• 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!

White House denies Texas secession

Of all the states, AFAIK only Hawaii and Texas were nations before they were states. And just as we allow states to join our union we should allow states to leave. But this wasn't that, this was a petition signed by a very small amount of people, not reflecting the will of the state.
 
rocket88 said:
Is Your State A Net Giver or Taker of Federal Taxes? | The Big Picture

Case in point: Mississippi gets $2.73 back from the Feds for every $1 paid in. Minnesota gets 0.64 per dollar.
Click to expand...

Case more to the point: MS (red) gets $2.73 back but WV (blue) gets $2.83 back. The average difference is .25 (all blue vs. all red) in favor of the red states. What is ignored, of course, is that southern states are more red than northern states, yet retirees favor the warmer, lower cost southern states for their retirement life; naturally retirees get lots of federal money SS/Medicare yet pay very little taxes. Hmm...
 
I believe that the people within geographic regions have a right to self determination. If a clear majority of Texans want to secede I would support that right, just as I support the rights of Chechens, Kurds and Palestinaians to autonomy. If I was President, I would have let the south secede instead of having a bloody civil war. The slaves could have been freed with other means, and freeing the slaves was not the actual motivation for the civil war.
 
Hard Truth said:
I believe that the people within geographic regions have a right to self determination. If a clear majority of Texans want to secede I would support that right, just as I support the rights of Chechens, Kurds and Palestinaians to autonomy. If I was President, I would have let the south secede instead of having a bloody civil war. The slaves could have been freed with other means, and freeing the slaves was not the actual motivation for the civil war.
Click to expand...

The difference with Chechens and Texans is that Chechens are a different nationality than Russians. Texans are Americans. So it's not really the same thing.

I'd be hard pressed to think of another way the slaves would have been freed. Even gradual abolition plans would have left some people in slavery until the 1900's. The real motivation wasn't to free the slaves, but don't fool yourself - slavery is really what the Civil War was about.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Case more to the point: MS (red) gets $2.73 back but WV (blue) gets $2.83 back. The average difference is .25 (all blue vs. all red) in favor of the red states. What is ignored, of course, is that southern states are more red than northern states, yet retirees favor the warmer, lower cost southern states for their retirement life; naturally retirees get lots of federal money SS/Medicare yet pay very little taxes. Hmm...
Click to expand...

Sure, the point is though that it's not Conservatives who are paying taxes to Liberals. That's a very narrow minded point of view, and one that I've come to expect from the poster who said that.
 
rocket88 said:
Sure, the point is though that it's not Conservatives who are paying taxes to Liberals. That's a very narrow minded point of view, and one that I've come to expect from the poster who said that.
Click to expand...

I agree, but you seem to assert that the opposite, in fact, occurs. Federal income tax is largely based on absolute earnings so it will naturally be higher in high cost states, federal spending is largely based on old age and low income, so it will naturally be higher in states with larger older and low income populations. Any assertion that political representation is a determining factor of either a states share of FIT paid or its share of age/income based federal assistance is dishonest.

To use a dishonest rationale to "prove" another post to be dishonest, is hypocritical at best. What is certainly true is that liberals support income redistribution more than conservatives do, perhaps that was the argument being attempted, if not then here it is. ;)
 
Not to mention the figures include federal spending such as subsidies which are also to support folks outside the subsidy area. For instance, something like 80% of the foods in your local grocery store have corn in them. If corn subsidies went away, the food costs for everyone would soar.

Also, this isn't so much about red and blue anymore, but urban and rural centers. Without the rural support the urban could not survive.
 
clownboy said:
If corn subsidies went away, the food costs for everyone would soar.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure. Where do the money for the subsidies come from anyway?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
To use a dishonest rationale to "prove" another post to be dishonest, is hypocritical at best. What is certainly true is that liberals support income redistribution more than conservatives do, perhaps that was the argument being attempted, if not then here it is. ;)
Click to expand...

I only assert that many "red" states are net takers. You'd think that if conservatives supported liberals, it would be the other way around.

As far as income redistribution goes: Republicans do support that, it just depends on who gets the redistributed income. I know though, that Republican =/= Conservative and I don't want this to devolve into a "no true Scotsman" thing. However, many conservatives vote Republican, so I'd argue that they support it by their votes even if they don't like it.
 
rocket88 said:
I only assert that many "red" states are net takers. You'd think that if conservatives supported liberals, it would be the other way around.

As far as income redistribution goes: Republicans do support that, it just depends on who gets the redistributed income. I know though, that Republican =/= Conservative and I don't want this to devolve into a "no true Scotsman" thing. However, many conservatives vote Republican, so I'd argue that they support it by their votes even if they don't like it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I often support republicants myself, that I do not completely agree with, yet the demorat alternative is far worse. We are offered very little in the way of candidates that would actully cut any income redistribution nonsense, so I vote for those that are simply less likely to add more of it.

Using the current "income redistribution" outcome statistics to paint republicants as being bigger takers by including SS in it is not being very fair either, unless you consider intergenerational redistribution as a bad thing. If you find a particular gov't policy not to your liking than argue aganst it, but to simply assert that all politicians are equally guilty gets us nowhere.

I still see well defined policy differences between the two major parties and vote accordingly, while still hoping that both will stop the endless use of deficit spending and get something that they oppose federal spending on actually cut back.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Case more to the point: MS (red) gets $2.73 back but WV (blue) gets $2.83 back. The average difference is .25 (all blue vs. all red) in favor of the red states. What is ignored, of course, is that southern states are more red than northern states, yet retirees favor the warmer, lower cost southern states for their retirement life; naturally retirees get lots of federal money SS/Medicare yet pay very little taxes. Hmm...
Click to expand...

Is this weighted by population?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I still see well defined policy differences between the two major parties and vote accordingly, while still hoping that both will stop the endless use of deficit spending and get something that they oppose federal spending on actually cut back.
Click to expand...

There's differences, but the main ones I see are social issues. Gay marriage, etc...I'm pretty liberal on those things.

As far as the things that really make a huge difference, like government power, taxes, spending...there isn't a big difference. Republicans favor more military spending and less social spending, and they favor things like subsidizing oil companies. Democrats favor subsidizing auto companies and favor less military and more social spending. Both sides favor more taxes if it's proposed by one of their guys. Both parties would do the wiretapping and drone surveillance. I just can't see where voting for one over the other makes that much of a difference.
 
pinqy said:
But it's important in the determination as to whether or not a State in rebellion IS an independent country. A huge point of Texas v White was the question as to whether or not Texas was independent of the United States from 1861-1865.
And their conclusion was
In other words, a State simply declaring itself independent does not make it independent (as a matter of law).
Click to expand...

But again, a independent Texas doesnt care what the US Supreme Court says. Once they declare independence, they no longer have to follow US law.
 
jonny5 said:
But again, a independent Texas doesnt care what the US Supreme Court says. Once they declare independence, they no longer have to follow US law.
Click to expand...

Except declaring themselves independent does not make them independent so and the Federal government and other states have the right to supress rebellion, which is what unilaterally declaring themselves independent would be. You can declare your house an independent country if you want to, but it would be meaningless. And a state declaring itself independent is likewise meaningless.
 
rocket88 said:
The difference with Chechens and Texans is that Chechens are a different nationality than Russians. .......
Click to expand...

Not according to Putin and the Russian government.

rocket88 said:
I'd be hard pressed to think of another way the slaves would have been freed. Even gradual abolition plans would have left some people in slavery until the 1900's. The real motivation wasn't to free the slaves, but don't fool yourself - slavery is really what the Civil War was about.
Click to expand...

International pressure probably would have killed off slavery in the Confederate States fairly soon (of course, not soon enough if you are a slave).
Brazil was the last country to abolish slavery in the western hemisphere, which they did in 1888. If the abolition of slavery in the south was voluntary, instead of being imposed by what they consider outside occupiers, perhaps the anti-African American backlash and resulting lynchings and Jim Crow laws etc. wouldn't have occurred.
 
Hard Truth said:
Not according to Putin and the Russian government.
Click to expand...

Even the Russian government recognizes Chechens as one of the constituent nations of the multi-ethnic Federation. Same as the Tatars, the Bashkirs...there's a lot of nationalities in Russia that have their own religion, their own culture, and their own language. The same cannot be said for Texas.

International pressure probably would have killed off slavery in the Confederate States fairly soon (of course, not soon enough if you are a slave).
Brazil was the last country to abolish slavery in the western hemisphere, which they did in 1888. If the abolition of slavery in the south was voluntary, instead of being imposed by what they consider outside occupiers, perhaps the anti-African American backlash and resulting lynchings and Jim Crow laws etc. wouldn't have occurred.
Click to expand...

That's a common argument among slavery's apologists. The institution of slavery was not as entrenched elsewhere as it was in the south with the possible exception of Haiti (which didn't exactly work out so well for the white population). EVERYTHING was based on slavery in the South. Economy, culture, livelihood...in the American South the most valuable property short of the land was the slaves. Think about that for a second. Except for your land (and in some cases, including your land), the most valuable resource you had was your slaves. They were just going to give it up? Of course not. Eventually, slavery would have been unprofitable and ended, but considering how long sharecropping lasted, it wasn't going to be soon. If the abolition of slavery in the South were voluntary, there might still be slaves.
 
pinqy said:
Except declaring themselves independent does not make them independent so and the Federal government and other states have the right to supress rebellion, which is what unilaterally declaring themselves independent would be. You can declare your house an independent country if you want to, but it would be meaningless. And a state declaring itself independent is likewise meaningless.
Click to expand...

Meaningless to the US. Which is irrelevant to Texas (in this hypothetical). Youre trying to convince me that the US interpretation of its own law is right. I say its wrong. There is no way to convince each other. So my point is, what the US law says is irrelevant. If Texas can enforce its independence, then its moot. Obviously is the US doesnt recognize someone unalienable right to be free and are willing to kill them to deny them freedom, then might makes right.
 
Last edited:
Canell said:
Yeah, sure. Where do the money for the subsidies come from anyway?
Click to expand...

Well, for the past decade or so, that would be [borrowed from] China. :mrgreen:
 
rocket88 said:
Even the Russian government recognizes Chechens as one of the constituent nations of the multi-ethnic Federation. Same as the Tatars, the Bashkirs...there's a lot of nationalities in Russia that have their own religion, their own culture, and their own language. The same cannot be said for Texas.
Click to expand...

For me, the language, history and culture of Texas is irrelevant. If a clear majority of the residents want to secede, I believe that it should be their right to decide. Usually the truth is that secession is opposed because of the valuable resources in the seceding territory.

rocket88 said:
That's a common argument among slavery's apologists. The institution of slavery was not as entrenched elsewhere as it was in the south with the possible exception of Haiti (which didn't exactly work out so well for the white population). EVERYTHING was based on slavery in the South. Economy, culture, livelihood...in the American South the most valuable property short of the land was the slaves. Think about that for a second. Except for your land (and in some cases, including your land), the most valuable resource you had was your slaves. They were just going to give it up? Of course not. Eventually, slavery would have been unprofitable and ended, but considering how long sharecropping lasted, it wasn't going to be soon. If the abolition of slavery in the South were voluntary, there might still be slaves.
Click to expand...

I'm not informed enough to get into this history in detail, so I'll acknowledge that you may be right. However, my point is, war is incredibly destructive, and its impossible to foresee how it will work out. In my opinion, war is rarely worthwhile to prevent secession. Also, because the fight is often actually about access to resources, other reasons for the fight are routinely trumped up to justify preventing a region from seceding. For example, Lincoln used the Emancipation proclamation to motivate greater enthusiasm for the war.

"The Proclamation did not apply to the five slave states that were not in rebellion, nor to most regions already controlled by the Union army; emancipation there would come after separate state actions and/or the December 1865 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which made slavery illegal everywhere in the U.S. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.[1]

.....The Proclamation outraged white Southerners who envisioned a race war, angered some Northern Democrats, energized anti-slavery forces, and weakened forces in Europe that wanted to intervene to help the Confederacy....
Wikipedia
 
Hard Truth said:
For me, the language, history and culture of Texas is irrelevant. If a clear majority of the residents want to secede, I believe that it should be their right to decide. Usually the truth is that secession is opposed because of the valuable resources in the seceding territory.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but it still creates a different situation.



I'm not informed enough to get into this history in detail, so I'll acknowledge that you may be right. However, my point is, war is incredibly destructive, and its impossible to foresee how it will work out. In my opinion, war is rarely worthwhile to prevent secession. Also, because the fight is often actually about access to resources, other reasons for the fight are routinely trumped up to justify preventing a region from seceding. For example, Lincoln used the Emancipation proclamation to motivate greater enthusiasm for the war.

"The Proclamation did not apply to the five slave states that were not in rebellion, nor to most regions already controlled by the Union army; emancipation there would come after separate state actions and/or the December 1865 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which made slavery illegal everywhere in the U.S. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.[1]

.....The Proclamation outraged white Southerners who envisioned a race war, angered some Northern Democrats, energized anti-slavery forces, and weakened forces in Europe that wanted to intervene to help the Confederacy....
Wikipedia
Click to expand...

There's no doubt that Lincoln's primary motive was not to free the slaves, but to preserve the Union. Yes, the Proclamation was a war measure. That doesn't change the "right" or lack thereof to secede.
 
Is there an argument (not based on federal law) against the right to self determination that would not apply to opposing the right of the American colonies to secede from Great Britain in 1776? In other words, why was it OK for the American British colonies to seek independence, but not Texas? (assuming a majority of Texans support independence)
 
clownboy said:
Well, for the past decade or so, that would be [borrowed from] China. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

So, do you agree subsidies are wrong or it's OK to borrow money from China to prop up food prices?
 
Hard Truth said:
Is there an argument (not based on federal law) against the right to self determination that would not apply to opposing the right of the American colonies to secede from Great Britain in 1776? In other words, why was it OK for the American British colonies to seek independence, but not Texas? (assuming a majority of Texans support independence)
Click to expand...

Why should we stop at the state level? If a majority in any area want to secede, why shouldn't they be able to? Why shouldn't Orange County, Florida be able to secede from the Union? How about, Los Angeles County, California? Why shouldn't we be able to define our own area that may want to secede, and not follow any existing political boundaries? How many people should have be in an area before it is has the "right" to secede? Can Wyoming secede? What do we do about the obligations which the secessionists are a party to, such as national debts? This is especially important if the seceding area is a significant portion of the population. What if Washington, Oregon and California want to secede? That would be a lot of people who suddenly would have off loaded their obligations to those left behind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom