• 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
Obviously you thinking that creating a domestic currency is the cure all. You still can't see how the states have become truly a "union". There is genuinely a symbiotic relationship that you aren't acknowledging.

So be it. :shrug:

it's not a cure all.. but it sure as hell is a cure to the whole "not having money" thing.....

the "union" and how it operates is irrelevant....the hypothetical is entirely based on a peaceful split from the union and a formation of a new nation called "Texas"
 
it's not a cure all.. but it sure as hell is a cure to the whole "not having money" thing.....

the "union" and how it operates is irrelevant....the hypothetical is entirely based on a peaceful split from the union and a formation of a new nation called "Texas"

Alrighty then...we'll just have to agree to disagree. I won't be voting "for" if I'm ever faced with such a situation. I doubt it...but...
 
we institute government for the sole purpose to secure those natural rights....

if people created their own rights..then people would create rights to...food, water, shelter, the property of other people, and since they would have the power to create, that also means they have the power to deny or abolish rights for people.

which is why rights are not in the peoples hands.........because that would be dangerous thing.

just because we need government to secure rights docent mean there natural I argue that it shows their artificial

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

food water and shelter actually seem like decent rights to have

just because its scary or un pleasant to think of rights as made up and alterable doesn't make them any less so
 
Alrighty then...we'll just have to agree to disagree. I won't be voting "for" if I'm ever faced with such a situation. I doubt it...but...

:lol:.. there's really nothing to disagree about... if Texas splits, it will have it's own currency.. no doubt about it whatsoever.

if a vote came about, i'd vote "no" myself....though I do support the right for any state to secede if that's what they want.
(IMO, to not support the right is to be in direct opposition to the very principles we founded this union on , and strive to maintain.)
 
the constitution delgates general powers to the federal government, and off of those general powers the congress writes federal law/statutes.

no where is there a general power that grants the federal government authority over states....question?.... would the states have ratified the constitution if the constitution granted the federal government power to rule over them..No

they must have voted for some measure of rule that whatever appropriate under those general powers and the constitution gives us rights that the state governments cant take away
 
:lol:.. there's really nothing to disagree about... if Texas splits, it will have it's own currency.. no doubt about it whatsoever.

if a vote came about, i'd vote "no" myself....though I do support the right for any state to secede if that's what they want.
(IMO, to not support the right is to be in direct opposition to the very principles we founded this union on , and strive to maintain.)

Well, it's obvious it would have to create its own currency. It's on federal reserve - so to speak. There would have to be a method for creating wealth.

And I do understand "the striving to maintain" principle. Where we disagree is on how to achieve that.
 
yes, it's not uncommon to find folks online who desire a 1 party/1 ideology rule... though most are smart enough to understand why that's not a good thing.

That's not explicitly true. I find your Texas politicians most extreme and Ted Cruz is symptomatic of a crazed man gone completely out of his f*king mind. Cruz makes me want to throw up my breakfast, lunch and dinner. Look at your fanatical governor Abbott! I believe in equality, but draw the line when it comes to perversion politics like Cruz and Abbott. Shutting down the government because of Obamacare which was already the law of the land. Forcing people who live from paycheck to paycheck to lose their wages. Cruz is a cancer and I would pay gladly for him and Abbott to leave America. I don't have any love lost on Perry, the former governor, but he at least, doesn't come across as possessing a defective mind, but human with opinions different from mine.
 
just because we need government to secure rights docent mean there natural I argue that it shows their artificial

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

food water and shelter actually seem like decent rights to have

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

do you consider philosophy to be "man-made" and "artificial"?
 
That's not explicitly true. I find your Texas politicians most extreme and Ted Cruz is symptomatic of a crazed man gone completely out of his f*king mind. Cruz makes me want to throw up my breakfast, lunch and dinner. Look at your fanatical governor Abbott! I believe in equality, but draw the line when it comes to perversion politics like Cruz and Abbott. Shutting down the government because of Obamacare which was already the law of the land. Forcing people who live from paycheck to paycheck to lose their wages. Cruz is a cancer and I would pay gladly for him and Abbott to leave America. I don't have any love lost on Perry, the former governor, but he at least, doesn't come across as possessing a defective mind, but human with opinions different from mine.

well, at least you are down to merely showing irrational hatred for a couple of individuals rather than an entire party/ideology... that's progress.:)
 
"If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede." ~ Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

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

Wait and see.

well not with out a fight

I think succession is justified if the federal government doesn't hold up its end of the deal

if your rights get taken away and your no longer represented in government

ok that's one thing

but looking at the pole and who voted for what I get the feeling this is largely ultra conservative grumbling based on fear that their positions are becoming unpopular

really could be my own bias's their though the names I recognize are only the ones I disagree with a lot

and a lot of people might just really be in to sate rights
 
Well, it's obvious it would have to create its own currency. It's on federal reserve - so to speak. There would have to be a method for creating wealth.

And I do understand "the striving to maintain" principle. Where we disagree is on how to achieve that.

well, i'm sure we do disagree on how to maintain those principles... thought i'm pretty sure casting them entirely away is not the best method to preserve them... even if doing so serves some simple utilitarian purpose.

I mean, when we get right down to the meat and potatoes of the deal, we're talking about self-determination, we're talking about consent of the governed, the social contract..... that doesn't really mean you want to leave the union ( I don't, and neither do you) , only that you respect the right for people to do so if they so choose ( provided they do so following a just mechanism to reach a majority consensus followed by an amicable split)
 
do you consider philosophy to be "man-made" and "artificial"?

a man made study of the natural that may or may not get things right
 
well not with out a fight

I think succession is justified if the federal government doesn't hold up its end of the deal

if your rights get taken away and your no longer represented in government

ok that's one thing

but looking at the pole and who voted for what I get the feeling this is largely ultra conservative grumbling based on fear that their positions are becoming unpopular

really could be my own bias's their though the names I recognize are only the ones I disagree with a lot

and a lot of people might just really be in to sate rights


should include liberal grumbling because they don't like the way conservatives vote to that's just as bad

disgusting both sides

were not wining lets leave and

and they don't vote for what we like I hope they leave
 
well, at least you are down to merely showing irrational hatred for a couple of individuals rather than an entire party/ideology... that's progress.:)

It's illogical to hate a state* and it's not the state I hate but the governing politicians who control the state. And my dislike of your Cruz and new governor, Abbott, is not "irrational." I am not alone in that category. The fact you're unable to see this means YOU have a lot of progress to make.

*By the way, I simply adored the late former governor, Ann Richards.
 
well, at least you are down to merely showing irrational hatred for a couple of individuals rather than an entire party/ideology... that's progress.:)

I must admit I have a strong bias against right-wing Republicans who're consumed by the Tea Party. I am not too much of an ideologue and if shown a rational argument, can be persuaded. The Republican Party as it is today seems to lack a moral compass, the fact that they're willing to allow the American people to suffer by handicapping President Obama by obstructing everything he tries to do, like creating a bill for America's infrastructure, even things the GOP were once for. McConnell said at the beginning of Obama's first inauguration, that his aim was to make sure this newly elected president served only one term. Boy was that old man surprised when Obama won a second term! You wonder why I detest the current TeaPublicans?!
 
well, i'm sure we do disagree on how to maintain those principles... thought i'm pretty sure casting them entirely away is not the best method to preserve them... even if doing so serves some simple utilitarian purpose.

I mean, when we get right down to the meat and potatoes of the deal, we're talking about self-determination, we're talking about consent of the governed, the social contract..... that doesn't really mean you want to leave the union ( I don't, and neither do you) , only that you respect the right for people to do so if they so choose ( provided they do so following a just mechanism to reach a majority consensus followed by an amicable split)

I do get your gist, Thrilla.

The idea of the governors existing at the consent of the governed should be a vital concept with every nation (even though we know many don't believe in that concept). And we have to assume that within a given society, which subscribes to such a concept, there will be conflicts between people and between those who govern - about how this concept can be made into a reality.

We can't ignore our history.

The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was a document signed amongst the thirteen original colonies that established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states and served as its first constitution.[1] Its drafting by a committee appointed by the Second Continental Congress began on July 12, 1776, and an approved version was sent to the states for ratification in late 1777. The formal ratification by all thirteen states was completed in early 1781.

The "Perpetual Union" part was established for a reason. Statehood was a greatly respected institution then - as it is now. But the union of states formed a nation. The union has become enmeshed. It's works much like the saying, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". And it also reminds me of the saying, "no man is an island unto himself."

There was a social contract made ...along with a commitment...when it union was formed.

If the people of the union are unhappy with its state and/or central government - then there already exist a system to change it. The frustration among many is: Factions of people aren't coming together to effectively change it in a way that forms a more perfect union (based on the opinion of a majority faction). That is entirely on We The People. And we already know that our central government will resist any efforts to forcefully overthrow it. The same would be within any given state government.

To break the thread that binds us as a nation is a very risky ploy. Our interdependence is embedded in all of our social affairs. Self-determination can't happen when "self" become divided.

And again, we just have a different perspective on how to evoke social change. Succession is a drastic measure, in my opinion. And again, just my opinion, but I really believe that it could well damage self-determination given the length of time of the relationship between states and a central government.
 
It's illogical to hate a state* and it's not the state I hate but the governing politicians who control the state. And my dislike of your Cruz and new governor, Abbott, is not "irrational." I am not alone in that category. The fact you're unable to see this means YOU have a lot of progress to make.

*By the way, I simply adored the late former governor, Ann Richards.

I don't hate any US politician... even far left loonies.

ergo, I am not in need of progress :cool:
 
I must admit I have a strong bias against right-wing Republicans who're consumed by the Tea Party. I am not too much of an ideologue and if shown a rational argument, can be persuaded. The Republican Party as it is today seems to lack a moral compass, the fact that they're willing to allow the American people to suffer by handicapping President Obama by obstructing everything he tries to do, like creating a bill for America's infrastructure, even things the GOP were once for. McConnell said at the beginning of Obama's first inauguration, that his aim was to make sure this newly elected president served only one term. Boy was that old man surprised when Obama won a second term! You wonder why I detest the current TeaPublicans?!

"I'm not too much of an ideologue" isn't a compelling argument in light of the rest of your post.

that said,I have no use for either party.... both are chock full of ideologues who care only about one thing... the Party.
as for "moral compass" I feel the same way about both parties, though on different issues.

I don't feel either party has "high ground" when it comes to a moral compass.... the GOP can't seem to get out of our bedrooms, and the Democrats can't seem to get out of our wallets and business.... if both parties would simply wither and die, I'd be a happy camper and the country could once against make strides towards greatness.
though i will say i mind govt. in my wallet much more than i mind it in my bedroom... in very practical terms ,one I can escape, the other I can't.
 
Obviously you think that all of the social demands for funding (education, military, healthcare, etc), which are placed on the Texas government - does so mostly on its own revenues. I suggest you might spend some time finding out how much money flows into Texas via both the Federal General Funds and Discretionary Funds, which allows Texas to operate. The sovereignty of individual states exist because of the symbiotic relationships between all states and a central government.

Indeed. Where's the map that shows each state's ratio of federal taxes paid to benefits received?

really?....

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

Mafias and drug cartels could pass as a "government" by that standard.

Well, ultimately that is the very thing that would happen. All goods and services Texas would need - which comes from outside the state - would be shutdown by the Feds or even other states.

The same thing happened during the civil war. Most of the manufacturing of goods, especially goods made of steel and/or iron were milled in the north. Even cotton gin machinery was manufactured in the north. Actually machinery of all kinds were manufactured in the north. The majority of textile mills were in the north. The list goes on and on....

And it was difficult to get England to manufacture such goods for the south. England inventors created the primary means for the industrial revolution to happen in the US.

And now, since the majority of oil imports come from Canada...well, can you see a problem here for Texas? It cost a lot of money to drill. And where does the equipment come from that make drilling possible?

Though the South certainly had morale and surprisingly good military tactics early in the Civil War, it is my understanding that the lack of industry and materiel doomed them. They just couldn't keep up with the much stronger industrial base in the north.

I do get your gist, Thrilla.

The idea of the governors existing at the consent of the governed should be a vital concept with every nation (even though we know many don't believe in that concept). And we have to assume that within a given society, which subscribes to such a concept, there will be conflicts between people and between those who govern - about how this concept can be made into a reality.

We can't ignore our history.



The "Perpetual Union" part was established for a reason. Statehood was a greatly respected institution then - as it is now. But the union of states formed a nation. The union has become enmeshed. It's works much like the saying, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". And it also reminds me of the saying, "no man is an island unto himself."

There was a social contract made ...along with a commitment...when it union was formed.

If the people of the union are unhappy with its state and/or central government - then there already exist a system to change it. The frustration among many is: Factions of people aren't coming together to effectively change it in a way that forms a more perfect union (based on the opinion of a majority faction). That is entirely on We The People. And we already know that our central government will resist any efforts to forcefully overthrow it. The same would be within any given state government.

To break the thread that binds us as a nation is a very risky ploy. Our interdependence is embedded in all of our social affairs. Self-determination can't happen when "self" become divided.

And again, we just have a different perspective on how to evoke social change. Succession is a drastic measure, in my opinion. And again, just my opinion, but I really believe that it could well damage self-determination given the length of time of the relationship between states and a central government.

Good thoughts. James Madison sternly warned about the dangers of factions in Federalist No. 10. As I said earlier, I believe that nothing less than a constitutional amendment would be needed to establish a framework for secession procedures.
 
"I'm not too much of an ideologue" isn't a compelling argument in light of the rest of your post.

that said,I have no use for either party.... both are chock full of ideologues who care only about one thing... the Party.
as for "moral compass" I feel the same way about both parties, though on different issues.

I don't feel either party has "high ground" when it comes to a moral compass.... the GOP can't seem to get out of our bedrooms, and the Democrats can't seem to get out of our wallets and business.... if both parties would simply wither and die, I'd be a happy camper and the country could once against make strides towards greatness.
though i will say i mind govt. in my wallet much more than i mind it in my bedroom... in very practical terms ,one I can escape, the other I can't.

If there were any justice in our political system, the 2016 election would be Rand Paul vs. Bernie Sanders. But right now, my money is on Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton.
 
If there were any justice in our political system, the 2016 election would be Rand Paul vs. Bernie Sanders. But right now, my money is on Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton.

I wouldn't bet against you on that one...and i'm a bettin' man.
 
I do get your gist, Thrilla.

The idea of the governors existing at the consent of the governed should be a vital concept with every nation (even though we know many don't believe in that concept). And we have to assume that within a given society, which subscribes to such a concept, there will be conflicts between people and between those who govern - about how this concept can be made into a reality.
well, sure... conflicts will arise to be handled.
I'm not sure how "consent of the governed" can be strengthened , or even said to be respected, with the position of " you are not allowed ot leave, we will kill you if you try, no matter what you reason are".
I mean, really.. can anyone even pretend to support self-determination when there entire argument consists of denying it when it is sought?

We can't ignore our history.
sure we can.. we do it all the time.

we haven't become a near welfare/police state by paying attention to history, that's for goddman sure.



The "Perpetual Union" part was established for a reason. Statehood was a greatly respected institution then - as it is now. But the union of states formed a nation. The union has become enmeshed. It's works much like the saying, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". And it also reminds me of the saying, "no man is an island unto himself."

There was a social contract made ...along with a commitment...when it union was formed.
no argument here... well, except for the notion that Statehood is greatly respected.... it's perfectly obvious it's not.

If the people of the union are unhappy with its state and/or central government - then there already exist a system to change it. The frustration among many is: Factions of people aren't coming together to effectively change it in a way that forms a more perfect union (based on the opinion of a majority faction). That is entirely on We The People. And we already know that our central government will resist any efforts to forcefully overthrow it. The same would be within any given state government.
factions today have very good cause not to come together with other factions to enact social change...there will be no kumbayah monuments in our future.. not with the vast ideological divides within our borders.
I mean ,really, one of the major factions is actively marching us towards a one government welfare state where the people are mere subjects to the crown.. the other, a police state where it's citizens are mere cattle to be controlled in all aspects..
no major faction in this country has the desire or ability to " live and let be":.. not... one.

To break the thread that binds us as a nation is a very risky ploy. Our interdependence is embedded in all of our social affairs. Self-determination can't happen when "self" become divided.
and this is further proof Statehood is utterly disrespected.
but yes.. it is a risky ploy... History is replete with risky ploys geared towards benefiting those whom take he helm.
this nation of ours was born from the very principles folks in here vehemently oppose.... hell, it seems , by the poll, that we are split roughly in half... with one half being loyalists to the crown.

And again, we just have a different perspective on how to evoke social change. Succession is a drastic measure, in my opinion. And again, just my opinion, but I really believe that it could well damage self-determination given the length of time of the relationship between states and a central government.
well, yes.. it is a drastic measure.. and not one I would consent to at this time.
I don't see how exercising self determination can be seen as damaging self-determination... additionally, I don't feel a change of political blocs should inherently harm any relationship between the many governments, or the people.

it seems to me that those most opposed to even the idea of secession are getting pissy because they would lose control over the people of a state trying to secede... which ,oddly enough, is a pretty good reason for the people of said state to bail out.
 
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.
 
Those that think that secession is the way to fix anything, dont understand at all what the Constitution created. Nor do they understand the philosophy behind the US Constitution. But lets be honest the secessionists only see the US Constitution as a roadblock to their fantasies of imposing their will on all Americans. That is the point of neo-Confederates; domination once and for all.

Or maybe they just don't like America that much and would rather be a separate country.

And it is almost impossible for you to prove otherwise.
 
Back
Top Bottom