• 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
I think I might've OD'd on my ADD meds before I wrote that. But thanks. ADD can be a lot of fun...if one's wife is very, very patient and understanding. Which sorta gives credence to John Carrey's quip (and I think he has ADHD) that "Behind every successful man is a woman rolling her eyes."

You've got a good point on the SS - but we'd just have them that we'll continue paying what they're owed out of the SS trust fund - it is their money after all - and we could forgive their entire part of the national debt in return for us moving all our military and space program personnel and equipment out of their new nation. And if Texas needs oil, we'll tell them that we don't want to mess with Texas, but that Texas can certainly go frack itself!

Sorry - couldn't resist....

And what about those not yet qualified to collect SS?
 
hmm... the fantasy-city of Aynrandia versus the reality of Detroit.

not a lot of room for y'all to trash talk there.

Your post pretty much describes the gulf between the far right and everybody else - FANTASY versus REALITY. Lots of the far right already live in their own personal Aynrandia - they just have not changed their official address.
 
that's true, it would be new territory...that has nothing to do with calculating their share of national debt, though... or even if the issue of national debt would be negotiated at all.

there would be a lot to negotiate... welfare benefits and social security might be among them... but it's doubtful they would be paramount in the negotiations.

I suspect lots of people would see that far far differently. The far right would want to make it easy for a state to secede and your attitude on the debt seems part and parcel of that. Secession should be made as hard and difficult and expensive as possible so as to discourage the incremental dismantling of the USA. Germany and Nazisim could not destroy us but the far right seems to have an idea to do it piece by piece like the old Mark Twain boiling the frog .
 
And what about those not yet qualified to collect SS?

They get theirs when their time comes - treat it like a long-term insurance policy for them, since they want to privatize everything. But I wonder if in the future we would deny their claim due to the pre-existing condition of them having been American citizens....
 
Your post pretty much describes the gulf between the far right and everybody else - FANTASY versus REALITY. Lots of the far right already live in their own personal Aynrandia - they just have not changed their official address.

fantasy Aynrandia versus reality Detroit.

nuff said.
 
I suspect lots of people would see that far far differently. The far right would want to make it easy for a state to secede and your attitude on the debt seems part and parcel of that. Secession should be made as hard and difficult and expensive as possible so as to discourage the incremental dismantling of the USA. Germany and Nazisim could not destroy us but the far right seems to have an idea to do it piece by piece like the old Mark Twain boiling the frog .

well, i have no idea what the far right wants (nor do you).. but I'm not talking about making it easy whatsoever..... I think it takes much more than simply saying "we're out" ... it must take much more than that to ensure an fair and amicable break.... and no, that wouldn't be easy at all.
you're talking about making it a punitive deal... when it's already a difficult negotiation to even bring the split to fruition.... there's no need to whip the runaways slaves,when there's a much better way to handling things.

this isn't the 1860's... the initial split would necessarily be handled by current mechanisms, such as a 2/3rds vote in Congress after a referendum within the state itself.
at this point in time, under current conditions, that would be an impossibility..... but in this hypothetical, it's already assumed the split occurred peacefully and amicably.
 
I think I might've OD'd on my ADD meds before I wrote that. But thanks. ADD can be a lot of fun...if one's wife is very, very patient and understanding. Which sorta gives credence to John Carrey's quip (and I think he has ADHD) that "Behind every successful man is a woman rolling her eyes."

You've got a good point on the SS - but we'd just have them that we'll continue paying what they're owed out of the SS trust fund - it is their money after all - and we could forgive their entire part of the national debt in return for us moving all our military and space program personnel and equipment out of their new nation. And if Texas needs oil, we'll tell them that we don't want to mess with Texas, but that Texas can certainly go frack itself!

Sorry - couldn't resist....

wait... " if Texas needs oil"?..I'm thinking Texas already has oil....and natural gas.... and refineries...and the pipelines to deliver it to the US after they purchase it ( though strategic reserves are probably already bought and paid for and would need to be guaranteed for delivery upon demand)
you're thinking is backwards.

on the SS issue, I doubt the US would continue to pay benefits for any great length of time... though it's possible to pay for current living recipients under a grandfather clause of some sort.
 
wait... " if Texas needs oil"?..I'm thinking Texas already has oil....and natural gas.... and refineries...and the pipelines to deliver it to the US after they purchase it ( though strategic reserves are probably already bought and paid for and would need to be guaranteed for delivery upon demand)
you're thinking is backwards.

on the SS issue, I doubt the US would continue to pay benefits for any great length of time... though it's possible to pay for current living recipients under a grandfather clause of some sort.

Guy, my post was meant to get a smile from my fellow liberals. My whole quip about the oil was meant as a setup for the line to tell Texas to "go frack itself."

And btw - when it comes to "you're thinking is backwards." "You're" is a contraction of "You are". You should have said "Your thinking" instead, since "your' is the possessive of "you", which is what you obviously meant. When using contractions, regardless of whether it's blogging or official or academic or whatever, always say internally to yourself what the words are without the contraction. For instance, tell yourself "it is" instead of "it's" or "its" so you'll know which one is truly appropriate in context. Same thing for "they are" instead of they're" or "their", so you'll know which one fits. Do that for all contractions, and it will greatly benefit you as the years go by.
 
it's not that no one has any rights in the absence of that government, it's that we would lack a protection mechanism ( which you allude to in your first sentence)... without systemic protections, it simply become easier to violate those rights that are possessed.

of course, government , itself, can violate those rights... and government, if illegitimately and incorrectly instituted, can utterly fail in serving to protects rights ( such as North Korea)
The Constitution has no protection when a State proclaims that they dont want its protections. When a State tries to secede from the US Constitution they do so without any provisions in the law of the land. They are in fact acting outside of the US Constitution. And if the States grievances are that the Constitution has been corrupted beyond any help and is a travesty to liberties and freedoms then the State at that point is not seceding from that which no longer actually exists. ANd there is not a legitimate excuse for any State to peacefully secede without provocation. So stories about a States right to self-determine their own government is being met by their existence under the US Constitutions power as the law of the land. If the States self-determination isnt being met and cannot be addressed then as I said the State isnt seceding from that which does not exist anymore.
 
Guy, my post was meant to get a smile from my fellow liberals. My whole quip about the oil was meant as a setup for the line to tell Texas to "go frack itself."

And btw - when it comes to "you're thinking is backwards." "You're" is a contraction of "You are". You should have said "Your thinking" instead, since "your' is the possessive of "you", which is what you obviously meant. When using contractions, regardless of whether it's blogging or official or academic or whatever, always say internally to yourself what the words are without the contraction. For instance, tell yourself "it is" instead of "it's" or "its" so you'll know which one is truly appropriate in context. Same thing for "they are" instead of they're" or "their", so you'll know which one fits. Do that for all contractions, and it will greatly benefit you as the years go by.

ok, so you were trolling... fair enough

I don't need a lesson in grammar.. it was a mistake... unfurl your panties.
 
wait... " if Texas needs oil"?..I'm thinking Texas already has oil....and natural gas.... and refineries...and the pipelines to deliver it to the US after they purchase it ( though strategic reserves are probably already bought and paid for and would need to be guaranteed for delivery upon demand)
you're thinking is backwards.

on the SS issue, I doubt the US would continue to pay benefits for any great length of time... though it's possible to pay for current living recipients under a grandfather clause of some sort.


Canada, the 5th largest supplier in the world - can easily continue to supply the US without Texas' oil. Texas could do like ISIS and start selling oil much cheaper. But in the end it would be a disadvantage for the long-haul. Texas buys all of it's drill equipment from outside the state. And you can bet that the cost for equipment and replacement parts will spiral as Texas drillers demands for equipment goes up.

Right now the Texas Permian Basin Oil revenues pump well over a Billion dollars a year into State University coffers. That's gonna hurt Texas State Universities when that money has to be diverted.

But really ...just try your best to consider:

Like any production line operation. Somebody may come up with a brilliant way to make one portion of the line work a 1000% more efficient - only later to find out that other parts of the line have been negatively impacted and the the bottom line production rate is reduced. Think about it.

Just saying...

There can't be a SS in the Republic of Texas. There is no revenue collection system with any type of reserves that would even come close to being sufficient to nearly 10% of the US's population.
 
ok, so you were trolling... fair enough

I don't need a lesson in grammar.. it was a mistake... unfurl your panties.

No, I wasn't trolling - that's a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them. My post was made with the express intention of making people - or at least my fellow liberals - laugh. That's why I used 'frack' as a PUN.

And be careful about using the 'trolling' accusation - the DP PC police will ding you for it as they have me in the past. I'm glad they're there (and didja notice there's no 'their', there?).

So there!

(Here a flu, Theraflu, everywhere a flue flew...I really should take my ADD meds more often....)
 
No. And if they attempted to do so we should crush them like we did in 1865 along with the rest of the traitors.
 
Canada, the 5th largest supplier in the world - can easily continue to supply the US without Texas' oil. Texas could do like ISIS and start selling oil much cheaper. But in the end it would be a disadvantage for the long-haul. Texas buys all of it's drill equipment from outside the state. And you can bet that the cost for equipment and replacement parts will spiral as Texas drillers demands for equipment goes up.
yes, Canada has oil too... but as Democrats and liberals are opposed to transporting their oil ( assuming democrats/liberal would magically form a one party state in the absence of Texas), it would seem Texas would be the wiser choice to purchase from, as the delivery infrastructure is already in place.

and yes, the purchase of equipment would still be handled by out of state firms.... such is the nature of trade.. .even international trade.
why are you assuming that the current equipment would magically disappear cause a demand shock on the equipment market?.. i'm not following where this demand shock would originate

Right now the Texas Permian Basin Oil revenues pump well over a Billion dollars a year into State University coffers. That's gonna hurt Texas State Universities when that money has to be diverted.
sure, it could hurt... though i find it odd that you feel the only this oil revenue can be used to fund universities....

But really ...just try your best to consider:

Like any production line operation. Somebody may come up with a brilliant way to make one portion of the line work a 1000% more efficient - only later to find out that other parts of the line have been negatively impacted and the the bottom line production rate is reduced. Think about it.
true enough...Capitalists are rather skilled at mitigating persuasive negative impacts, and doing such is a non-stop element to any production based firm/industry.

Just saying...
that all any of us are doing :)

There can't be a SS in the Republic of Texas. There is no revenue collection system with any type of reserves that would even come close to being sufficient to nearly 10% of the US's population.
why do you feel that it's impossible for Texas to raise revenues to administer their state?... i mean, taxation of some sort is a given... and i'm not sure why you seem to believe why it's impossible for Texas when every single developed country on the face of the planet does it?
if Texas decided to retain current federal taxes, but levy them at the state level ( the new national level, more accurately,) it would gain an additional 220 billion, per year ( based on 2012 stats)..which is 2.5x the amount of current state expenditures.
cut those rats in half, and budget concerns are addressed adequately, in terms of raw dollars at current expenditures levels.
it's obvious, to me anyways, that a deficit would occur, at least initially... but coupled with chartered banks, sovereign currency, and credit guarantees based on such.. the deficit would be manageable.... and beneficial.

in short, revenues are , in all reality, easy to address.... once you get past the idea that it's impossible for a nation to raise it's own revenues.
 
well, i have no idea what the far right wants (nor do you).. but I'm not talking about making it easy whatsoever..... I think it takes much more than simply saying "we're out" ... it must take much more than that to ensure an fair and amicable break.... and no, that wouldn't be easy at all.
you're talking about making it a punitive deal... when it's already a difficult negotiation to even bring the split to fruition.... there's no need to whip the runaways slaves,when there's a much better way to handling things.

this isn't the 1860's... the initial split would necessarily be handled by current mechanisms, such as a 2/3rds vote in Congress after a referendum within the state itself.
at this point in time, under current conditions, that would be an impossibility..... but in this hypothetical, it's already assumed the split occurred peacefully and amicably.

This is the same as the 1860's and an effort to destroy the USA as we know it. Such efforts should indeed be looked at severely and things should be made as difficult as possible to those who would destroy the union. There is nothing AMICABLE about the destruction of a nation as we know it.
 
This is the same as the 1860's and an effort to destroy the USA as we know it. Such efforts should indeed be looked at severely and things should be made as difficult as possible to those who would destroy the union. There is nothing AMICABLE about the destruction of a nation as we know it.

it's 2015, not 1860.... so your opinion is demonstrably false.
 
it's 2015, not 1860.... so your opinion is demonstrably false.

Your reading comprehension skills need a severe tune up. You need to learn what the phrase "this is the same" means and how it is different from getting a date wrong.
 
yes, Canada has oil too... but as Democrats and liberals are opposed to transporting their oil ( assuming democrats/liberal would magically form a one party state in the absence of Texas), it would seem Texas would be the wiser choice to purchase from, as the delivery infrastructure is already in place.

and yes, the purchase of equipment would still be handled by out of state firms.... such is the nature of trade.. .even international trade.
why are you assuming that the current equipment would magically disappear cause a demand shock on the equipment market?.. i'm not following where this demand shock would originate

sure, it could hurt... though i find it odd that you feel the only this oil revenue can be used to fund universities....

true enough...Capitalists are rather skilled at mitigating persuasive negative impacts, and doing such is a non-stop element to any production based firm/industry.

that all any of us are doing :)


why do you feel that it's impossible for Texas to raise revenues to administer their state?... i mean, taxation of some sort is a given... and i'm not sure why you seem to believe why it's impossible for Texas when every single developed country on the face of the planet does it?
if Texas decided to retain current federal taxes, but levy them at the state level ( the new national level, more accurately,) it would gain an additional 220 billion, per year ( based on 2012 stats)..which is 2.5x the amount of current state expenditures.
cut those rats in half, and budget concerns are addressed adequately, in terms of raw dollars at current expenditures levels.
it's obvious, to me anyways, that a deficit would occur, at least initially... but coupled with chartered banks, sovereign currency, and credit guarantees based on such.. the deficit would be manageable.... and beneficial.

in short, revenues are , in all reality, easy to address.... once you get past the idea that it's impossible for a nation to raise it's own revenues.

You are such a trusting soul, Thrilla. You think that that Texas is going to be admired and applauded by the Federal and all of the State governments for seceding when it won't be in the best interests of the Union. You act as though Texas is truly independent in most aspects. Man, Texas' mouth is stitched to the Federal Tit.

How many times do you hear how fragile the SS system is and it's been in operation since the 30s. And in a blink of an eye, the moment secession begins the slate's been cleaned, the Republic of Texas' coffers will be ready to take on all of the challenges of SS, healthcare issues (well, unless we expect to see people laying in streets from serious health issues and Texas provides with a bus ticket to Oklahoma).

And education...I'm not talking about just providing minimum education - but truly quality education. Never mind, won't happen in Texas. Texas public schools will most likely be turned into one giant parochial school...the religious sector is gonna really have to chip in. Bibles will a lot cheaper than text book. Military and Border security ain't gonna be cheap. But one of the most demanding cost to Texas over the next 20 years is highway/bridge infrastructure. It, like most states, they've all got infrastructure problems.

I assure you that our only major port city, Houston...well, they will take some licks for a while. Import/Export rules will change.

Other than oil, what commodities will support of the social needs?

If the end goal is to create a Republic and at the same time purge the underclasses out of Texas...it might stand chance of surviving a couple of years longer.

All I can say is: If I were to live long enough to see this come down - and be able to hang out for a few more decades...I don't really care if Texas splits. I'm fixed, man and I can move anywhere. I'm a native, would have to leave the Hill Country, but I wouldn't hesitate to be gone if Texas ever seceded.

I must say...you're perspective is unique, but I still opine it is terminally unique.

But we could both be extremely wrong...
 
Your reading comprehension skills need a severe tune up. You need to learn what the phrase "this is the same" means and how it is different from getting a date wrong.

so in your mind ....we're talking about Slavery and several southern states..... mmmmk.

i don't share those delusions.
 
While unlikely anytime too soon, it's not unthinkable that one day, Texas might vote to secede from the United States and re-establish itself as an independent nation.

If done in a peaceful and democratic manner...that is, if the people of Texas overwhelmingly voted to withdraw from the U.S. In a referendum similar to the one recently held in Scotland, would you support the right of Texas to go her own way?

Absolutely. No one should be forced to stay in the union if they don't want to. California should be able to go its own way as well, but first we need some mechanism to keep Lonestar from going to war with the Bear Flag Republic.
 
so in your mind ....we're talking about Slavery and several southern states..... mmmmk.

i don't share those delusions.

Again - you need a really crucial lesson to bone up on your reading comprehension skills so you are able to understand the difference between what was actually said and your delusions about you want it to have said.
 
You are such a trusting soul, Thrilla. You think that that Texas is going to be admired and applauded by the Federal and all of the State governments for seceding when it won't be in the best interests of the Union. You act as though Texas is truly independent in most aspects. Man, Texas' mouth is stitched to the Federal Tit.
:lol: I only wish i was a trusting soul.. I'm really not.
remember, i'm addressing this as the hypothetical is it and am in no way denying the reality of the situation we are actually in.

everything we speak on is dependent on the specific factors under which this would occur... factors not enumerated in the OP and left up to us to determine
an i need to remind you again that i am not in favor of secession under our current environment.... i'm simply arguing that current realities are not permanent... **** changes, and **** happens

where most anti-secessionist here are envisioning a doomsday scenario in every detail... i'm am taking a notably optimistic stance... where you say " the sky will most assuredly fall" .. i say " meh, not so much, **** can be worked out"


How many times do you hear how fragile the SS system is and it's been in operation since the 30s. And in a blink of an eye, the moment secession begins the slate's been cleaned, the Republic of Texas' coffers will be ready to take on all of the challenges of SS, healthcare issues (well, unless we expect to see people laying in streets from serious health issues and Texas provides with a bus ticket to Oklahoma).
quit literally the nation of Texas can incur debt to cover it's expenditures... that's the nature of modern economies and sovereign currencies.... I think the real work would be setting up such systems that would work for the people of the nation, not in financing those programs.

And education...I'm not talking about just providing minimum education - but truly quality education. Never mind, won't happen in Texas. Texas public schools will most likely be turned into one giant parochial school...the religious sector is gonna really have to chip in. Bibles will a lot cheaper than text book. Military and Border security ain't gonna be cheap. But one of the most demanding cost to Texas over the next 20 years is highway/bridge infrastructure. It, like most states, they've all got infrastructure problems.
more doom and gloom "the sky is falling" speculation.... why do you believe it's inherently impossible for Texas to address any of this?

I assure you that our only major port city, Houston...well, they will take some licks for a while. Import/Export rules will change.
possibly so... if history is our guide, humans generally get their **** together when they have to...even when that involves a period of pain.

Other than oil, what commodities will support of the social needs?
I don't understand the question... how does any country support itself of it's social needs?.. and how would Texas be any different than any other nation on earth in this regard?
the TExas economy is pretty badass.. it's world class.... yet you somehow argue that it does not exist without being politically aligned to the Union.

If the end goal is to create a Republic and at the same time purge the underclasses out of Texas...it might stand chance of surviving a couple of years longer.
wow.. that escalated quickly.... i'm not sure why you have this resting in your mind, but damn man...that's some evil **** you've got living rent free up there

All I can say is: If I were to live long enough to see this come down - and be able to hang out for a few more decades...I don't really care if Texas splits. I'm fixed, man and I can move anywhere. I'm a native, would have to leave the Hill Country, but I wouldn't hesitate to be gone if Texas ever seceded.
if it happened right now.. i'd bail myself... i see no reason, none at all, that would have me personally support secession at this time.
in all reality, I hope and pray it never happens.

I must say...you're perspective is unique, but I still opine it is terminally unique.
I'm a special snowflake.. what can i say :lol:

But we could both be extremely wrong...
I can say , with certainty, neither of of us has it right.... it's an academic/intellectual exercise bereft of details... there's no way we can get it right.
 
:lol: I only wish i was a trusting soul.. I'm really not.
remember, i'm addressing this as the hypothetical is it and am in no way denying the reality of the situation we are actually in.

everything we speak on is dependent on the specific factors under which this would occur... factors not enumerated in the OP and left up to us to determine
an i need to remind you again that i am not in favor of secession under our current environment.... i'm simply arguing that current realities are not permanent... **** changes, and **** happens

where most anti-secessionist here are envisioning a doomsday scenario in every detail... i'm am taking a notably optimistic stance... where you say " the sky will most assuredly fall" .. i say " meh, not so much, **** can be worked out"


quit literally the nation of Texas can incur debt to cover it's expenditures... that's the nature of modern economies and sovereign currencies.... I think the real work would be setting up such systems that would work for the people of the nation, not in financing those programs.

more doom and gloom "the sky is falling" speculation.... why do you believe it's inherently impossible for Texas to address any of this?

possibly so... if history is our guide, humans generally get their **** together when they have to...even when that involves a period of pain.

I don't understand the question... how does any country support itself of it's social needs?.. and how would Texas be any different than any other nation on earth in this regard?
the TExas economy is pretty badass.. it's world class.... yet you somehow argue that it does not exist without being politically aligned to the Union.

wow.. that escalated quickly.... i'm not sure why you have this resting in your mind, but damn man...that's some evil **** you've got living rent free up there

if it happened right now.. i'd bail myself... i see no reason, none at all, that would have me personally support secession at this time.
in all reality, I hope and pray it never happens.

I'm a special snowflake.. what can i say :lol:

I can say , with certainty, neither of of us has it right.... it's an academic/intellectual exercise bereft of details... there's no way we can get it right.

WHat I dont understand i how you completely ignore the reality that no one is ever going to be just ok with a State seceding. No matter the story that the seceding State comes up with the end result will be anything but good. I have family and friends that live in Texas. I would be willing to join in the rebellion against the Texas secessionist government. I couldnt just ignore personal ties. Nor could business interests just ignore the ramifications of a State seceding. And of course the Federal Government has much interest in properties in Texas.

The fist action would be a blockade to completely isolate Texas from the rest of the US and the entire world. And Texas would be powerless to stop it. Of course we would only be talking about portions of Texas since immediately the Federal Government would sweep in and control all Federal properties. The oil reserve the oil infrastructure would all be still on US soil. All ports would remain in US control. But really it would all be over before it ever had a chance to start. Secession is fantasy talk. There is no rational scenario for secession of Texas that could be peaceful or successful. The reality is that at best a few thousand nut jobs would try it and lose miserably. Those that were not killed in action would go on trail for their crimes.


ANd if the Federal Government so bad that one thought a State should secede the reality there is that there would be a revolution before then.
 
WHat I dont understand i how you completely ignore the reality that no one is ever going to be just ok with a State seceding.

... I ignore that "reality" because i'm sticking to the hypothetical posed in the OP.... and well, I'm not a bloodthirsty warmonger.

this isn't rocket science.
 
While unlikely anytime too soon, it's not unthinkable that one day, Texas might vote to secede from the United States and re-establish itself as an independent nation.

If done in a peaceful and democratic manner...that is, if the people of Texas overwhelmingly voted to withdraw from the U.S. In a referendum similar to the one recently held in Scotland, would you support the right of Texas to go her own way?

Texas lost any consideration of that imagined right as a condition for reentering the Union.
 
Back
Top Bottom