• 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
Lol you agreed that your poll was full of **** but then you still believe that ****. It was exactly the same as the ancient alien dude saying that he wasnt saying it was aliens but it was aliens. A good laugh non the less.

I find your username ironic.
 
I don't hate any US politician... even far left loonies.

ergo, I am not in need of progress :cool:

Well now, that's a matter of one's perception and IMO, most improbable unless you're suffering from extreme egocentricity. You refer to progressives/Liberals as "far left loonies." That expression reveals disdain for that particular group; hence a form of contempt. Being human, all share in these emotions at one time or another, unless you're suffering from a psychopathic personality.
 
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.

None of the above. I posted the OP as a thought experiment, because I was interested to see how people weigh the sometimes opposing ideals of, on the one hand, self-determination, and on the other, national unity.

Our nation was founded on the principle if self-determination and secession from the British Crown, and yet we fought a civil war over the idea of unification at all cost in spite of regional differences. I find the apparent dichotomy intriguing, and I find the discussion that is taking place on this thread an interesting barometer of the current disposition of the American Public.

In other words, Americans are patriotic and we love freedom...but what happens when the ideals of patriotism and freedom are at odds? Which instinct wins out?

The 50/50 poll results are as expected and incredibly fascinating
 
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

Ooh, stings when you say it like that!
 
Well now, that's a matter of one's perception and IMO, most improbable unless you're suffering from extreme egocentricity. You refer to progressives/Liberals as "far left loonies." That expression reveals disdain for that particular group; hence a form of contempt. Being human, all share in these emotions at one time or another, unless you're suffering from a psychopathic personality.

I don't refer to liberal/progressives as "far left loonies"... in fact, I hold great respect and reverence for the Liberal ideology and hope and pray that one day self-professed liberals actaully start to espouse and practice liberalism once again.

I refer more to the socialists and communist-lite folks who inaccurately and dishonesty call themselves liberals/progressives, and continually espouse policy platforms and idea which are well outside the established principles in this country.....
but ,yes, I do hold a certian contempt for such folks, though I don't hate them.
If you wanted to grasp my true emotion pertining to these people, picture a dad or mom saying to a child " I'm very disappointed in you...now go to your room and think about what you have done".
 
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?

that was a dishonest repsonse... you damn well know what post i was responding to, and yet you pretend it was rebuttal a different post of yours?... serisously?
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.


let's not pretend your post , especially the bolded, was not pointed directly at me.

in any event, i'd be wary of conflating the terms "secessionist" with " neo-confederate" .. they are not one-in-the-same.
neither term really applies to me... I'm not a seccessionist in terms of believing we should split... I'm simply arguing the right to split should be respected according to a few of our most dearly held american principles... it's a matter of "can" versus "should" to me.
I think we can.. but i don't think we should.
("we" being any substantial political bloc who finds itself in the position of not consenting to be governed by a specific body any longer and decides to exercise thier self-determination in forming and consenting to thier own governence, whatever that might be)
 
Four words from the preamble to the Declaration of Independence? :shrug:



Maybe he believes that some people a lot smarter than you or he is figured out that not everything can be quantified or verified empirically. For example, how much happiness does the average person consume during his or her lifetime? How much would a hug from President Obama be worth to you, if anything, and what would you use as a scientific standard to measure it? How could you verify it? After all, your definition of happiness and someone else's are probably not the same.

Statements of faith which cannot be proven to be true or exist are simply that - statements of faith and mean nothing in terms of evidence of reality.
 
did you seriously just ask this question?..hollyyyyyyy ****.... wow.

the entire document.. all of it.. every single word of it.... pertains to government and government only.

he's entirely correct... federal law applies to the people, the US Constitution does not.

Yes I did. And you FAILED TO ANSWER IT. Failed completely and utterly and completely. Here it is again: The judicial branch - the US Supreme Court - has the power to interpret the Constitution and tell us what it means stepping in disputes about the document and its meaning. Can you point to the Supreme Court decision which states that the Constitution does not apply to citizen?

Now lets see you again fail to answer it.
 
no, it's not a falsehood.. it is the very basis for the social contract.

the government sole duty under the social contract is to serve the people by protecting their life, liberty, and property.



I have no clue what you think the US is, or what you think what it's philosophical underpinnings are... but it's completely obvious you haven't paid any attention to our history whatsoever..

natural law is the very foundation of our declaration of Independence, and the US Constitution ( as well as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen)
there is no good reason for you to be utterly ignorant of this stuff... none whatsoever.

Your post makes no sense in any way, shape or form as a reply to the post from me that you reproduced. I was CORRECTING another poster who claimed that the only reason for the establishment of the government was to protect natural rights. The evidence I used was the words given to us by the Founders themselves in the US Constitution where they explain why they wrote it and why they are establishing a government under it. And it includes a whole lot more than just the protection of rights.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.




Can you tell me why you and others on the far right feel it necessary to sneak in snide personal comments like the last line of nonsense you included? People of maturity and intelligence realize that one can look at things differently without ignorance being a factor. People who disagree with you are not ignorant - they are educated and informed and simply see things differently that you do. In this case, they know how to read the entire PREAMBLE instead of just cherry picked words that they then twist to fit their own extremist ideology.
 
that was a dishonest repsonse... you damn well know what post i was responding to, and yet you pretend it was rebuttal a different post of yours?... serisously?



let's not pretend your post , especially the bolded, was not pointed directly at me.

in any event, i'd be wary of conflating the terms "secessionist" with " neo-confederate" .. they are not one-in-the-same.
neither term really applies to me... I'm not a seccessionist in terms of believing we should split... I'm simply arguing the right to split should be respected according to a few of our most dearly held american principles... it's a matter of "can" versus "should" to me.
I think we can.. but i don't think we should.
("we" being any substantial political bloc who finds itself in the position of not consenting to be governed by a specific body any longer and decides to exercise thier self-determination in forming and consenting to thier own governence, whatever that might be)

While we are not pretending lets look at where your assertion of self determination adheres to the State rights claims that neo-confederates make. The New Dixie Manifesto: States' Rights Will Rise Again... by J. Michael Hill and Thomas Fleming
 
None of the above. I posted the OP as a thought experiment, because I was interested to see how people weigh the sometimes opposing ideals of, on the one hand, self-determination, and on the other, national unity.

Our nation was founded on the principle if self-determination and secession from the British Crown, and yet we fought a civil war over the idea of unification at all cost in spite of regional differences. I find the apparent dichotomy intriguing, and I find the discussion that is taking place on this thread an interesting barometer of the current disposition of the American Public.

In other words, Americans are patriotic and we love freedom...but what happens when the ideals of patriotism and freedom are at odds? Which instinct wins out?

The 50/50 poll results are as expected and incredibly fascinating



I understand completely.



It would be interesting if the Texas GOP seceded and the next day all the rich little GOP kids @ their 100k+ office jobs promptly were fired due to the complete economic collapse of Texas and the reality that Houston, Dallas and San Antonio Texas would all be on fire as the Democrat minorities would burn those cities and their economies overnight.


I do agree that would be an amusing week on CNN, Fox, MSNBC. Seeing the extinction of the GOP would definitely be amusing to witness nobody can easily deny that.


Democrats would run this country for the next 100 years. I guess the rich GOP kids would get their 24-72 hours of infamy though right before they lost everything politically and economically.
 
Yes I did. And you FAILED TO ANSWER IT. Failed completely and utterly and completely. Here it is again: The judicial branch - the US Supreme Court - has the power to interpret the Constitution and tell us what it means stepping in disputes about the document and its meaning. Can you point to the Supreme Court decision which states that the Constitution does not apply to citizen?

Now lets see you again fail to answer it.

you never asked me the question, so let's not pretend your false accusation of me failing to answer it has merit.

had you asked me this particular question, I would have told you I wouldn't answer a question build on a non sequitur and that you should stick to building a valid argument for your claim.

now, it's your claim that the Constitution applies to the people, so we'd all like to see you provide verifiable evidence of that claim.
you can point to whatever section or article you feel does not apply to the government, but to the people themselves.

we'll be waiting ...
 
Your post makes no sense in any way, shape or form as a reply to the post from me that you reproduced. I was CORRECTING another poster who claimed that the only reason for the establishment of the government was to protect natural rights. The evidence I used was the words given to us by the Founders themselves in the US Constitution where they explain why they wrote it and why they are establishing a government under it. And it includes a whole lot more than just the protection of rights.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.




Can you tell me why you and others on the far right feel it necessary to sneak in snide personal comments like the last line of nonsense you included? People of maturity and intelligence realize that one can look at things differently without ignorance being a factor. People who disagree with you are not ignorant - they are educated and informed and simply see things differently that you do. In this case, they know how to read the entire PREAMBLE instead of just cherry picked words that they then twist to fit their own extremist ideology.

It's not my problem you don't understand the Social Contract or the underpinnings of our federal government... and I have neither the time nor inclination to educate you on basic civics.

you stick with with the false notion of our government being the creator of all rights...it's no sweat of my brow... you have no power to affect anything anyways.
 
you never asked me the question,..

You stuck your nose in it and in doing so you FAILED to provide the answer to the question that you were so incredulous about me asking.

now, it's your claim that the Constitution applies to the people, so we'd all like to see you provide verifiable evidence of that claim.

Who do you think exercises the various rights the Constitution provides for us?

Who do you think is voting in the five different times the Constitution discusses the right to vote?
 
I understand completely.



It would be interesting if the Texas GOP seceded and the next day all the rich little GOP kids @ their 100k+ office jobs promptly were fired due to the complete economic collapse of Texas and the reality that Houston, Dallas and San Antonio Texas would all be on fire as the Democrat minorities would burn those cities and their economies overnight.


I do agree that would be an amusing week on CNN, Fox, MSNBC. Seeing the extinction of the GOP would definitely be amusing to witness nobody can easily deny that.


Democrats would run this country for the next 100 years. I guess the rich GOP kids would get their 24-72 hours of infamy though right before they lost everything politically and economically.

:lamo.. good god... put down the hackery and step away slowly...
 
It's not my problem you don't understand the Social Contract or the underpinnings of our federal government... and I have neither the time nor inclination to educate you on basic civics.

With you I suspect it is a matter of not being able to instill me with the belief system that you have willfully adopted. Thats what it comes down to and you know it.

And you dodging me directly confronting you with your insulting implications that I am ignorant of history and the Constitution is duly noted and it speaks volumes about your tactics.
 
I understand completely.



It would be interesting if the Texas GOP seceded and the next day all the rich little GOP kids @ their 100k+ office jobs promptly were fired due to the complete economic collapse of Texas and the reality that Houston, Dallas and San Antonio Texas would all be on fire as the Democrat minorities would burn those cities and their economies overnight.


I do agree that would be an amusing week on CNN, Fox, MSNBC. Seeing the extinction of the GOP would definitely be amusing to witness nobody can easily deny that.


Democrats would run this country for the next 100 years. I guess the rich GOP kids would get their 24-72 hours of infamy though right before they lost everything politically and economically.

wow... that hackery is strong in this one
 
With you I suspect it is a matter of not being able to instill me with the belief system that you have willfully adopted. Thats what it comes down to and you know it.

And you dodging me directly confronting you with your insulting implications that I am ignorant of history and the Constitution is duly noted and it speaks volumes about your tactics.

I don't care what you suspect... it's irrelevant.

if you want to consider not falling for your abject dishonesty as "dodging" .. call me a dodger any day of the week.
and yes, you've made it obvious you are ignorant of our founding document... perfectly obvious.

i'm just a nice enough guy to point it out for you so you can work on correcting the falsehoods you try to sell... it's a free service I provide to those in need :cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom