Petitions for secession in 15 states

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

FalloutJack:

spartan231490:
*Snerk*

Yeah, I'm sure the kid can up and leave and his parents won't object if he decides it on his own. That'll totally happen. I'm not even concerned here over who is right - though the whole issue IS silly in my eye - I'm just pointing out what'll happen. Any such action done without federal ratification will be seen as illegal and therefore null in void. Now, what is it called when a group of people decide to loudly declare that they are seceding from the union without permission from that union (aside from a repeat in history)? Treason. Texans are smarter than that, I'm sure. Again, I'm not saying anything about right or wrong. I'm looking at probable reactions. The reality is that if they do it, that it will not be pleasant no matter how you slice it.

You can't convict the majority of a state as treason, and even if they could they wouldn't because of public outcry. If Texas wants to go, the US won't be able to stop them without military action, and they'd never get support from the public for such an action.

spartan231490:
Snip

Can't say for certain, as that's up in the air, but I have another question:

The whole state isn't up for this. Only a good chunk of it. Doesn't that mean anyone who doesn't wanna be a part of it has to leave?

It's not going to happen. A petition by a small minority of the state's population does not a secession make. 25k signatures? 100k signatures out of several million? Doesn't matter, sure the petition can be put up for debate, but let's not kid ourselves, the movement does not have mainstream popularity.

FalloutJack:

spartan231490:
Snip

Can't say for certain, as that's up in the air, but I have another question:

The whole state isn't up for this. Only a good chunk of it. Doesn't that mean anyone who doesn't wanna be a part of it has to leave?

We have no way of knowing how many people are up for it, we only know how many have heard of and decided to sign this petition. However, the laws in Texas and therefore the lives of the people who live there will change very little, and this will mean that very few people there will care enough to leave, and for every one who leaves, I imagine a great many more would arrive. And this is no different than normal, if Texas passes a law that one of it's inhabitants dislikes strongly enough, their only way to get away from it is to leave the state, or to stay anyway, that's life. It's no different with this.

MammothBlade:
It's not going to happen. A petition by a small minority of the state's population does not a secession make. 25k signatures? 100k signatures out of several million? Doesn't matter, sure the petition can be put up for debate, but let's not kid ourselves, the movement does not have mainstream popularity.

They should put it on the next ballot to really find out.

spartan231490:
Poke

Hey, guy. I just found something relevant to the topic in another thread.

KingWein22:
According to msNOW:

After people in more than 20 states submitted petitions asking to secede from the union in the wake of the election, the other side has hit back with a seemingly tongue-in-cheek response of, "if you don't like it, leave." On Monday, someone called "Douglas H." of Escondido, Calif., filed a petition against the secessionist movement at the White House website, asking that everyone who signed the petitions be "peacefully deported." The deportation initiative has gone rabidly viral too, with amused Twitter users taunting, jeering, and signing away.

Added from Examiner.com:

Many critics and skeptics have pointed out that secession by these states would result in a variety of unintended consequences, including potential economic ruin for the affected citizens. One of the most populous states to file a secession petition, New York, received $3 billion in federal aid in 2010. Texas, in particular, has been cited by many as a state which can't afford to secede. The state received just over $1.5 billion in federal aid in 2010, according to a report published by the U.S. Census Bureau. The Texas petition has received over 60,000 digital signatures, over the required threshold to receive official consideration from the White House.

Louisiana, the state whose petition movement started it all, received just under $3 billion in federal aid in 2010, while Florida received a little over $1.5 billion. Such federal aid is considered vital to the economic and governmental health of these states, and for that reason many critics believe the secession petitions amount to little more than online demonstrations.

This sort of gives us an answer to some of the things we were talking about. If you have any further comment on it, though, I suggest you take it up with the OP of that thread.

You know, things like these are the reason for "american=dumb" stereotype.

dmase:
Oh and fyi look at this pick because obviously you didn't

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zonmar-en.svg

No look again... still not seeing it? Oh alright 200 nautical miles is the EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE.

Fucking wow. The exclusive economic zone does NOT prevent people from moving through it. The exclusive economic zone prevents people from fishing, or drilling for oil, etc within it without the states permission. Fail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone

Agema:
Yes, but whilst Texas sells oil and chemicals to the USA, the USA will be selling other stuff to Texas. Steel? Financial services? Computers? And so on.

True but Texas also sells those things. Dallas and San Antonio are well known for financial services, Austin is known for computers, Houston is known for chemicals, etc.

No, according to that source I'm a little high. It lists Texas as having 7.95% of the USA's GDP, which is just under 1/12th.

I did not look at what it said the % of GDP was I looked at the GDP itself and divided it by the US GDP.

An entity surely can lose 10% and be in a great shape: that 10% could feasibly be a "bad" 10% dragging the other 90% down. Companies frequently, for instance, shut down, sell or demerge sectors of their operations to improve themselves. Historically, countries have cut loose parts of their territory which are more trouble than they are worth. Some (e.g. Czech Republic & Slovakia, Netherlands and Belgium) have separated by mutual consent and thrived independently.

In this case the 10% is not a "bad" 10%.

Losing 8% of its GDP and population would necessarily make the USA a weaker player on the world stage. It would probably involve a tricky transition period and having to slightly reassess lots of things. But in terms of the life quality and opportunities of their populations, there's no reason to assume it would be harmful for Texas or the USA.

It certainly could be harmful to either. My point was that the US would come crawling back to Texas long before Texas did. My reasoning is that Texas would be in good shape but if Texas were to leave then something big would have had to happen and the US is likely in trouble (if Texas were in equal trouble then succession is less likely). So it would be more like Texas is cutting off dead weight. Of course there are an infinite number of scenarios but I believe that is the most likely.

farson135:

dmase:
Oh and fyi look at this pick because obviously you didn't

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zonmar-en.svg

No look again... still not seeing it? Oh alright 200 nautical miles is the EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE.

Fucking wow. The exclusive economic zone does NOT prevent people from moving through it. The exclusive economic zone prevents people from fishing, or drilling for oil, etc within it without the states permission. Fail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone

Where in that article does it say that the country in question can't control trade through the ocean? It's their economic zone so they determine how and which ships pass through especially in militaristic sense.

dmase:

farson135:

dmase:
Oh and fyi look at this pick because obviously you didn't

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zonmar-en.svg

No look again... still not seeing it? Oh alright 200 nautical miles is the EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE.

Fucking wow. The exclusive economic zone does NOT prevent people from moving through it. The exclusive economic zone prevents people from fishing, or drilling for oil, etc within it without the states permission. Fail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone

Where in that article does it say that the country in question can't control trade through the ocean? It's their economic zone so they determine how and which ships pass through especially in militaristic sense.

It says it in the fucking definition.

"An exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a seazone prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea over which a state has special rights over the exploration and use of marine resources, including energy production from water and wind."

An EEZ ONLY covers resources exploited, it does NOT cover passage through an area of non-military ships. You know what, here is the damn UN agreement. This one covers only the territorial sea but since you cannot fuck with merchant ships in the territorial sea you sure as hell cannot in the EEZ- https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm

Also- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage

farson135:

True but Texas also sells those things. Dallas and San Antonio are well known for financial services, Austin is known for computers, Houston is known for chemicals, etc.

Precisely what Texas produces, exports or imports is neither here nor there. It is simply that it does import a lot as well as export, that many of those imports come from the rest of the USA, and then what the balance of trade would be.

i wouldnt put too much in these petitions. to be honest if you checked the details i wouldnt be suprised if most of the names are identical on all the petitions.

if texas did leave your country i can already hear the right wing people complaining about illegal texan immigrants taking american jobs

farson135:

It certainly could be harmful to either. My point was that the US would come crawling back to Texas long before Texas did. My reasoning is that Texas would be in good shape but if Texas were to leave then something big would have had to happen and the US is likely in trouble (if Texas were in equal trouble then succession is less likely). So it would be more like Texas is cutting off dead weight. Of course there are an infinite number of scenarios but I believe that is the most likely.

I don't see any reason to claim that is the most likely scenario. If anything common sense dictates it would be exactly the opposite. By cutting itself off the US Texas would go from being part of a huge market to becoming a small one, which is usually much less attractive for foreign businesses and it might also make trade with the rest of the US more difficult, and considering the rest of the US is bigger than Texas it's Texas which has the most to lose there. There is a reason why the EU wants to be a single market.

Do they need voter ids to cast their vote in these petitions? I do think that this is useless and that it's getting too much press.

generals3:
I don't see any reason to claim that is the most likely scenario. If anything common sense dictates it would be exactly the opposite. By cutting itself off the US Texas would go from being part of a huge market to becoming a small one, which is usually much less attractive for foreign businesses and it might also make trade with the rest of the US more difficult, and considering the rest of the US is bigger than Texas it's Texas which has the most to lose there. There is a reason why the EU wants to be a single market.

The reason the EU exists is because of trade barriers and competing currencies (there are other things but those are the biggies for this case). The trade barriers are an issue when you are in France and trying to trade with the Czech Republic, However, the trade barriers are not as much of a problem when you do not have to go through 5 different countries to get where you are going. As for the currency, Texas could maintain a currency pegged to the dollar (which would make sense given Texan oil).

this is stupid crazy people

farson135:

generals3:
I don't see any reason to claim that is the most likely scenario. If anything common sense dictates it would be exactly the opposite. By cutting itself off the US Texas would go from being part of a huge market to becoming a small one, which is usually much less attractive for foreign businesses and it might also make trade with the rest of the US more difficult, and considering the rest of the US is bigger than Texas it's Texas which has the most to lose there. There is a reason why the EU wants to be a single market.

The reason the EU exists is because of trade barriers and competing currencies (there are other things but those are the biggies for this case). The trade barriers are an issue when you are in France and trying to trade with the Czech Republic, However, the trade barriers are not as much of a problem when you do not have to go through 5 different countries to get where you are going. As for the currency, Texas could maintain a currency pegged to the dollar (which would make sense given Texan oil).

And what about what FalloutJack posted, that Texas received $3 billion in aid last year alone from the government. That doesn't really paint a great picture of self sustainment, does it?

NameIsRobertPaulson:
And what about what FalloutJack posted, that Texas received $3 billion in aid last year alone from the government. That doesn't really paint a great picture of self sustainment, does it?

And what about the $390 BILLION the state of Texas has paid OVER the amount spent in the state in the past 20 years? That $3 billion was a one year low. On average Texas pays a shit ton more in taxes than the US government spends. Averaged out, Texas has paid $20.5 billion more to the US government than the US government has put in PER YEAR for the past 19 years.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

farson135:

generals3:
I don't see any reason to claim that is the most likely scenario. If anything common sense dictates it would be exactly the opposite. By cutting itself off the US Texas would go from being part of a huge market to becoming a small one, which is usually much less attractive for foreign businesses and it might also make trade with the rest of the US more difficult, and considering the rest of the US is bigger than Texas it's Texas which has the most to lose there. There is a reason why the EU wants to be a single market.

The reason the EU exists is because of trade barriers and competing currencies (there are other things but those are the biggies for this case). The trade barriers are an issue when you are in France and trying to trade with the Czech Republic, However, the trade barriers are not as much of a problem when you do not have to go through 5 different countries to get where you are going. As for the currency, Texas could maintain a currency pegged to the dollar (which would make sense given Texan oil).

Trade barriers are always a problem. Going through 0 customs is still better than going through one. And the main goal are not those two elements. The main goal is create a unified market. Those two elements you mentioned where just two key steps to get there. There are a lot of EU regulations which even touch the corporate fiscal law code. But as you can imagine due to the diversity in the EU it has to proceed with baby steps. Don't let the crawling mislead you, the EU aims at more than just getting rid of customs and currency competition.

generals3:
Trade barriers are always a problem. Going through 0 customs is still better than going through one.

But it is not as significant a problem as it was (and still is in some areas) in Europe. Your comparison is flawed.

And the main goal are not those two elements. The main goal is create a unified market.

For some but that is not what happened or what necessarily will happen. I cited what actually happened and the only real reason countries are doing it.

But as you can imagine due to the diversity in the EU it has to proceed with baby steps. Don't let the crawling mislead you, the EU aims at more than just getting rid of customs and currency competition.

Some may want to but that does not mean all want to or that it will even happen. Switzerland is not likely to switch its currency in the near future and many other states are seeing the folly of a unified currency. The British have not made any significant indications that I know of that they will open their borders. Some European states (Norway, Switzerland, etc) simply refuse to be a part of the whole mess due to the high fees required and little actual value in the Union to them.

Most likely the Union will lose most of its power in the future and return to being just a series of treaties and councils. A unified market is not in the cards in the near future for all of Europe especially with all of the bullshit going on now.

farson135:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
And what about what FalloutJack posted, that Texas received $3 billion in aid last year alone from the government. That doesn't really paint a great picture of self sustainment, does it?

And what about the $390 BILLION the state of Texas has paid OVER the amount spent in the state in the past 20 years? That $3 billion was a one year low. On average Texas pays a shit ton more in taxes than the US government spends. Averaged out, Texas has paid $20.5 billion more to the US government than the US government has put in PER YEAR for the past 19 years.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

Does a straight forwards comparison like that work?

I mean, the US spends a lot of its money on things that are supposed to benefit the nation as a whole. The military, for example. Even if the money is spent elsewhere, Texas (and everywhere) is supposedly benefitting from it.

TheIronRuler:
Do they need voter ids to cast their vote in these petitions? I do think that this is useless and that it's getting too much press.

*Busts out laughing like a madman*

Depends. Are we using the Conservative rules or Democratic rules? If the latter, then no, but somehow I doubt that a red party secession would do that, given the last election.

OT: POINT OF ORDER!

Why are we still arguing this? It's obviously not happening and half of us AT LEAST didn't think that it would.

FalloutJack:

TheIronRuler:
Do they need voter ids to cast their vote in these petitions? I do think that this is useless and that it's getting too much press.

*Busts out laughing like a madman*

Depends. Are we using the Conservative rules or Democratic rules? If the latter, then no, but somehow I doubt that a red party secession would do that, given the last election.

OT: POINT OF ORDER!

Why are we still arguing this? It's obviously not happening and half of us AT LEAST didn't think that it would.

.
I was sad nobody noticed my joke for so long, but now you did! I'm glad I made you laugh. This is all ridiculous.

TheIronRuler:

I was sad nobody noticed my joke for so long, but now you did! I'm glad I made you laugh. This is all ridiculous.

You're quite welcome, and I shall go on to say that not only would they be crazy enough to follow their own rigid rules on the matter, but that it would be composed largely of that group of yahoos that the rest of Texas hates with a passion, half of them probably without valid ID in the first place. This and all other things blatantly pointed out riddles the coffin with so many nails that you would save time by pouring molten lead over the whole thing to call it even.

I'm FalloutJack and that's the news. Good night all.

thaluikhain:
Does a straight forwards comparison like that work?

I mean, the US spends a lot of its money on things that are supposed to benefit the nation as a whole. The military, for example. Even if the money is spent elsewhere, Texas (and everywhere) is supposedly benefitting from it.

That may be but the state of Texas BY ITSELF (according to the UN) would have the 13th highest GDP in the world if it separated. Texas has the ability to provide its own services and build up its own military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP

thaluikhain:

Does a straight forwards comparison like that work?

I mean, the US spends a lot of its money on things that are supposed to benefit the nation as a whole. The military, for example. Even if the money is spent elsewhere, Texas (and everywhere) is supposedly benefitting from it.

Yes, roughly, it works.

At a very simple level, the amount of money the USA takes from Texas for the military will be comparable to the amount it benefits Texas. This assumes that Texas is approximately average GDP per capita for the USA, that the percentage of Texans in the military is approximately the same as the percentage of Texans in the whole USA, and that the proportion of US military activity in Texas roughly equals the proportion of Texas of the USA.

Thus the amount of money Texas pays in taxes that fund the military will roughly equal the amount of benefit Texas derives from the US military.

In fact, Texas of course could cut its military as an independent state. It would continue to derive benefits from the rest of the USA as the general activities of the US military in the US national interest would benefit Texas too, presuming the two would have closely-aligned global agendas. Which I think would be highly likely.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked