• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

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

  • Total voters
    133
Now if you asked about Florida, hellyeaz.
Make the whole state the Conch Republic.
 
united states does not give up real estate...sorry we already had a war because of this
 
Winchester said:
But if they did it, Texas could act like a nutter magnet.
Click to expand...

Not for long. I doubt it would take more than a couple weeks before they beg to rejoin.
 
Redress said:
Not for long. I doubt it would take more than a couple weeks before they beg to rejoin.
Click to expand...

I would envision close ties with the USA, similar to a European Union type agreement with strong economic and cultural ties, while giving each side the space they desire to determine their own destiny.

In a larger sense, there is some credence to the argument that a government which is closer to home is better able to service the needs of said population, and one can rightly question at what point a nation of 300+ million that encompasses an entire continent becomes too large to govern in a way that protects the interests of each of those 300 million dwellers.

We're a diverse country with diverse histories and divergent ideals. Perhaps rather than continue on our present course of infighting and polarization, it would be wise to consider alternative ways to divide up governance in such a way that all parties can have their interests fairly represented.
 
Cephus said:
I support the right for Texans to secede, they can all just walk south into the Gulf of Mexico. The land, however, and most things on it belong to the United States, they are not free to take it with them. Their personal belongings are theirs. The land, the infrastructure, etc. are not.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 30 million Texans, including 2 of the top 5 metro areas in the United Stares, and 52 Fortune 500 companies are just gonna walk in to the Gulf of Mexico because some guy in California says so. Lol.
 
If someone wants to leave then they can. No one is stopping them , but taking the public roads hospitals and schools which the US government has helped created is not going to happen.

I cant speculate exactly what would happen only just that something will . War to even an embargo or it may never even get recognized as a country by the US or other nations.
 
Un biased said:
If someone wants to leave then they can. No one is stopping them , but taking the public roads hospitals and schools which the US government has helped created is not going to happen.

I cant speculate exactly what would happen only just that something will . War to even an embargo or it may never even get recognized as a country by the US or other nations.
Click to expand...

Would Texas get proportionate ownership in public roads and hospitals located in the other 50 states then?

Seems to me Texas has paid in proportionally to have those facilities built, so the simplest solution would be to let Texas annex the utilities located within the state while giving up claims to those located outside her borders
 
Peter Grimm said:
Would Texas get proportionate ownership in public roads and hospitals located in the other 50 states then?

Seems to me Texas has paid in proportionally to have those facilities built, so the simplest solution would be to let Texas annex the utilities located within the state while giving up claims to those located outside her borders
Click to expand...


Actually no. Texas used the infrastructures they paid for at that time and are in no way obligated to them in the future if they aren't in the union paying the taxes that had built and kept them running
 
Un biased said:
Actually no. Texas used the infrastructures they paid for at that time and are in no way obligated to them in the future if they aren't in the union paying the taxes that had built and kept them running
Click to expand...

The Federal Government would no longer be financially responsible for their upkeep, that would be paid for by Texas going forward.

Texans, in aggregate, have paid in to the federal fund pool as much as they have benefitted from it, so there would be nothing owed to Texans by the U.S. Govt or vice versa.

A more interesting question would be what to do with Federal property that could not be annexed, such as NASA in Houston. I would imagine that Texas would be amicable toward allowing NASA to continue to operate within her borders, much as CERN operates within Swiss borders while belonging largely to the EU (of which Switzerland is not a member).
 
ernst barkmann said:
what i am saying is this....i gave the founders words, and what was taught, and it is not what the court is saying.

Now when it comes to the constitution, who is closer to it ...the court or the founders?

iam not advocating anything like seccesion...what i advocate for is .....rights.......which is always the center of my arugment.
Click to expand...
Fair enough - I understand & respect your opinion.

When I was in Grammar School in the Kennedy-Nixon era, I was repeatedly admonished, "A U.S. President's greatest legacy is NOT his actions, BUT his Supreme Court nominations". It wasn't until I was much older that I realized the full depth & profound ramifications of that statement, and now I see that politically active Catholic Nun teaching us History knew her stuff.

Unfortunately, with our country's political system having morphed into a two-party system, we don't get much more Presidential choice then two party-line candidates who differentiate by little more than what they promise their followers (think: Bush-Clinton Monarchy redux) - and our SC reflects this.
 
For everyone's reference....the population and economic size of Texas is roughly equal to that of Canada.

That should assuage any fears or concerns that Texas would not be able to function on its own as an independent nation.
 
Peter Grimm said:
For everyone's reference....the population and economic size of Texas is roughly equal to that of Canada.

That should assuage any fears or concerns that Texas would not be able to function on its own as an independent nation.
Click to expand...

there are 3 power grids in the u.s. Texas controls 1 grid.
 
Peter Grimm said:
The Federal Government would no longer be financially responsible for their upkeep, that would be paid for by Texas going forward.

Texans, in aggregate, have paid in to the federal fund pool as much as they have benefitted from it, so there would be nothing owed to Texans by the U.S. Govt or vice versa.

A more interesting question would be what to do with Federal property that could not be annexed, such as NASA in Houston. I would imagine that Texas would be amicable toward allowing NASA to continue to operate within her borders, much as CERN operates within Swiss borders while belonging largely to the EU (of which Switzerland is not a member).
Click to expand...

Just because you payed for part of the infrastructures doesn't mean you get to keep them . When you rent an apartment even though you pay into it dose not make it yours , and when you want to leave or buy a house you don't keep the apartment building.

In all honestly do you really think the US government would let you keep Nasa ?
 
of course i would support it.... I would support any state seceding peacefully.

unlike so many here, I actually believe self determination is a great thing....and i'm no fan of holding people hostage to a government they don't want.
 
I believe people should have the right to evade oppression and push for self governance. If TX wanted to secede I would support that, along with any other state wishing to do so.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Yeah, 30 million Texans, including 2 of the top 5 metro areas in the United Stares, and 52 Fortune 500 companies are just gonna walk in to the Gulf of Mexico because some guy in California says so. Lol.
Click to expand...

Most Texans aren't stupid enough to want to secede, it's only the religious morons who can't deal with gays getting equal rights and the loss of Christian superiority who keep playing the secession card and we know they don't actually have the balls to do anything serious.
 
Jokingly ( or not ) I would like to see Florida succeed , they can keep their oranges
 
Definitely.

It's their state...if they want to leave, let 'em.
 
Un biased said:
Just because you payed for part of the infrastructures doesn't mean you get to keep them . When you rent an apartment even though you pay into it dose not make it yours , and when you want to leave or buy a house you don't keep the apartment building.

In all honestly do you really think the US government would let you keep Nasa ?
Click to expand...

You can move it to California if you want. Was just offering to let you keep it running in Houston free of charge if that's more attractive to you than building a whole new set of facilities somewhere else, as scientific advancement benefits us all.

No need for any potential split to be hostile, that's a point I think many here are missing
 
Cephus said:
Most Texans aren't stupid enough to want to secede, it's only the religious morons who can't deal with gays getting equal rights and the loss of Christian superiority who keep playing the secession card and we know they don't actually have the balls to do anything serious.
Click to expand...

You're right in one sense, the majority of Texans do not want to secede. I have seen polls ranging from 20-40 percent, depending on how the question is asked.

You are wrong if you think you can boil Texas secessionist sentiments , which have been fairly constant since before the Civil War, down to fad issues of the day like public religion and gay rights. One has to keep in mind Texas' unique history and situation.

Texas is the only state that was once it's own Republic. We fought and won our own war of independence against Mexico. Today, the state of Texas maintains a sense of independence. We are far from just another rinkydink state....we are the largest in the lower 48 in land mass, we have a population and economy comparable to that of Canada, we have access to two bodies of water, 2 of the top 5 metro areas in the United States, and over 1/10th of the workd's Fortune 500 companies are headquartered here.

Yet we have the same representation in the Senate as New Hampshire or Delaware.

To characterize the question of secession as something limited to "nutters" does it a disservice, in my opinion. In a larger sense, there is some credence to the argument that a government which is closer to home is better able to service the needs of said population, and one can rightly question at what point a nation of 300+ million that encompasses an entire continent becomes too large to govern in a way that protects the interests of each of those 300 million dwellers.

We're a diverse country with diverse histories and divergent ideals. Perhaps rather than continue on our present course of infighting and polarization, it would be wise to consider alternative ways to divide up governance in such a way that all parties can have their interests fairly represented.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom