• 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
a legal right...is a "privilege" under constitutional law.

the constitution has natural rights and privileges, and nothing else

and still every right you have is given to you by others or taken by yourself

all of those natural rights are man made
 
That is absurd beyond belief. Each article and each bit of information in Wikipedia stands on its own. One does NOT make the others accurate nor reliable.

That is really a ridiculous argument you just pushed.

you have stated wikipeade is a verifiable source...


Which effectively gave women across the nation the right to vote.

read this

19th Amendment - Women’s History - HISTORY.com



There is no argument about this among rational people looking at these events objectively and through a prism of reality.

you have stated wikipedia is a verifiable source...now when you don't like what it says you act as thought its.... irrelevant

no it did not ... it guaranteed woman the vote by prohibiting the making of laws which were made in the past that denied women the vote .

and congress is shall have the power to [write federal legislation] enforce this article by appropriate legislation
 
Last edited:
and still every right you have is given to you by others or taken by yourself

all of those natural rights are man made

wrong...in the constitution there are natural rights and privileges...only

privileges today are called civil rights/legal rights...these are created by man, and called positive law.

natural rights are not created by man, but only recognized by man, and are not positive law.

privileges are created in statute law..no were in statute will you find a natural right for speech, prayer., protest, firearm, privacy.
 
I don't see democrat minorities in Texas being that vocal, to be honest. Perhaps in Austin, however Austin is a small drop in a big bucket.

I agree that the rest of the United States would inevitably shift to the left if Texas and its electoral votes were removed from the equation. In a sense, that's the win/win scenario created by having two separate governments instead of jamming everyone in to one.


You forget though that Texas is dominated by a radical State GOP that gerrymanders and suppresses the Texas Hard Blue Democrat bloc of Southern Texas and of Urban Texas.

The average Texas GOP person is borderline delusional at just how blind they are to the geopolitical realities of South Texas and Urban Texas (I know as I live in Texas and have all my life, Texas GOP are some of the most bubbled people on earth politically. A Russian Communist is more open minded). Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin all are Hard Blue Democrat voters. All of South Texas is hard blue Democrat voters. (Most Texas GOP don't even know this they're so hard headed and politically blind with power).



That's the real kicker. Secession arguments from Texas GOP are like a 20 year old trying to lecture the CEO of a major company on how they should operate the company. They don't actually know what they're talking about but they're over confident and so politically bubbled via Texas GOP gerrymandering and dominance that they don't really have any context to what they're arguing for. They're simply going off vague idealism's based entirely on their "Texas GOP Bubble World of Ignorance on Texas Itself".


The sad truth (and it truly does pain me to say this as a Texan myself) is that the average Texas GOP person, and I'm talking people working at JP Morgan making good money (I know I've talked to them), do not know at all almost anything about Texas politically outside their Ultra GOP Red social circles and entente. They firmly believe all of Texas or enough of it is GOP and would support anything they say. These are people sitting in a Hard Democrat blue city such as Houston saying and thinking this stuff. They're totally clueless.
 
Last edited:
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?

Greetings, Peter Grimm. :2wave:

Would I need a special passport or something to visit my children and their families who live there? I sure wouldn't want to be considered an illegal alien! When I've discussed this with them, I did ask what they would do about having an Army or other defense if they were invaded, and I was jokingly told that everyone in Texas, from age five on up, is armed, so that wouldn't be a problem. :lamo:

I do recall that several years ago this was mentioned by people who look at long term trends, and they saw the US eventually splitting up into five or six different "countries," depending upon where you were located, and Texas would have been grouped in with the SW sector, as an example. A Mad Max movie come to life here in America?
 
the constitution is about powers...it does not grant any rights.

It most certainly does and I already gave you several examples including rights contained in the Sixth Amendment and the various right to vote provisions.
 
you have stated wikipedia is a verifiable source...now when you don't like what it says you act as thought its.... irrelevant

no it did not ... it guaranteed woman the vote by prohibiting the making of laws which were made in the past that denied women the vote .

and congress is shall have the power to [write federal legislation] enforce this article by appropriate legislation

Each article on Wikipedia stands on its own. You do not judge the content of one by a different article.

If there was no 19th Amendment, would women have voted in every state in the 1920's elections? That change was only made possible by the passage of the 19th Amendment which effectively gave women the right to vote.
 
Well, that would solve America's border problem, wouldn't it. America could pull it's resources like border patrol out, and make Texans or Texicans responsible.
But what would Texas do about federal funding to close their budget gaps? Raise their own tax dollars?

Texas Used Stimulus to Cover 97% of Its Deficit - The Atlantic

issue their own currency, charter their own banks,...and yes, they would indeed tax their citizens in some form or fashion.
all of that would be a necessity, just like it is for any other nation on earth.
 
issue their own currency, charter their own banks,...and yes, they would indeed tax their citizens in some form or fashion.
all of that would be a necessity, just like it is for any other nation on earth.

and what would happen to the share of the national debt that Texans owe? What would happen to social security benefits Texans have been working towards?
 
and what would happen to the share of the national debt that Texans owe? What would happen to social security benefits Texans have been working towards?

that's the stuff that diplomats would need to work out.... among many many other details.

btw, what is Texas's share of the national debt?... do you have that number handy for us?
as far as I know, we don't divide up the national debt by states... obviously you know something the rest of us do not.
 
that's the stuff that diplomats would need to work out.... among many many other details.

btw, what is Texas's share of the national debt?... do you have that number handy for us?

I would imagine you would take the share of the US population made up by Texans in the latest census count and figure out a percentage of the debt that way.

But your inability to provide answers to a couple of rather simple questions indicates that the problems that would arise are not assemble as session supporters would lead us to believe.

I wonder how many Texans would support secession if they were informed it meant not getting social security as well as paying their share of the debt?
 
I'm unclear what you mean by saying natural rights are "man made"... can you explain that?

Speaking as someone who has debated this more than once, I suspect it means that the theory was made up by man. If it means something else, I await the answer from blarg.
 
it most certainly does and i already gave you several examples including rights contained in the sixth amendment and the various right to vote provisions.

wrong as usual, the bill for rights are restrictions on government power....not to create laws which would deny people a speedy public trial
 
each article on wikipedia stands on its own. You do not judge the content of one by a different article.

If there was no 19th amendment, would women have voted in every state in the 1920's elections? That change was only made possible by the passage of the 19th amendment which effectively gave women the right to vote.


why were women not able to vote?...because state laws prohibited them from voting.

The 19th prohibited those state laws from being valid, because congress wrote laws to bar states from further creating any such laws.
 
I would imagine you would take the share of the US population made up by Texans in the latest census count and figure out a percentage of the debt that way.
that would be a horrible way to divide it up....fundamentally unfair.

But your inability to provide answers to a couple of rather simple questions indicates that the problems that would arise are not assemble as session supporters would lead us to believe.
"simple" :lamo..dear god.... none of this is "simple"... not a damn bit of it.... go buy yourself a clue.

I wonder how many Texans would support secession if they were informed it meant not getting social security as well as paying their share of the debt?
I have no idea.... way too many variables involves to even guess.
 
Speaking as someone who has debated this more than once, I suspect it means that the theory was made up by man. If it means something else, I await the answer from blarg.

that's the only thing I can think of as well.... and it's an especially weak argument.
 
wrong...in the constitution there are natural rights and privileges...only

privileges today are called civil rights/legal rights...these are created by man, and called positive law.

natural rights are not created by man, but only recognized by man, and are not positive law.

privileges are created in statute law..no were in statute will you find a natural right for speech, prayer., protest, firearm, privacy.

Except in the front matter where one finds the Organic laws lol.
 
wrong as usual, the bill for rights are restrictions on government power....not to create laws which would deny people a speedy public trial

Excellent EB - you ignore both reality and the Constitution itself.
 
why were women not able to vote?...because state laws prohibited them from voting.

The 19th prohibited those state laws from being valid, because congress wrote laws to bar states from further creating any such laws.

The 19th effectively gave females the right to vote. There is no doubt about that in the rational mind of any thinking person who knows history.
 
that's the only thing I can think of as well.... and it's an especially weak argument.

TRUTH is never weak - it is always the trump card.
 
that would be a horrible way to divide it up....fundamentally unfair.


"simple" :lamo..dear god.... none of this is "simple"... not a damn bit of it.... go buy yourself a clue.

I have no idea.... way too many variables involves to even guess.

Why would it be unfair?
 
Back
Top Bottom