within any given state government.

    To break the thread that binds us as a nation is a very risky ploy. Our interdependence is embedded in all of our social affairs. Self-determination can't happen when "self" become divided.

    And again, we just have a different perspective on how to evoke social change. Succession is a drastic measure, in my opinion. And again, just my opinion, but I really believe that it could well damage self-determination given the length of time of the relationship between states and a central government.

  3. #743
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    Quote Originally Posted by Atiya View Post
    It's illogical to hate a state* and it's not the state I hate but the governing politicians who control the state. And my dislike of your Cruz and new governor, Abbott, is not "irrational." I am not alone in that category. The fact you're unable to see this means YOU have a lot of progress to make.

    *By the way, I simply adored the late former governor, Ann Richards.
    I don't hate any US politician... even far left loonies.

    ergo, I am not in need of progress

  4. #744
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    Quote Originally Posted by Atiya View Post
    I must admit I have a strong bias against right-wing Republicans who're consumed by the Tea Party. I am not too much of an ideologue and if shown a rational argument, can be persuaded. The Republican Party as it is today seems to lack a moral compass, the fact that they're willing to allow the American people to suffer by handicapping President Obama by obstructing everything he tries to do, like creating a bill for America's infrastructure, even things the GOP were once for. McConnell said at the beginning of Obama's first inauguration, that his aim was to make sure this newly elected president served only one term. Boy was that old man surprised when Obama won a second term! You wonder why I detest the current TeaPublicans?!
    "I'm not too much of an ideologue" isn't a compelling argument in light of the rest of your post.

    that said,I have no use for either party.... both are chock full of ideologues who care only about one thing... the Party.
    as for "moral compass" I feel the same way about both parties, though on different issues.

    I don't feel either party has "high ground" when it comes to a moral compass.... the GOP can't seem to get out of our bedrooms, and the Democrats can't seem to get out of our wallets and business.... if both parties would simply wither and die, I'd be a happy camper and the country could once against make strides towards greatness.
    though i will say i mind govt. in my wallet much more than i mind it in my bedroom... in very practical terms ,one I can escape, the other I can't.

  5. #745
    Godwin's Lawyer
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    10,055

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    Obviously you think that all of the social demands for funding (education, military, healthcare, etc), which are placed on the Texas government - does so mostly on its own revenues. I suggest you might spend some time finding out how much money flows into Texas via both the Federal General Funds and Discretionary Funds, which allows Texas to operate. The sovereignty of individual states exist because of the symbiotic relationships between all states and a central government.
    Indeed. Where's the map that shows each state's ratio of federal taxes paid to benefits received?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    really?....

    Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
    Mafias and drug cartels could pass as a "government" by that standard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    Well, ultimately that is the very thing that would happen. All goods and services Texas would need - which comes from outside the state - would be shutdown by the Feds or even other states.

    The same thing happened during the civil war. Most of the manufacturing of goods, especially goods made of steel and/or iron were milled in the north. Even cotton gin machinery was manufactured in the north. Actually machinery of all kinds were manufactured in the north. The majority of textile mills were in the north. The list goes on and on....

    And it was difficult to get England to manufacture such goods for the south. England inventors created the primary means for the industrial revolution to happen in the US.

    And now, since the majority of oil imports come from Canada...well, can you see a problem here for Texas? It cost a lot of money to drill. And where does the equipment come from that make drilling possible?
    Though the South certainly had morale and surprisingly good military tactics early in the Civil War, it is my understanding that the lack of industry and materiel doomed them. They just couldn't keep up with the much stronger industrial base in the north.

    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    I do get your gist, Thrilla.

    The idea of the governors existing at the consent of the governed should be a vital concept with every nation (even though we know many don't believe in that concept). And we have to assume that within a given society, which subscribes to such a concept, there will be conflicts between people and between those who govern - about how this concept can be made into a reality.

    We can't ignore our history.



    The "Perpetual Union" part was established for a reason. Statehood was a greatly respected institution then - as it is now. But the union of states formed a nation. The union has become enmeshed. It's works much like the saying, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". And it also reminds me of the saying, "no man is an island unto himself."

    There was a social contract made ...along with a commitment...when it union was formed.

    If the people of the union are unhappy with its state and/or central government - then there already exist a system to change it. The frustration among many is: Factions of people aren't coming together to effectively change it in a way that forms a more perfect union (based on the opinion of a majority faction). That is entirely on We The People. And we already know that our central government will resist any efforts to forcefully overthrow it. The same would be within any given state government.

    To break the thread that binds us as a nation is a very risky ploy. Our interdependence is embedded in all of our social affairs. Self-determination can't happen when "self" become divided.

    And again, we just have a different perspective on how to evoke social change. Succession is a drastic measure, in my opinion. And again, just my opinion, but I really believe that it could well damage self-determination given the length of time of the relationship between states and a central government.
    Good thoughts. James Madison sternly warned about the dangers of factions in Federalist No. 10. As I said earlier, I believe that nothing less than a constitutional amendment would be needed to establish a framework for secession procedures.
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." --First Amendment to the United States Constitution

  6. #746
    Godwin's Lawyer
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    10,055

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    "I'm not too much of an ideologue" isn't a compelling argument in light of the rest of your post.

    that said,I have no use for either party.... both are chock full of ideologues who care only about one thing... the Party.
    as for "moral compass" I feel the same way about both parties, though on different issues.

    I don't feel either party has "high ground" when it comes to a moral compass.... the GOP can't seem to get out of our bedrooms, and the Democrats can't seem to get out of our wallets and business.... if both parties would simply wither and die, I'd be a happy camper and the country could once against make strides towards greatness.
    though i will say i mind govt. in my wallet much more than i mind it in my bedroom... in very practical terms ,one I can escape, the other I can't.
    If there were any justice in our political system, the 2016 election would be Rand Paul vs. Bernie Sanders. But right now, my money is on Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton.
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." --First Amendment to the United States Constitution

  7. #747
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    If there were any justice in our political system, the 2016 election would be Rand Paul vs. Bernie Sanders. But right now, my money is on Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton.
    I wouldn't bet against you on that one...and i'm a bettin' man.

  8. #748
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 05:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    I do get your gist, Thrilla.

    The idea of the governors existing at the consent of the governed should be a vital concept with every nation (even though we know many don't believe in that concept). And we have to assume that within a given society, which subscribes to such a concept, there will be conflicts between people and between those who govern - about how this concept can be made into a reality.
    well, sure... conflicts will arise to be handled.
    I'm not sure how "consent of the governed" can be strengthened , or even said to be respected, with the position of " you are not allowed ot leave, we will kill you if you try, no matter what you reason are".
    I mean, really.. can anyone even pretend to support self-determination when there entire argument consists of denying it when it is sought?

    We can't ignore our history.
    sure we can.. we do it all the time.

    we haven't become a near welfare/police state by paying attention to history, that's for goddman sure.



    The "Perpetual Union" part was established for a reason. Statehood was a greatly respected institution then - as it is now. But the union of states formed a nation. The union has become enmeshed. It's works much like the saying, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". And it also reminds me of the saying, "no man is an island unto himself."

    There was a social contract made ...along with a commitment...when it union was formed.
    no argument here... well, except for the notion that Statehood is greatly respected.... it's perfectly obvious it's not.

    If the people of the union are unhappy with its state and/or central government - then there already exist a system to change it. The frustration among many is: Factions of people aren't coming together to effectively change it in a way that forms a more perfect union (based on the opinion of a majority faction). That is entirely on We The People. And we already know that our central government will resist any efforts to forcefully overthrow it. The same would be within any given state government.
    factions today have very good cause not to come together with other factions to enact social change...there will be no kumbayah monuments in our future.. not with the vast ideological divides within our borders.
    I mean ,really, one of the major factions is actively marching us towards a one government welfare state where the people are mere subjects to the crown.. the other, a police state where it's citizens are mere cattle to be controlled in all aspects..
    no major faction in this country has the desire or ability to " live and let be":.. not... one.

    To break the thread that binds us as a nation is a very risky ploy. Our interdependence is embedded in all of our social affairs. Self-determination can't happen when "self" become divided.
    and this is further proof Statehood is utterly disrespected.
    but yes.. it is a risky ploy... History is replete with risky ploys geared towards benefiting those whom take he helm.
    this nation of ours was born from the very principles folks in here vehemently oppose.... hell, it seems , by the poll, that we are split roughly in half... with one half being loyalists to the crown.

    And again, we just have a different perspective on how to evoke social change. Succession is a drastic measure, in my opinion. And again, just my opinion, but I really believe that it could well damage self-determination given the length of time of the relationship between states and a central government.
    well, yes.. it is a drastic measure.. and not one I would consent to at this time.
    I don't see how exercising self determination can be seen as damaging self-determination... additionally, I don't feel a change of political blocs should inherently harm any relationship between the many governments, or the people.

    it seems to me that those most opposed to even the idea of secession are getting pissy because they would lose control over the people of a state trying to secede... which ,oddly enough, is a pretty good reason for the people of said state to bail out.

  9. #749
    Repentless
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,043

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    Those that think that secession is the way to fix anything, dont understand at all what the Constitution created. Nor do they understand the philosophy behind the US Constitution. But lets be honest the secessionists only see the US Constitution as a roadblock to their fantasies of imposing their will on all Americans. That is the point of neo-Confederates; domination once and for all.

  10. #750
    Sage
    DA60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,110

    Re: Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Those that think that secession is the way to fix anything, dont understand at all what the Constitution created. Nor do they understand the philosophy behind the US Constitution. But lets be honest the secessionists only see the US Constitution as a roadblock to their fantasies of imposing their will on all Americans. That is the point of neo-Confederates; domination once and for all.
    Or maybe they just don't like America that much and would rather be a separate country.

    And it is almost impossible for you to prove otherwise.
    'What kind of sick and twisted toy factory is this?'
    'We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile, and nothing can grow there. Too much, the best of us is washed away.'
    "Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •