• 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
As a fellow Texan, I don't mean to offend anyone's "Pristine Republican Esq View of Texas" yet anyone who thinks that these Hard-Blue Democrat voting blocs that voted for Obama twice are going to "Support Secession" is simply naive. They will not (and do not). They'd instantly request military aid from the US and the US military aid would be near immediate.

M2cKFOL.png


You cannot have secession without unanimous support overall which you do not have even remotely so.

no one has even given a reason for the secession occurring and here you are arguing it wouldn't have support as if it is fact...

you tell us, what is the reason for secession that you have running around in your head?.... share it with us so we can all be on the same page.
 
it's cute that you believe a decision to peacefully and democratically secede is dependent on race and political party afiliation... and it's super cute you accusing others of lacking logic.

Oh good sir no!

I'm all for equality and harmony. I think good sir you simply don't like the reality that Texas isn't this nepotistic GOP stronghold where everyone wants to secede as you claim. The people of Houston, Austin, Dallas and San Antonio Texas as well as others would immediately ask for US military assistance so as the traitors could be executed.
 
The break would not be amicable. There is no way around that. You do not maintain your training bases in another country. You do not maintain a good portion of your military in another country on a regular, permanent basis. These things would take money to change.

Then on the other side, most Texans do not realize nearly the costs that would incur trying to set up a sovereign nation, including setting up the various systems and agencies in place already thanks to the US government. There's the military, including new equipment costs and paying for bases. There would be obvious questions about those from Texas in military service in the US military (they signed contracts, and many of the career service members would be expensive to pay for if Texas offered to buy out their contracts, offering them equal time for their service to retirement). Then there's the post office, foreign embassies, spy networks (lord knows those would be necessary), and so many more. And there is very little reason that the US government would not demand that Texas compensate them for "national land". Establishing a currency takes money. Texas would have to provide their own border patrol, TSA type agency, drug enforcement type agency, and other agencies for things that the US government usually deals with.

the bolded is in direct contravention to the spirit and letter of this thread... there are other threads on the subject matter that do not include a "peaceful secession" scenario.....
 
Oh good sir no!

I'm all for equality and harmony. I think good sir you simply don't like the reality that Texas isn't this nepotistic GOP stronghold where everyone wants to secede as you claim. The people of Houston, Austin, Dallas and San Antonio Texas as well as others would immediately ask for US military assistance so as the traitors could be executed.

first, don't lie about what I have claimed... I have not claimed any amount of people would support anything

2nd, it's super-uber-cute how you pretend to be for equality and harmony, and then directly call for the execution of traitors ... in a hypothetical scenario of peaceful secession that you have utterly warped into whatever sick bloodlust fantasy is running through you head.

I have said nothign of the GOP or any other party... I haven't brought partisanship up whatsoever...you're the only one bringing up race and party.
you must be so very proud to be the one person in here focused on race.:roll:
 
this i don't understand...who cares...would they be violating the rights of their Citizens,.... should be the concern

That's what I am saying. Texas already pays the lowest wages in the country....they could pay even lower third world wages if they seceded and didn't have to worry about paying minimum wage.
 
first, don't lie about what I have claimed... I have not claimed any amount of people would support anything

2nd, it's super-uber-cute how you pretend to be for equality and harmony, and then directly call for the execution of traitors ... in a hypothetical scenario of peaceful secession that you have utterly warped into whatever sick bloodlust fantasy is running through you head.

I have said nothign of the GOP or any other party... I haven't brought partisanship up whatsoever...you're the only one bringing up race and party.
you must be so very proud to be the one person in here focused on race.:roll:


Me focused on race?



You want to turn a state of another country into a "Blue Blood Banker/Oil Money Oligarchy" and you're claiming I'm the racist? Pretty heavy into the cool aid eh?



You don't even know how impracticable the entire notion of secession is economically for Texas.

-All the Texas oil industry investments are done through US banks, often northern owned.

-A huge % of Texans are employed by the Federal govt directly and indirectly via military and other means.


You'd have no support to secede. That qualifies as a traitor. Traitors are executed good sir in accordance with US law. I'm not advocating any person be executed. US law is.
 
the bolded is in direct contravention to the spirit and letter of this thread... there are other threads on the subject matter that do not include a "peaceful secession" scenario.....

First, you didn't bold anything.

However, I'll address this anyway. The OP scenario only says that Texas voted peacefully and democratically to secede. In other words, this wasn't a small group of people that went in and took over Texas violently, and then forced the secession vote. Or there was fighting among the people of Texas to either break away or not. There is no way your "the US lets them go peacefully without threat of war or troops sent in" scenario is likely to occur without some serious changes to our national government as well as the viewpoints of many people, as well as some serious changes to the US's military and other interests, which are currently in Texas.
 
Not really that stupid of an idea, Texas has a balanced budget, and just about every natural resource a nation could be blessed with.
And a heavy reliance on federal funded infrastructure
 
exactly...

a peaceful secession inherently means a diplomatic agreement has been reached with the other states through some mechanism or another.
if no agreement such agreement is reached, then we're no longer talking about a peaceful secession.

too many folks here go right to civil war, slaughter, sanctions, nuclear subs ..blablabla... do not pass go, do not collect $200.

above all, it's hypothetical.. and academic exercise.... and people are still losing their ****

You are the one who misread the OP. There was no mention of anything outside of Texas being peaceful, only inside Texas. It was even clarified right there in the OP that he was discussing that the secession was peaceful from inside Texas.

There simply is no way that we, the US, would agree to allowing Texas to secede without some major changes to US interests changing, including some redistributing of those several bases in Texas, some other sources of oil found outside of Texas as well as more refineries set up outside of Texas. I'm looking at this from a logical standpoint.

But really this goes for any state, not just Texas. I would not support any of them seceding, and I would especially not support the US as a whole allowing one or a few states to secede. Honestly, I like this country so I don't want it to break apart, so I wouldn't support the entire thing or major portions of states breaking off either. I think this would be a very bad thing for everyone to do. There are way too many families spread out across the country. There would be so many issues. One state a person goes through they have certain laws, but then the very next state changes to different laws. And this wouldn't be the minor law changes we have now, but huge differences. We have a state that still has segregation in its state constitution. Many states still have laws against sodomy. Other states have laws on the books that are only unenforceable due to SCOTUS rulings.
 
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?
I'm strictly neutral as a foreigner and haven't voted. (I didn't understand the third option on the poll anyway - bumber something?!)

There have been some comparisons with Scotland though Scotland had a long history as an independent nation before union with England in 1707 and has retained its character as a nation since then in many ways, both politically and culturally, despite being fused into the UK. I know that Texas once was an independent nation for a short time however, from my limited perspective across the pond, its people seem to share substantially the same culture and common national identity with the rest of the USA. Is it fair to say that differences are really no more than regional?

Of course, a big enough and powerful enough region can secede if it wants, irrespective of the usual list of criteria for nationhood. But would Texans be content enough if the rest of the USA did more to acknowledge their special identity, and cause desires for independence to subside?
 
Actually that doesn't even make sense. (in typical secessionist fashion)



Texas's economy would simply crash. The US govt. would not recognize any Texas currency (it wouldn't matter as it'd be worthless) which means Texas would have no economy. Though the US wouldn't even have to do that. Texas would simply break up into regional factions. It would basically have no Southern border. The blacks and Mexicans would burn down completely the city of Houston (economic hub of Texas) once their Federal benefits stopped coming in.


Your premise makes no sense. No US ally would recognize a "Texas currency".

Not only that. I don't think you realize that historically speaking the Confederacy was an economically Communist Esq bloc in how it functioned. It forced its members to give it resources. Many a university professor with a Communist slant romanticizes that the Southern Confederacy was true, "Pure" Communism (and it sorta was).

Texas produces $264bn worth of exports. They would be the 14th largest economy in the world. Its just as likely as a crash, that were they a free state, there would be a surge of business into Texas to take advantage of the economic freedom, much like Ireland. They would still be exporting Oil, which alone accounts for $125 billion.
 
If that were to happen, I would expect to see even more giant Texas flags flying in Texas. I'm not even sure if it is possible, but I'd invest some stock in flag pole manufacturers.
 
Me focused on race?
yes.. you... and you have so far been incapable of explaining why



You want to turn a state of another country into a "Blue Blood Banker/Oil Money Oligarchy" and you're claiming I'm the racist? Pretty heavy into the cool aid eh?
what on earth are you babbling about?... I've said nothing about what i want.. you're simply projecting.
I didn't say you are a racist... I said you are focusing on race....

I don't do Kool-aid...I've seen what lefties do with it... it's not good.



You don't even know how impracticable the entire notion of secession is economically for Texas.
be wary of telling me what I know.... you'll often find yourself on the wrong side of the truth.

if you are incapable of discussing hypothetical, just bow out and be done..

-All the Texas oil industry investments are done through US banks, often northern owned.
so what?... if a peaceful secession is realized, Texas would simply charter banks .. like every other nation on earth.
US banks would transact with those banks, like they do every other bank on earth...
-A huge % of Texans are employed by the Federal govt directly and indirectly via military and other means.
I'm not sure what the percentage is.. but you are no doubt overstating it as "huge"...
but yes, there are federal employees and military members.... they would all have a choice of whether or not to remain US citizens.
that choice would be made through whatever Democratic mechanism was chosen to address the issue of secession... if they want their federal govt jobs, they'd most likely vote 'no' on secession.

however,the scenario in the OP has a secession vote being won by the secessionists... so it's a moot point.


You'd have no support to secede. That qualifies as a traitor. Traitors are executed good sir in accordance with US law. I'm not advocating any person be executed. US law is.
treason has a very specific meaning.. a meaning you obviously do not understand.
if a civil war occurred, the argument can be made for treason... but as we are talking about a peaceful secession, a treason charge is inapplicable....
so either you are willfully ignoring the OP, willfully ignoring the law, or you are simply letting your bloodlust override your rationality.... or a combination of all 3.
 
I'm strictly neutral as a foreigner and haven't voted. (I didn't understand the third option on the poll anyway - bumber something?!)

There have been some comparisons with Scotland though Scotland had a long history as an independent nation before union with England in 1707 and has retained its character as a nation since then in many ways, both politically and culturally, despite being fused into the UK. I know that Texas once was an independent nation for a short time however, from my limited perspective across the pond, its people seem to share substantially the same culture and common national identity with the rest of the USA. Is it fair to say that differences are really no more than regional?

Of course, a big enough and powerful enough region can secede if it wants, irrespective of the usual list of criteria for nationhood. But would Texans be content enough if the rest of the USA did more to acknowledge their special identity, and cause desires for independence to subside?

excellent points...
the reason behind a secession aren't really being explored in this scenario, but yes..Texas does have commonality with a good portion of the rest of the states( whether US liberals/progressives would admit it or not).. so I doubt such a secession would be based in culture or identity... such an occurrence, in my mind, would have to be hastened by either economic or political factors that have "got out of hand".

from my perspective as a transplant ( I'm not a native Texan) it strikes me that Texans don't really want special recognition for their identity as much as they would prefer a lot less federal meddling in their state affairs... coupled with a lot more federal meddling in federal affairs ( the border issue come immediately to mind).

personally,I think Texans overstate their "independent" streak...which is fine, to a point... but they don't seem to realize that's also a commonality.
hell, there are states in New England that have fierce independent streaks... and western states as well ( my home state of Nevada , due to longstanding and overbearing federal meddling, has a very strong independent streak that makes even Texas look weak in comparison)... the difference being that Texas would easily survive a secession and still be a powerhouse economy.. Nevada, and many other states, would perish immediately (due to a distinct lack of resources)
 
First, you didn't bold anything.

However, I'll address this anyway. The OP scenario only says that Texas voted peacefully and democratically to secede. In other words, this wasn't a small group of people that went in and took over Texas violently, and then forced the secession vote. Or there was fighting among the people of Texas to either break away or not. There is no way your "the US lets them go peacefully without threat of war or troops sent in" scenario is likely to occur without some serious changes to our national government as well as the viewpoints of many people, as well as some serious changes to the US's military and other interests, which are currently in Texas.

so you aren't capable of discussion a hypothetical peaceful secession.. .got it.

moving on...
 
excellent points...
the reason behind a secession aren't really being explored in this scenario, but yes..Texas does have commonality with a good portion of the rest of the states( whether US liberals/progressives would admit it or not).. so I doubt such a secession would be based in culture or identity... such an occurrence, in my mind, would have to be hastened by either economic or political factors that have "got out of hand".

from my perspective as a transplant ( I'm not a native Texan) it strikes me that Texans don't really want special recognition for their identity as much as they would prefer a lot less federal meddling in their state affairs... coupled with a lot more federal meddling in federal affairs ( the border issue come immediately to mind).

personally,I think Texans overstate their "independent" streak...which is fine, to a point... but they don't seem to realize that's also a commonality.
hell, there are states in New England that have fierce independent streaks... and western states as well ( my home state of Nevada , due to longstanding and overbearing federal meddling, has a very strong independent streak that makes even Texas look weak in comparison)... the difference being that Texas would easily survive a secession and still be a powerhouse economy.. Nevada, and many other states, would perish immediately (due to a distinct lack of resources)
Ok. Thanks for reply. I guess the tension between federal rights and state rights is an enduring one, and from what I know, it would not be possible for one state to claim or be ceded more autonomy than other states.

I suppose I compare the situation with the EU where age-old sovereign nation states are being pushed down the road of rapid convergence, despite huge differences in culture, language, economic maturity and political systems. That said, who dares wins - if Texans want independence, then good luck to them.
 
The supporters of secessions notions that "The US would allow one of its largest economies to leave" says it all about this entire ideas intellectual capacity.

This hypothetical is second grade level naivety at best to how things would play out.
 
To understand why the answer is NO a person only has to look at Eastern Europe, the Middle East and even the European Union.

The smaller an entity is, the more vulnerable it is to invasion and revolution, subject to the whims of MAJOR powers, and the worse off it's economy becomes.

Why just Texas? Why not every county in Texas being it's own country? Or every town? Or what about my own house and property being my own country? Why can't I do that? Why not abolish all government and declare each person is their own country and their own nation?

Yeah, it sounds cool to some to say the Confederates should have had their own country, arguing some zealotry zippyhead head ideological slogans - pretending then reality MUST exist consistent with it because it is so philosophically corrrect.

It would be the coolness of Germany and Japan winning WWII cool or, if not, the USSR having come to dominate the world.

Historically, for thousands of years, none federalized regions were militarily defeated and, often, totally erased from history's future. EMPIRES can last a long time. Tiny countries do not.
 
The supporters of secessions notions that "The US would allow one of its largest economies to leave" says it all about this entire ideas intellectual capacity.

This hypothetical is second grade level naivety at best to how things would play out.

ideas do not have intellectual capacity...

here, I'll help....I'll translate your first sentence into something resembling a meaningful statement.

the secessionist notion of "The US would allow one of its largest economies to leave" says everything about the intellectual validity of the idea of Texas seceding.

there... that's better... it's simply an opinion, but at least it now makes sense.


as with anyone else.. if you are incapable of entertaining the hypothetical scenario posed in the OP, you are free to take yourself, and your allegedly superior intellectual capacity, and exit the conversation.
 
To understand why the answer is NO a person only has to look at Eastern Europe, the Middle East and even the European Union.

The smaller an entity is, the more vulnerable it is to invasion and revolution, subject to the whims of MAJOR powers, and the worse off it's economy becomes.

Why just Texas? Why not every county in Texas being it's own country? Or every town? Or what about my own house and property being my own country? Why can't I do that? Why not abolish all government and declare each person is their own country and their own nation?

Yeah, it sounds cool to some to say the Confederates should have had their own country, arguing some zealotry zippyhead head ideological slogans - pretending then reality MUST exist consistent with it because it is so philosophically corrrect.

It would be the coolness of Germany and Japan winning WWII cool or, if not, the USSR having come to dominate the world.

Historically, for thousands of years, none federalized regions were militarily defeated and, often, totally erased from history's future. EMPIRES can last a long time. Tiny countries do not.

there's lots of very small countries that would like to have a word with you...;)
 
Ok. Thanks for reply. I guess the tension between federal rights and state rights is an enduring one, and from what I know, it would not be possible for one state to claim or be ceded more autonomy than other states.

I suppose I compare the situation with the EU where age-old sovereign nation states are being pushed down the road of rapid convergence, despite huge differences in culture, language, economic maturity and political systems. That said, who dares wins - if Texans want independence, then good luck to them.

there's a small contingent of Texans who would like their independence... but there's no solid popular movement towards that end...this is primarily an academic exercise, a hypothetical.

I'll argue on the side of Texas secession ( more accurately, their right to secede), but if it somehow came to an actual vote today, I'd vote no....there exists nothing , in my opinion, that would necessitate secession at this time.
for all of the issue we deal with, Texas still benefits the union, and the union still benefits Texas.
 
so Texans don't want to be Americans anymore.......that says a mouthful right there confederate tea party.....lol no the feds are not going to give up any real estate sorry
 
Back
Top Bottom