Petitions for secession in 15 states

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

The patriotic conservatives! The last to join the union, the first to leave, and now they're trying it all over again.

I don't have any real problem with conservatives, but when anyone acts so crazy that they want to, I don't know, remake the confederacy, I usually consider that justification to laugh at them.

Which is ironic considering I'm directly related to a Confederate general, one who fought against Sherman (and became his friend later in life).

Diablo1099:

Frission:

...

It's actually not a bad idea.

The nation exploding like this may fix out the kinks in the nation. If anything there won't be the war fascination. People will realize how bad war is.

Look at hurricane Sandy. For the first time people are finally talking about coastal zone management and climate change.

No. Just No. Bad Idea. Over the course of the last year, I've made many friends on this site, A lot of whom live in the US. It's why I watch his forum, Not posting, but watching.
And the last thing I want for my friends is Civil War 2.0.

OT: 25,000 in order to considered? Isn't there more then a Million people in each state? Wouldn't they need more? Minority Rule and what not? I can't imagine that Californa's Population would take too kindly to losing all Fed support and services because 25k didn't like the outcome of the election.
/Cali was an example.

I don't seriously think there will or they should be a Civil War 2. The threats of separation are idle threats. Maybe I should just have written it in pink. Jokes can't after all be easily recognized.

farson135:

Anti-science capital? Right. I bet you also think we all wear cowboy hats and use chewing tobacco. http://www.texasbiocorridor.org/resources/funding

Texas did not grow to have 4 of the top 10 fastest growing cities in this country by being anti-science. http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlj45hfdf/americas-fastest-growing-cities/

Do not believe all of the propaganda that tries to portray all red states as backwards.

I was joking, but I don't blame you as many other people on here would be serious when they say that.

Texas would go under though, the fed wouldn't trade with them and wouldn't let them pass in their air space or water which basically surrounds Texas. Texans would have to make a deal with mexico in order to get out their products. Not to mention lots of the foreign companies that set up shop there would get out quick when they succeeded.

Anyways this petition is bullshit, if there was even a chance of it working they would have had the 25,000 signatures the day after the election. If succession was put as a ballot issue I doubt there would even be a plurality for people living in texas to succeed.

Frission:

I don't seriously think there will or they should be in Civil War 2. The threats of separation are idle threats. Maybe I should just have written it in pink. Jokes can't after all be easily recognized.

That you should have, I agree that the US needs a kick up the arse, but Civil War is too far.

Back to my question, so any random 25k from any state can arrange for Secession? Provided the POTUS is game, That how it works or is there rules for larger states like Cali?

DVS BSTrD:

Frission:
No offense to people from the following states, but this is stupid and immature. What delusions do these guys have from the confederacy?

The red states are actually the ones using the most welfare. They're the ones leeching from the union!

Better to die destitute than live under a COMMUNIST. Yeah there are people that still believe that shit. I doubt they even have the foresight to start a confederacy, they'll just try to run their states alone.

I actually think Texas would do alright, they're pretty self sufficient; North Dakota as well (they'd become the Saudi Arabia of North America). Colorado could want to also so they don't have the feds breathing down their neck over their burgeoning marijuana industry; they could grow freaking plantations of the stuff, their major export would hemp! Super in debt states like California would fail miserably though, unless they fixed their act.

I don't think splitting from the union is necessary, but I almost want to sign their petition anyway.
Because Chaos.

dmase:
Texas would go under though, the fed wouldn't trade with them and wouldn't let them pass in their air space or water which basically surrounds Texas. Texans would have to make a deal with mexico in order to get out their products. Not to mention lots of the foreign companies that set up shop there would get out quick when they succeeded.

Who says Texas needs anyone? They're a huge state with a huge population. People seem to forget that most US states are larger and with more natural resources than the separate nations of Europe. And who says no one would trade with them? I bet they'd have more hospitality towards Europe and South America than the US does now, why would anyone have a grudge against them? Business is business and Texas has plenty to export. They have access to the ocean, and a border with another nation. If the fed tries to stop them, well I don't know how many of our soldiers would want to kill fellow Americans, and Texas has A LOT of guns...

Hammartroll:

dmase:
Texas would go under though, the fed wouldn't trade with them and wouldn't let them pass in their air space or water which basically surrounds Texas. Texans would have to make a deal with mexico in order to get out their products. Not to mention lots of the foreign companies that set up shop there would get out quick when they succeeded.

Who says Texas needs anyone? They're a huge state with a huge population. People seem to forget that most US states are larger and with more natural resources than the separate nations of Europe. And who says no one would trade with them? I bet they'd have more hospitality towards Europe and South America than the US does now, why would anyone have a grudge against them? Business is business and Texas has plenty to export. They have access to the ocean, and a border with another nation. If the fed tries to stop them, well I don't know how many of our soldiers would want to kill fellow Americans, and Texas has A LOT of guns...

Texas ships would have to pass through US waters or US airspace in order to get and like I said they could work out a deal with mexico but in that type of deal Texas wouldn't be able to take a hard bargaining stance because it's sole solution would be to go through mexico to sell products.

And when I say foreign companies would pull out it's because the newly made country of texas would be small in the face of the world economy, there would always be a worry that it's currency would tank in the first few years, and that the conditions required for succession would mean people that live their may not be happy with leaving the US. All of this would make companies say we're packing up and moving out so we don't have to worry about the what if's, and there are a lot of what if's regarding making a new nation. As history has proven new nations more often fail then they succeed without massive support from another country... which country would texas be willing to ally with that they could lean on for support?

Bentusi16:
Texas wasn't part of the confederacy. Pretty sure new jersey wasn't either, I'll have to check my history books.

It's a very minor number of extreme response sort of people living in some states. Hell, some of them were filed from out of state apparently. It's more symbolism then reality.

As a rule I have no issue with secession, but this isn't really a massive population thing.

Texas was. Any state that was south of Missouri and East of New Mexico was a part of the Confederacy: Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, South and North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.

OT: Well, if they knew any better, they would know that Succession from the Union is illegal. Their Petitions will actually be for naught. If any state tries to legitimize those petitions, the US government would be quick to respond.

Diablo1099:

Frission:

I don't seriously think there will or they should be in Civil War 2. The threats of separation are idle threats. Maybe I should just have written it in pink. Jokes can't after all be easily recognized.

That you should have, I agree that the US needs a kick up the arse, but Civil War is too far.

Back to my question, so any random 25k from any state can arrange for Secession? Provided the POTUS is game, That how it works or is there rules for larger states like Cali?

Just want to butt in here. You're wrong, the 25k limit is something different. This is how it works.

About 5 years ago, the US gov't kept getting petitions from UFO enthusiasts asking for the gov't to release info on things like Roswell and Area 51. It got to the point that it happened nearly every petition, and the gov't wanted to raise the limit to 25k so petitions had to be a bit more popular (as in, more people voted on them) before they made it to the President's desk. As for the secession...

Even if it makes it to 25k, the state doesn't automatically secede, because this is a petition, not a binding referendum (which I'm sure would get a lot of press, and would garner a lot more attention than these petitions will inevitably get). If they do make it to 25k, then they will make it to the president's desk. What he does with it is completely up to him, he probably would just brush it aside. If he made a press conference, he'd be talking to a very small minority. All the petition really does is say "this is a problem, and all the people who signed it agreed it is a problem, so will you please do this to solve said problem?", which the president doesn't have to do, but those signers would be obviously pissed.

All these petitions really show is that secession is in people's minds, even if they haven't reached the level of 25k, there are most certainly more than 25k people who are at least thinking about it. It's not on the level where there are politicians actively saying their platform is to secede from the union (though there has been politicians who've at least entertained the thought), but this is something of a worry, even if it is a molehill.

Bentusi16:
Texas wasn't part of the confederacy.

Yes it was. Although most of central and eastern Texas was against succession but then as now the major population centers are in the east.

Frission:
Perhaps, but it's still pretty immature to threaten to secede after the elections.

Why? If you believe that the other system has failed you then why should you wait to succeed?

What you don't think that the recent comments about voter suppression and fraud when Obama won fair and square to be slightly annoying?

Yeah, but so what?

What delusions? What are you talking about?
I'm talking about this notion form a well remembered view of the civil war. Every time it's "we'll secede, we'll secede!". What do you mean when you typed "what delusions do you have"? Or was it a rebuttal on the level of "no you"?

What I am talking about is the basic fact that the Confederacy did not fail on a social level it failed on a military level. Some people think about it differently and from your previous post I thought that you were one of them.

On the last part about anti- science. Texas used to be known for TI-84 and for its programs. Recently however it has done things such as deny climate change, rewrite history books to suit its purpose and take a backwards policy on scientific issues. You're well in your right to not want to be called some backward hick, but you'll be hard pressed to call it propaganda. I'm not talking about Kansas or Oklahoma. Not this is Texas and Texas has made questionable decisions on it's school board, on regulations both medical and environmental, on the separation of church and state and on abortion.

Ok, I will take this one by one.

Climate change. Texas does a lot having to do with wind farms, bio fuel, etc- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Texas#Clean_cities

History books. First I will ignoring the fact that this has nothing to do with science. Secondly, the controversy surrounding that incident was overblown. For example, one of the big controversies was bunch of guys wanted to talk more about Hispanics NOT in Texas in a TEXAS History book.

Backwards policy, did you see all of those scientific grants?

What specific regulations are you referring to?

Separation of Church and State is an issue that many many countries are dealing with. That does not make them anti-science.

Abortion. The issue has nothing to do with science. Beyond that, Texas allows abortion. They add modifiers but so does Germany. Are you also calling them anti-science?

Texas also has a bad environmental track record. Texas' oil and gas interests take precedence over climate change, endangered species, and the EPA!

Texas refines the oil and drills for it. What y'all do with it is up to you. If you do not want it we would be happy to keep it. As for endangered species, they are generally threatened by urbanization and not oil and gas.

Besides, economic growth doesn't necessarily correlate with whether something is "anti science". I'm not sure why you brought the part about economic growth exactly.

Because I am a university student in Texas. We have a very big Petroleum Engineering department.

Agema:
Financially, the USA could readily leave Texas to secede. It's economy is less than 10% of the USA's. Such is the scale that Texas would need to punch far, far over its weight in tax transfers to significantly dent the USA's general position - and it doesn't.

You have not factored in how much the US would now have to pay to build new refineries (or to have another country refine its materials), how much trade would be lost with Mexico, all of the ports lost, etc.

If Texas left, the USA could make up that 0.5% and more just by downscaling its military proportionally to the demographic/economic change (i.e. an 8.5% or so decrease, equating to about $60 billion).

Right, if Texas actually does leave then there would have to be one hell of a crisis. If the government will not significantly scale back spending now they will not do it then.

Warforger:
I was joking, but I don't blame you as many other people on here would be serious when they say that.

Understood. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

dmase:
Texas would go under though, the fed wouldn't trade with them and wouldn't let them pass in their air space or water which basically surrounds Texas.

The Gulf of Mexico is not owned by the US and there are no points at which the US can blockade the Gulf easily. Nor does the US own the entire airspace around Texas.

Texans would have to make a deal with mexico in order to get out their products.

A deal which already exists.

dmase:
And when I say foreign companies would pull out it's because the newly made country of texas would be small in the face of the world economy, there would always be a worry that it's currency would tank in the first few years, and that the conditions required for succession would mean people that live their may not be happy with leaving the US. All of this would make companies say we're packing up and moving out so we don't have to worry about the what if's, and there are a lot of what if's regarding making a new nation. As history has proven new nations more often fail then they succeed without massive support from another country... which country would texas be willing to ally with that they could lean on for support?

The state of Texas BY ITSELF has a GDP higher than the country of Australia. It almost has the same GDP as Spain. That would put the state as the 13th largest nation in terms of GDP IN THE WORLD (by the UN's estimation at least). Small my ass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)#List
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP#2010_List

Please. This is a tempest in a teacup. Any butthurt yahoo an circulate a petition and believe me this ISN'T the first time this has happened. A tiny minority of people will sign, the vast majority will say "Hell no", and the gears will keep on turning.

There's nothing to worry about here.

dmase:

Texas ships would have to pass through US waters or US airspace in order to get and like I said they could work out a deal with mexico but in that type of deal Texas wouldn't be able to take a hard bargaining stance because it's sole solution would be to go through mexico to sell products.

And when I say foreign companies would pull out it's because the newly made country of texas would be small in the face of the world economy, there would always be a worry that it's currency would tank in the first few years, and that the conditions required for succession would mean people that live their may not be happy with leaving the US. All of this would make companies say we're packing up and moving out so we don't have to worry about the what if's, and there are a lot of what if's regarding making a new nation. As history has proven new nations more often fail then they succeed without massive support from another country... which country would texas be willing to ally with that they could lean on for support?

I don't know why they need to rely on anyone. As long as they can feed and water themselves, keep from internal conflict and conjure a stable currency then the rest of the world can go up in flames for all they care. It'll be a big country, they can do this stuff. edit- I would assume that if they did achieve independance then the majority of Texas would be behind it and it would last, so long as everyone understood the consequences before suceeeding.
I don't think they would have to be totally isolated. I think they would have a good relationship with a number of South American countries like Brazil and Argentina. The only reason I can think of for animosity between them and Mexico would be the drug gangs, but they could still make some agreements, maybe even help Mexico take care of the drug cartels through security contracts. It would benefit Texas a lot to make Mexico a more reliable partner. I honastly think that Texas would end up being at the forefront of the developing nations, equal to one of the BRICK nations. Also, I don't see why the rest of the states of the union couldn't trade with them. edit agian- I bet Texas would have an incredibly low business tax (and a low tax in general) which would attract plenty of business, as well as plenty of new residents, so long as they proved themselves stable after a couple years.

As for waterways, I don't think the US owns all of the Gulf Coast. I'm sure Texas could get away with shipping along their and Mexico's coast and then out to the atlantic.

Hammartroll:

dmase:

Texas ships would have to pass through US waters or US airspace in order to get and like I said they could work out a deal with mexico but in that type of deal Texas wouldn't be able to take a hard bargaining stance because it's sole solution would be to go through mexico to sell products.

And when I say foreign companies would pull out it's because the newly made country of texas would be small in the face of the world economy, there would always be a worry that it's currency would tank in the first few years, and that the conditions required for succession would mean people that live their may not be happy with leaving the US. All of this would make companies say we're packing up and moving out so we don't have to worry about the what if's, and there are a lot of what if's regarding making a new nation. As history has proven new nations more often fail then they succeed without massive support from another country... which country would texas be willing to ally with that they could lean on for support?

I don't know why they need to rely on anyone. As long as they can feed and water themselves, keep from internal conflict and conjure a stable currency then the rest of the world can go up in flames for all they care. It'll be a big country, they can do this stuff. edit- I would assume that if they did achieve independance then the majority of Texas would be behind it and it would last, so long as everyone understood the consequences before suceeeding.
I don't think they would have to be totally isolated. I think they would have a good relationship with a number of South American countries like Brazil and Argentina. The only reason I can think of for animosity between them and Mexico would be the drug gangs, but they could still make some agreements, maybe even help Mexico take care of the drug cartels through security contracts. It would benefit Texas a lot to make Mexico a more reliable partner. I honastly think that Texas would end up being at the forefront of the developing nations, equal to one of the BRICK nations. Also, I don't see why the rest of the states of the union couldn't trade with them. edit agian- I bet Texas would have an incredibly low business tax (and a low tax in general) which would attract plenty of business, as well as plenty of new residents, so long as they proved themselves stable after a couple years.

As for waterways, I don't think the US owns all of the Gulf Coast. I'm sure Texas could get away with shipping along their and Mexico's coast and then out to the atlantic.

Texas-ian: Yayy, independance. Gotta buy myself a flag *checks amazon* ooooh, free delivery to all states. *clicks* I HAVE TO PAY TOLL... Noooooooooooooo!!!

and thats how they returned to the union.

Hammartroll:
I honastly think that Texas would end up being at the forefront of the developing nations, equal to one of the BRICK nations.

That's fairly naive. Texas only has its current economic worth due to it being part of the US. And the US economy already has structural problems.

Not just that, but one province of the US by itself wouldn't have nearly as much lending ability, financing ability etc. You'd see decades of stagnation as the effect of separation sets in, and then a lot more as the babyboom generation retires and it turns out a province by itself can't cope with problems of that magnitude. It would likely end up being the laughingstock of developing countries who see Texas did the opposite of what they do.

Heck, some US states are already de facto bankrupt due to the oncoming pension obligations, and nobody of the small government conservatives have thought to think ahead to the oncoming 'grey crisis' as the babyboom generation retires. No scenario's have been made to cope with it.

Obamacare was the first step in the direction of looking ahead towards dealing with that problem, and even on the federal level that was a lot of hassle. Separatist movements rarely ever think of dealing with such problems.

farson135:
snipped

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_waters.svg

This is a map of international waters, if Texas where to secede it would have it's own waters but there would be no direct contact with international waters without going through mexican or US waters. The same goes for airspace. Also Mexico doesn't have a deal with Mexico, the United States of America does, the constitution doesn't grant the right to make trade agreements with foreign countries to states. So Texas would have to make an agreement with mexico, mexico would have to make this deal in-spite of the US. Who do you think they would side with the US or Texas?

Texas would have to make a national infrastructure from the ground up including diplomatic envoys deal making and conforming to economic policy. All of this when done by a nation has drastic affects versus what they have to contend with as a state. Their GDP would drop because like I said business wouldn't like the uncertainty. And once again all deals done would have to be in-spite of the US, it would make it beyond difficult for Texas to function as an individual state.

Hammartroll:
snipped

We live in a globalized world if you can't trade readily with other nations you open a country to plenty of blackmarkets in goods which undermine your economic system. Not to mention if there was a catastrophe in the agriculture of Texas the states population would start to die without outside assistance... which would be someone to rely on. Economies are based around global trade you can't get rid of it no matter how much you try, and if you do your asking for catastrophe, maybe not today maybe not tomorrow but some day in the future.

Also Texas would have the drug cartels pretty much attack the state without federal funding of the national guard and other border activities in additions to a new border to the north with the US Texas soldiers would stretched very thin. Without some amount of assistance from Hispanic countries Texas would be fucked. There is also diplomatic clout, what stops the federal government from walking right over texas borders and doing what it wants, think back to Russia and Georgia.

" As long as they can feed and water themselves, keep from internal conflict and conjure a stable currency then the rest of the world can go up in flames for all they care. It'll be a big country" This is a big if and one that most countries that set out from the motherland end up failing badly at.

For the rest of your post seem the part of the post directed at farson. And to reiterate Hispanic countries would be making deals with Texas in-spite of the US, and why wouldn't the US trade with Texas you might ask? Because they just fucking seceded, would you walk up to the guy that just gave you a black eye and ask for a cigarette?

farson135:
Crawling back? I think if Texas were to leave the feds would either declare war or start begging for Texas to come back. Texas has a very large, effective economy. It also has a lot of trading goods. Economically we would be fine. The feds on the other hand would have trouble making up for the loss in tax revenue from not just the state itself but also from the companies headquartered here.

How many would stay though? Scotland's having the same debate in the UK right now, with many companies threatening to move to England if Scotland becomes independent. We'd also very likely lose the lucrative BAE ship building contracts as the UK only builds its military fleet in the UK, meaning the Clyde shipyards would suffer a second collapse inside living memory.

I'm sure Texas would do fine, same as Scotland but you cant rely on private companies that don't have to be there (i.e they aren't rooted by local commodities like oil) to stick around when there are more stable markets elsewhere in the US that would gladly take them.

dmase:
This is a map of international waters, if Texas where to secede it would have it's own waters but there would be no direct contact with international waters without going through mexican or US waters. The same goes for airspace.

You do not understand. The US and Mexican governments control 12 nautical miles of ocean around their coast line (as per international law). The distance between Florida and the Yucatan Peninsula is about 450 nautical miles. Do the math.

Also Mexico doesn't have a deal with Mexico, the United States of America does, the constitution doesn't grant the right to make trade agreements with foreign countries to states. So Texas would have to make an agreement with mexico, mexico would have to make this deal in-spite of the US. Who do you think they would side with the US or Texas?

Texas. Why? Because most of Mexico's trade with the US goes through Texas and the US is currently Mexico's largest importer.

Texas would have to make a national infrastructure from the ground up including diplomatic envoys deal making and conforming to economic policy.

It all already exists. Copy and paste.

Their GDP would drop because like I said business wouldn't like the uncertainty.

Uncertainty that you have not shown would even exist. Also, you assume the companies could leave. Says the oil company, we are just going to pack up and leave. Says Texas, OK but since you cannot cart off a refinery and all of our oil I guess we get to keep it. Have fun leading a failed business.

And once again all deals done would have to be in-spite of the US, it would make it beyond difficult for Texas to function as an individual state.

Because the US can dictate the economic policy of the world.

We live in a globalized world if you can't trade readily with other nations you open a country to plenty of blackmarkets in goods which undermine your economic system.

You have not proven that Texas cannot trade with other nations.

Not to mention if there was a catastrophe in the agriculture of Texas the states population would start to die without outside assistance... which would be someone to rely on.

Why?

Economies are based around global trade you can't get rid of it no matter how much you try, and if you do your asking for catastrophe, maybe not today maybe not tomorrow but some day in the future.

Because you say so? Or do you have some proof?

Also Texas would have the drug cartels pretty much attack the state without federal funding of the national guard and other border activities in additions to a new border to the north with the US Texas soldiers would stretched very thin.

Texas pays more to the feds than the feds pay to Texas. In other words Texas already completely funds its own National Guard. Plus, Texas funds the Texas State Militia which includes an army, air force, and navy.

There is also diplomatic clout, what stops the federal government from walking right over texas borders and doing what it wants, think back to Russia and Georgia.

The fact that most people do not care about Georgia but they will care when videos of millions of people being bombed and tanks rolling through a suburban home make it to youtube.

For the rest of your post seem the part of the post directed at farson. And to reiterate Hispanic countries would be making deals with Texas in-spite of the US

Because all of Latin America loves the US.

and why wouldn't the US trade with Texas you might ask? Because they just fucking seceded, would you walk up to the guy that just gave you a black eye and ask for a cigarette?

Right, because the English have never forgiven the colonies for succeeding.

Karma168:
How many would stay though? Scotland's having the same debate in the UK right now, with many companies threatening to move to England if Scotland becomes independent. We'd also very likely lose the lucrative BAE ship building contracts as the UK only builds its military fleet in the UK, meaning the Clyde shipyards would suffer a second collapse inside living memory.

Most of them would stay as long as Texas' business practices do not change significantly. In an increasingly globalized world where a company is headquartered is rather irrelevant except when it comes to taxes and regulations. Some companies will want to stay American, but generally speaking to change your headquarters is simply a matter of filing the right paperwork. Even if the companies move their HQ their premises will still be in Texas and leaving that behind would simply be a loss.

Plus, you may be underestimating Texans affection for Texas. If you ever ask a New Yorker where they are from they will usually say the US but if you ask a Texan they will usually say Texas. As a side note-

farson135:
snipped

1) ugh no,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zonmar-en.svg

Refer back to the first image to know where texas's limitations would be. The one you ignored.
2)Unlike texas's problem of being surrounded by US the US isn't surrounded by texas. Calculate the math up on that one, it's way more concrete than what you where suggesting. The US would be able to trade with mexico just not over land, but most of the non oil trade is already done over seas anyways.
3)No it doesn't and your deluding yourself if you think it's as simple as changing the flag and changing the governor's title to Reagan.
4) you act like oil will keep texas afloat even though like i've stated several times now it wouldn't be able to ship it anywhere. Plenty of business will leave for all the things i've stated thus far including but not limited to, currency issues, establishment of diplomatic contacts, establishment of trade agreements(remember no one has a trade agreement with texas), and then of course there are always the people that don't want texas to leave(rebels against the rebels if you will).
5)Would you do a deal that is against the wishes of your most important strategic ally and economic partner.(says almost every country in the world)
6)Why would texas go down if their was a crop failure.... it wouldn't be able to feed itself wtf are you trying to make a valid point with that why? Or does it not make sense that if your crop fails in texas you have no other options especially since you have no trade partners.(refer back to point 1 if you can't remember why)
7)Grab a book by any economist in the past 70 years all say globalization is the key driver to success and failure in modern economies. Literally it would take an entire book to explain this not just number 7 of a post.
8)The national guard of texas, and the reserves on the border, and the drones are paid for directly by the federal government since it's the federal government's job to maintain border safety, they are federal agencies paid for by the federal government. Now tell me about that additional northern border texas now has. Are there state patrols? yes, do they make up half of the equipment and forces brought to the border... no.
9)The federal government wouldn't fire first and it would make sure that video is spread as well. The US holds clout and is the major power in this hemisphere so who is going to do anything? It would be considered a civil dispute, how often do you hear about people tear gassing the Greeks as going too far? Oh and people did care about Georgia, lots especially their neighbors.
10)only their money and believe me you they don't need texas oil, Mexico and argentinia have them covered there.
11)Depends if Texas goes with a whimper or a bang more than anything else, and if your pissed off enough to secede over a democrat president that won re-election then I think Texas would have a fight on it's hands OR option number two economic sanctions. Since economic sanctions is better than dragging texas back kicking and screaming I think Option number two would be most likely.

I'm sorry, but I have only one quick question here:

Where was this bullshit when BUSH was in office?

It sounds crazy but I can see the idea behind it. The national debt goes way up every year and the whole thing is going to collapse sooner or later. I can understand why a state wouldn't want to be part of that house of cards when it comes tumbling down.

But even if a state did leave, it probably wouldn't be as far removed as being a whole other country. For example, even if Texas declared independence, I don't think we would need to enforce passports to travel from Texas to the rest of the US. I also dont think the US would have a problem letting Texas travel through their waters and airspace.

dmase:
1) ugh no,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zonmar-en.svg

Refer back to the first image to know where texas's limitations would be. The one you ignored.

Fucking wow. I saw that picture but that entire area is not under US control. Only territorial waters (12 nautical miles out) are actually under the full control of the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters

2)Unlike texas's problem of being surrounded by US the US isn't surrounded by texas. Calculate the math up on that one, it's way more concrete than what you where suggesting. The US would be able to trade with mexico just not over land, but most of the non oil trade is already done over seas anyways.

Actually most trade with Mexico IS done overland because the US and Mexico share a land border. The most significant highways that use that trade are in Texas.

3)No it doesn't and your deluding yourself if you think it's as simple as changing the flag and changing the governor's title to Reagan.

Actually it is even easier than that because the flag would not change and the governor would simply become the president.

4) you act like oil will keep texas afloat even though like i've stated several times now it wouldn't be able to ship it anywhere.

Prove it.

Plenty of business will leave for all the things i've stated thus far including but not limited to, currency issues, establishment of diplomatic contacts, establishment of trade agreements(remember no one has a trade agreement with texas), and then of course there are always the people that don't want texas to leave(rebels against the rebels if you will).

Currency issues, keep the same currency until something else can be established. Establishment of diplomatic contacts will be easy considering all of the embassies already in Texas (same with trade agreements).

5)Would you do a deal that is against the wishes of your most important strategic ally and economic partner.(says almost every country in the world)

Almost every? Who is delusional now?

6)Why would texas go down if their was a crop failure.... it wouldn't be able to feed itself wtf are you trying to make a valid point with that why? Or does it not make sense that if your crop fails in texas you have no other options especially since you have no trade partners.(refer back to point 1 if you can't remember why)

First of all, Texas can get trade partners. Second of all, crop failure is a remote possibility.

8)The national guard of texas, and the reserves on the border, and the drones are paid for directly by the federal government since it's the federal government's job to maintain border safety, they are federal agencies paid for by the federal government. Now tell me about that additional northern border texas now has. Are there state patrols? yes, do they make up half of the equipment and forces brought to the border... no.

Texas maintains the facilities and coordinates forces on the border. In other words, personnel and money is about all the feds provide and Texas still gives more money to the feds than the feds give to Texas. In other words, Texas can provide its own security.

http://governor.state.tx.us/files/homeland/HmLndSecurity_StratPlan2015.pdf

9)The federal government wouldn't fire first and it would make sure that video is spread as well.

So in other words you think the feds would not do anything as long as Texas does not attack. Then why did you bring it up to begin with?

The US holds clout and is the major power in this hemisphere so who is going to do anything?

How about the population of the US? If something happens that causes Texas to succeed you know there are significant problems in the US itself.

10)only their money and believe me you they don't need texas oil, Mexico and argentinia have them covered there.

What?

FalloutJack:
I'm sorry, but I have only one quick question here:

Where was this bullshit when BUSH was in office?

It's only unpatriotic to question the government in a time of war. Now that we're out: EVERYTHING IS THE GOVERNMENT'S FAULT AGAIN!

You know what, Texas?

Go. Just go. Quit talking about it already. Shit or get off the pot. I'd like to write you off as Americans as it is, and if what Farson insists is true, you don't need us worthless non-Texans anyway. Go have your arch conservative Jesusland and be done with it. I'll at least know not to come near you. Go ahead and validate your own rather curious notion that you're ubermensch just for being born within a state's borders.

Looks like the Taxes petition at least has surpassed the number required in order to be officially reviewed.
It is currently at 55k. The amount needed was 25k.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15117305-petition-for-texas-to-secede-from-us-reaches-threshold-for-white-house-response

FalloutJack:
I'm sorry, but I have only one quick question here:

Where was this bullshit when BUSH was in office?

Because the democrats aren't crybabies that want to leave the playground when they don't get to pick teams.

The idea that any US State could survive by itself relatively unscathed is ridiculous and if you believe it you seriously need to have some lessons on how the world actually works.

Any state that leaves the union would not magically be ready to operate as an independent country right away. Everything that the Fed currently handles would have to be setup. It would take at least a couple of years to get everything up and running.

During this time the state would be facing severe economic sanctions from the US and US trading partners. No country that deals with the US is going to give up their US relationship to deal with a rogue state. The only countries the rogue state could have a relationship with are those that the US have blacklisted.

As Cuba how things go when most of the world refuses to trade with you, or North Korea, I hear they are going pretty well these days. It just is not possible to maintain the living standards of a developed country if you are isolated from the rest of the world by economic sanctions.

Here is the webpage with all of these petitions(and more), 2 states already have petitions over the 25,000 threshold. Almost 30 states are petitioning. The texas petition has over 50% more votes than the next most popular petition. This is big.

pyrate:
The idea that any US State could survive by itself relatively unscathed is ridiculous and if you believe it you seriously need to have some lessons on how the world actually works.

Any state that leaves the union would not magically be ready to operate as an independent country right away. Everything that the Fed currently handles would have to be setup. It would take at least a couple of years to get everything up and running.

During this time the state would be facing severe economic sanctions from the US and US trading partners. No country that deals with the US is going to give up their US relationship to deal with a rogue state. The only countries the rogue state could have a relationship with are those that the US have blacklisted.

As Cuba how things go when most of the world refuses to trade with you, or North Korea, I hear they are going pretty well these days. It just is not possible to maintain the living standards of a developed country if you are isolated from the rest of the world by economic sanctions.

Texas is actually well placed to succeed. They handle over half of the oil refining done in the US, if the US didn't go to war, they couldn't afford to economically sanction the new texas gov't because of the massive importance of oil refining. They also have at least a couple sea ports. The biggest problem they would face is likely to be making sure the drug gangs at war in Mexico don't take the opportunity to expand.

How many people does the smallest of these states have? Because if it's more than double the people who signed, the petition shouldn't even be considered.

spartan231490:

pyrate:
The idea that any US State could survive by itself relatively unscathed is ridiculous and if you believe it you seriously need to have some lessons on how the world actually works.

Any state that leaves the union would not magically be ready to operate as an independent country right away. Everything that the Fed currently handles would have to be setup. It would take at least a couple of years to get everything up and running.

During this time the state would be facing severe economic sanctions from the US and US trading partners. No country that deals with the US is going to give up their US relationship to deal with a rogue state. The only countries the rogue state could have a relationship with are those that the US have blacklisted.

As Cuba how things go when most of the world refuses to trade with you, or North Korea, I hear they are going pretty well these days. It just is not possible to maintain the living standards of a developed country if you are isolated from the rest of the world by economic sanctions.

Texas is actually well placed to succeed. They handle over half of the oil refining done in the US, if the US didn't go to war, they couldn't afford to economically sanction the new texas gov't because of the massive importance of oil refining. They also have at least a couple sea ports. The biggest problem they would face is likely to be making sure the drug gangs at war in Mexico don't take the opportunity to expand.

Does Texas make enough food to feed everyone? What about clothes? Does it have enough coal to fuel power stations? How about iron, timber? Does it have the manufacturing ability to build the machinery required to mine and process raw materials? Does it have the labour to perform all the jobs required to sustain itself?

It does not matter that Texas has enough oil. Having all the oil in the world is totally pointless if you cannot sell it to anyone because of economic sanctions.

The US on the other hand has the connections with other countries to import refined oil on a short term basis while they setup oil refineries in other states.

This is what globalization is all about. The US has a global outreach, if it cannot get something from one country it can simply go to another. A rogue state would not have that luxury, if it cannot get something from one of the few trading partners it would have...then it has to go without.

pyrate:

spartan231490:

pyrate:
The idea that any US State could survive by itself relatively unscathed is ridiculous and if you believe it you seriously need to have some lessons on how the world actually works.

Any state that leaves the union would not magically be ready to operate as an independent country right away. Everything that the Fed currently handles would have to be setup. It would take at least a couple of years to get everything up and running.

During this time the state would be facing severe economic sanctions from the US and US trading partners. No country that deals with the US is going to give up their US relationship to deal with a rogue state. The only countries the rogue state could have a relationship with are those that the US have blacklisted.

As Cuba how things go when most of the world refuses to trade with you, or North Korea, I hear they are going pretty well these days. It just is not possible to maintain the living standards of a developed country if you are isolated from the rest of the world by economic sanctions.

Texas is actually well placed to succeed. They handle over half of the oil refining done in the US, if the US didn't go to war, they couldn't afford to economically sanction the new texas gov't because of the massive importance of oil refining. They also have at least a couple sea ports. The biggest problem they would face is likely to be making sure the drug gangs at war in Mexico don't take the opportunity to expand.

Does Texas make enough food to feed everyone? What about clothes? Does it have enough coal to fuel power stations? How about iron, timber? Does it have the manufacturing ability to build the machinery required to mine and process raw materials? Does it have the labour to perform all the jobs required to sustain itself?

It does not matter that Texas has enough oil. Having all the oil in the world is totally pointless if you cannot sell it to anyone because of economic sanctions.

The US on the other hand has the connections with other countries to import refined oil on a short term basis while they setup oil refineries in other states.

This is what globalization is all about. The US has a global outreach, if it cannot get something from one country it can simply go to another. A rogue state would not have that luxury, if it cannot get something from one of the few trading partners it would have...then it has to go without.

It's one of the few states that doesn't consume more than it produces, also the oil refining ability is key. It's too big of a resource for any block of trade. It's not amount of oil, it's the ability to refine it that is important. All the oil in the world won't run a single car or furnace until it's turned into gas or fuel oil. Also, winter is coming, so demand is on the rise. Gas prices are already too high and are crippling the US and global economy, if half of the refining capability of the US is completely isolated from all trade, those prices would further skyrocket, damaging many economies. The increase increase in oil prices would cause support for independence in the UN, and massive discontent in the US, pushing any borderline states to follow and eroding support for a war. It would be even worse than Iraq, and Iraq is still fresh in our minds. Also remember that Texas produces a lot of beef and seafood, which are already expensive and in high demand, if we cut off texas those prices will further increase, also increasing discontent, all while providing food for texas. I'm not saying it would be easy, but thinking that it is impossible is naive, just about anything is possible.

Globalization is actually an ally of Texas in this case, because the global community, especially the US, is just as dependent(possibly more so) on Texas as Texas is on the world. Globalization is a two way street. A supermarket might go out of business without customers, but without the supermarket customers starve.

DVS BSTrD:
Snip

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Snap

You two make valid points. I'm nominating you both for team Make Sense.

I just wish that they had gone and bitched this much then there was a proper dumbass re-elected.

This amuses me even more than the silly fucks who say they want to move to Australia to 'escape Obama's socialism'...

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-woman-runs-down-husband-car-not-voting-045426220.html

The violence has already started. Woman in Arizona (a state that went to Romney, FYI) ran over her husband with a car, because he didn't vote, and she was despairing how Obama was going to "destroy this country".

Have people always been this crazy?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked