• 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
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 they might see it as the Constitution being perverted beyond recognition and figure there's little to be done except to leave.

or maybe they just like the idea of governing themselves on a much more local basis without interference and mandates coming from folks who do have nothing to do with their state.

or maybe...they just like their independence more than they like being part of a dispassionate union.

or maybe..blablablabla

...speculating motives is an endless endeavor.
 
This thread fascinates mostly because:::::::


-It totally ignores Generational Democratic Party, Pro-Union regions of Texas that would never secede "peacefully"

-It 100% ignores basic Texas economic facts that make secession entirely illogical to even the most stubborn person

-It 100% ignores the fact that the US would never allow this to occur

-It 100% ignores that the Rich Oil and Business interests that run Texas would never allow this to occur

-It presumes that Texas is this rural "Jesus Bastion of Yesteryear" which it is extremely far from. One wonders what "Texas" these people even live in.


I can't tell if this is a rich banker kids wet dream thread who drank a tad too much scotch or some rural cowboy religious Jesus yesteryear thread or some mix of both.
 
Last edited:
or they might see it as the Constitution being perverted beyond recognition and figure there's little to be done except to leave.

or maybe they just like the idea of governing themselves on a much more local basis without interference and mandates coming from folks who do have nothing to do with their state.

or maybe...they just like their independence more than they like being part of a dispassionate union.

or maybe..blablablabla

...speculating motives is an endless endeavor.

Who's speculating? The point of the Constitution is that it forms a Union. All this talk about the "Constitution being perverted beyond recognition" is double talk. You cant be supporting the Constitution while asserting to destroy the union. That line is just a lie and a excuse.


Either way you paint it secessionists are anti-American and should be shot for being the treasonists that they are IMO.
 
This thread fascinates mostly because:::::::


-It totally ignores Generational Democratic Party, Pro-Union regions of Texas that would never secede "peacefully"

-It 100% ignores basic Texas economic facts that make secession entirely illogical to even the most stubborn person

-It 100% ignores the fact that the US would never allow this to occur

-It 100% ignores that the Rich Oil and Business interests that run Texas would never allow this to occur

-It presumes that Texas is this rural "Jesus Bastion of Yesteryear" which it is extremely far from. One wonders what "Texas" these people even live in.

say something new... you've said the same **** over and over and over.. and all of it 100% ignores the hypothetical posed in the OP.
 
Same thing.

Except I just put forth an idea...you put forth an idea in a matter-of-fact manner.

Were I to do the latter, I would want proof of my matter-of-fact statement before uttering/typing it.
 
Who's speculating? The point of the Constitution is that it forms a Union. All this talk about the "Constitution being perverted beyond recognition" is double talk. You cant be supporting the Constitution while asserting to destroy the union. That line is just a lie and a excuse.


Either way you paint it secessionists are anti-American and should be shot for being the treasonists that they are IMO.



you were speculating...unless you are now claiming you are a mindreader.... is that what you are claiming?

i'm not "asserting to destroy the union"... that's a position you have inaccurately assigned to me in direct contravention to my actual position and words.

grab your gun and get to secessionist huntin', tough guy ...there's secessionist all over this country, so ..well.. good luck and happy hunting.
 
Don't resist arrest and you wont be shot. If a legislature tries to break away from the Union, if 'militia' tried to seize government property, if anything at all that smacks of treasonous secession is in the air then yes they are going to be arrested and stamped out by the authorities. This is purely the realm of fantasy but it's always fun to burst the illusions of would be secessionists: If you try and secede get ready to die.

Its fantasy to think that the us govt would be seen on camera killing peaceful neighbors. Look at Baltimore. The mayor didnt send in police because they knew they would be filmed cracking skulls, and those protestors were violent.
 
"If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede." ~ Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Texas won't be leaving the union. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

Wait and see.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (securing liberty), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,"

Thomas Jefferson
 
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (securing liberty), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,"

Thomas Jefferson



Thomas Jefferson was one of the American men who fought for their freedom and rights in the U.S. Revolutionary War.

But not for the freedom and rights of women and Black slaves.

Think about that a little bit.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
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?

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.



no argument here... well, except for the notion that Statehood is greatly respected.... it's perfectly obvious it's not.

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.

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.


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.

To each his own, Thrilla, to each is own... :shrug:
 
In that we agree, but it still indicates a trend.

What a hypocritical sentence. It reminds me of this:
notsayingaliens.png
 
Thomas Jefferson was one of the American men who fought for their freedom and rights in the U.S. Revolutionary War.

But not for the freedom and rights of women and Black slaves.

Think about that a little bit.

"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

Gosh, I remember vividly the history that I learned as a kid growing up in the public schools. I experienced a bit of shock when I went to college and took American History. It seems like Washington didn't cut down a cherry tree and when confronted told his father, "I cannot tell a lie". And about 100 more similar things that were total misrepresentations of history.

The men we call Framers were elitists. They were white land owners. Most of them had a lot vested in America. They weren't about to let King George reap the spoils of their toil. And when you examine the way many made their living - you'll see see them noted to be "planter/lawyer". Or "small farmers/lawyer" Or "scholar". Or "Tradesman/Lawyer". In other words they were all educated business men.

And most people don't realize that George Washington was the wealthiest president in American history. His net worth at the time (in today's money) was $525 million. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson...both worth over $100 million in today's money. So these folks had something to fight for.

But you're right, Jefferson and others were also slave owners...and yes, they were known to be abolitionist. And clearly they could have ended slavery at the invent of the Republic form of government, which was supposedly design to protect the minorities, but it didn't. It protected those like the men who created our government. Slaves were still slaves and woman were still women. Neither had a voice.

While we have the framers to thank for giving America a decent kick-start. It was a vulnerable system then. And it surely is now. By 1825, career politicians became a part of the fairly knew government. And a lot of young elitist had their eyes set on becoming a career politician. By this time there had become strong political faction that were heatedly vying for power and it caused the beginning of strong philosophical divisions among our citizens.

Before Jefferson died he said, "Even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." How can we disagree with Jefferson's comment? In my lifetime I've certainly seen a rapidly evolving self-will-run-riot government. It knows, without a doubt, that it has us all by the balls. Our elections are dog and pony shows.

Thanks...
 
Thomas Jefferson was one of the American men who fought for their freedom and rights in the U.S. Revolutionary War.

But not for the freedom and rights of women and Black slaves.

Think about that a little bit.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

Done.
 
This is so damn typical of the way you argue. I quote the official freakin' US CONSTITUTION which tells us why the wrote it and created the government they did create. What do you do in response - give us something that is just opinion and has no relevance in law at all.

So damn typical and it summarizes your style perfectly.


iam sorry you cannot understand the preamble.....but there is the internet and books which can help you.
 
you were speculating...unless you are now claiming you are a mindreader.... is that what you are claiming?

i'm not "asserting to destroy the union"... that's a position you have inaccurately assigned to me in direct contravention to my actual position and words.

grab your gun and get to secessionist huntin', tough guy ...there's secessionist all over this country, so ..well.. good luck and happy hunting.

Lol Take a look again: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...ort-right-texas-secede-19.html#post1064621701



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.

I did not quote you make any reference to your name or anything close unless you consider yourself a neo-confederate. SO are you a neo-confederate? If you are a neo-confederate then what I said fully applies to you. If not then why the hell did you act as if I were talking about your position?
 
just because we need government to secure rights docent mean there natural I argue that it shows their artificial

and people have crated rights to get other peoples stuff communism ( they might argue peoples labor entitles them to more then they personally own and hey exploitation can happen ) and we do have the power to deny and abolish rights look at all the stuff we do to one another

food water and shelter actually seem like decent rights to have

just because its scary or un pleasant to think of rights as made up and alterable doesn't make them any less so

will you please provide proof of what you say, ..instead of just telling me this.

i have asked you several times already where rights are granted by government, and you have refuse to show me.
 
they must have voted for some measure of rule that whatever appropriate under those general powers and the constitution gives us rights that the state governments cant take away

since rights are only recognized by the constitution, and not granted by government, congress has no power over them.

you don't have power over what you don't control.

the constitution is federalism, the separation of powers between state governments and the federal government with the federal government having few powers, and the bill of rights are restrictions on the federal government to make no laws concerning the recognized rights
 
Last edited:
Mafias and drug cartels could pass as a "government" by that standard.

sorry no......those types of organizations operate on force, and the the people are at the whim of that force.....so it is not like america.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom