DescentBB

Although nothing will come of this 'petition' I think it would be interesting to see how the Blue States of America would do without the Red States of America.

The petition to let Texas secede from the U.S. to be reviewed by the White House
Monday, November 12, 2012

Well, Texas, you have done it.

As of 3:40 p.m. ET, more than 25,000 Texans have already signed the petition on The White House website to let Texas peacefully secede from United States of America and “create its own NEW government.”

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/11 ... ite-house/

I've now quoted this twice in reference to this absurd news story, but it's worth quoting again:

Oddly, folks from Georgia have filed twice. Even stranger, several of the petitions come from states that went for President Barack Obama.

It's indeed absurd- but I'm curious. Which states would stand on their own quite well as separate countries and which would flounder (like California is.)

Cascadia as a secessionist movement has existed for a while, so you might look toward what literature exists on that.

More to the original question though, the more rural red states take a disproportionately larger amount of money from the federal government than the more metropolitan blue states do. For example, California actually gets less money from the federal government than they pay in.

Texas ain't the only one. Sore losers.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/sec ... 10006.html

what's hilarious is the number of signatures on the petition vs. number of adult residents of the state of Texas. Wow! What an underwhelming groundswell.

I'd love to look through and see if there are any Seymour Butts or other old stand-bys in with them.

Its also amusing they are petitioning the white house, rather than the Texas legislature.

I'd have to wonder how the feds would react if a state did vote to secede. Use armed troops to force the state back into the fold? Or how would the feds handle it if the recalcitrant state's population just decided to not pay any federal taxes? Would the Feds try to arrest everyone? Interesting scenarios to think about.

woodchip wrote:I'd have to wonder how the feds would react if a state did vote to secede. Use armed troops to force the state back into the fold? Or how would the feds handle it if the recalcitrant state's population just decided to not pay any federal taxes? Would the Feds try to arrest everyone? Interesting scenarios to think about.

Americans citizens are taxed on their income regardless of location.

woodchip wrote:I'd have to wonder how the feds would react if a state did vote to secede. Use armed troops to force the state back into the fold? Or how would the feds handle it if the recalcitrant state's population just decided to not pay any federal taxes? Would the Feds try to arrest everyone? Interesting scenarios to think about.

it was tried once, by several states, and didn't go well for them......

Well, if Texas wants to do it, let them. Just let the Feds cut them off from the main national power grid and coal supply. Then we would see how long their little secession move would last.

Damn it, they just built a brand new F1 track there, well I guess they will have to rename it to the Texas Grand Prix.

Top Gun wrote:I'd love to look through and see if there are any Seymour Butts or other old stand-bys in with them.

Don't be suprised to see names like "shaif hirboush" and "al-soq akweer"

I'm not against secession per se. But I think it requires a lot more thought than what's gone into these half-assed petitions. I don't like the idea that North Americans only have two real choices for federal governments. I wouldn't mind seeing some new competition.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:I'd have to wonder how the feds would react if a state did vote to secede. Use armed troops to force the state back into the fold? Or how would the feds handle it if the recalcitrant state's population just decided to not pay any federal taxes? Would the Feds try to arrest everyone? Interesting scenarios to think about.

it was tried once, by several states, and didn't go well for them......

That was then and now is now. Or do you really think the feds would get away with killing their own citizens in this day and age?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:I'd have to wonder how the feds would react if a state did vote to secede. Use armed troops to force the state back into the fold? Or how would the feds handle it if the recalcitrant state's population just decided to not pay any federal taxes? Would the Feds try to arrest everyone? Interesting scenarios to think about.

it was tried once, by several states, and didn't go well for them......

That was then and now is now. Or do you really think the feds would get away with killing their own citizens in this day and age?

only as a last resort, same as ever. Still, it would have to be an option if a state actually persisted in seceding, as it was in 1860, and tried to do so by force.

I can't imagine every Texan would want to secede. So, would the people that live in Texas and want to remain part of the United States have to move to another state? Interesting that in a highly populated state a very small percentage are needed on a petition for review by the White House.

The United States has no problem killing their own when they don't fall in line. I sort of like the idea of a war with Texas, seems like it'd be far cheaper and the military wouldn't have to move as much hardware. Bombers could hit, land, re-fit, and be back to bombing in mere hours. Plus it'd give CNN another chance to come up with some hologram technology that nobody wants to watch.

Texas.
/winning

Heh, imagine all the immigrants who risked their lives to sneak across the Texas border only to find they were not in the USA, haha. As a current resident of Texas, I'll be doing everything I can to gtfo if secession actually happens, which it won't, because that's a stupid idea. A better idea would be to split the nation in half, amicably, which I'm all for.

We are talking about Texas. How about ALASKA, Hawaii, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Washington, COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA, Iowa, and more. All wanting Secession by some of their citizens. All can be found here https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions

Sounds idiotic to me. If you really want to be free from Federal rule, quit accepting the money and the mandates that come along with it. It's exactly this kind of stuff that will eventually throw us into chaos here.

We'll start our own country, with blackjack and hookers...

Poker in the front, liquor in the back.

I see what you did there.

Spidey wrote:Poker in the front, liquor in the back.

Move to Nevada. You'll get both, and in the way you imply

Spidey wrote:Poker in the front, liquor in the back.

Been there done that

Isaac wrote:We'll start our own country, with blackjack and hookers...

you can call it Las Vegas!.....oh, wait, that one's taken.

Jeff250 wrote:I'm not against secession per se. But I think it requires a lot more thought than what's gone into these half-assed petitions.

Well said. I'd like to know who's behind it (assuming a central source). The way I see it anyone who wants to separate themselves from where the federal government is taking us (some more local governments also) had better be ready to fight the same ideological battle that was fought in our separation from England, and to fight it legally and politically to the utmost on the same moral high-ground, or they're going off half-cocked, and basically just courting death. I don't know what the **** these folks think they're doing petitioning the white house when their own state government is not behind them.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:I'm not against secession per se. But I think it requires a lot more thought than what's gone into these half-assed petitions.

I don't know what the **** these folks think they're doing petitioning the white house when their own state government is not behind them.

Perhaps the same way the folks in Libya and Syria petitioned their govt.

IIRC, the whole reason behind these petitions was that the White House website opened a section for public petitions and agreed to 'consider' any petitiion with more than 25,000 signatures. I say this merely to answer Thornes question.

callmeslick wrote:IIRC, the whole reason behind these petitions was that the White House website opened a section for public petitions and agreed to 'consider' any petitiion with more than 25,000 signatures. I say this merely to answer Thornes question.

Thanks, slick. That brings me to another problem I had with this when I first heard about it. "consider" isn't a guarantee of anything. I'll tell you what happened with this one, it was brought up for consideration, everyone at the meeting had their laugh, the bull**** (public relations) department was given a new task for the following day, and then the list was handed off to the FBI for further consideration. It's not like the white house doesn't know there are people who don't want to go along with globalization. Why else do they go to such trouble to dress-up or hide it? This is like the prisoners (gladiators) in the coliseum in Rome petitioning the lions not to eat them. The lion already knew they didn't want to be eaten...

I mean the only other thing this could possibly accomplish is to bring the matter into the public eye with numbers behind it and an expectation of some sort of satisfaction from the white house. The problem is that the public has essentially been told what to think of secession (we won a war over it with the last Abe Lincoln... (while he was freeing the slaves)), so it doesn't do any good from that angle. The argument for secession needs to be made first, IMO, otherwise you're just polarizing the issue in the minds of ignorant people. Why secession is necessary (if it is necessary), why not another solution, where we go from there (international relations, U.S. relations, ...). As bad as things are, here, politically, it might be worse to be dealing with the U.S. as a separate, neighboring nation state! (of course if this ended up being the case we could all just illegally immigrate ) I still have a lot of thinking to do on the matter, but right now I think our best bet is probably to reign in the Federal Government with established states rights and the established, limited, Federal Government role (like some folks have been doing)--use the governmental tools we were given by the founders. I've never heard of anyone with the necessary vision to do anything grander than that.

....and in my opinion, Thorne, we need no 'solution' grander than working within the system we have. That is the beauty of what our Founders put in place, a system that CAN be changed, with a host of checks and balances to keep change from happening too quickly. The latter keeps the US from falling into bad ideas due to fads or whims that overtake the citizenry.

Slick, methinks you live far away from reality and the citizenry. You should get out more.

callmeslick wrote:....and in my opinion, Thorne, we need no 'solution' grander than working within the system we have. That is the beauty of what our Founders put in place, a system that CAN be changed, with a host of checks and balances to keep change from happening too quickly. The latter keeps the US from falling into bad ideas due to fads or whims that overtake the citizenry.

If you're trying to tell me that the beauty of what the founders devised shows through in our present state of government... I was born, but not yesterday, slick. I suppose the beauty of the turkey shows through when it's on the carving table, in a way, but it's beauty for another purpose. For your purposes there may be beauty in our present system. The system has been hijacked, and is being hijacked by very clever interests who are not straightforward about their purposes. There is a grand scheme at work to bring about the globalization of government. This is, by definition, not in the interest of the U.S. Their only hope is to hack away at the U.S. until it is untenable as a system of government, while separately indoctrinating the populace to accept global governance as a good thing. I am as against this hacking away as I am the indoctrination.

flip wrote:Slick, methinks you live far away from reality and the citizenry. You should get out more.

I get out plenty. What problem do you have with my reasoning?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

callmeslick wrote:....and in my opinion, Thorne, we need no 'solution' grander than working within the system we have. That is the beauty of what our Founders put in place, a system that CAN be changed, with a host of checks and balances to keep change from happening too quickly. The latter keeps the US from falling into bad ideas due to fads or whims that overtake the citizenry.

If you're trying to tell me that the beauty of what the founders devised shows through in our present state of government... I was born, but not yesterday, slick. I suppose the beauty of the turkey shows through when it's on the carving table, in a way, but it's beauty for another purpose. For your purposes there may be beauty in our present system. The system has been hijacked, and is being hijacked by very clever interests who are not straightforward about their purposes. There is a grand scheme at work to bring about the globalization of government. This is, by definition, not in the interest of the U.S. Their only hope is to hack away at the U.S. until it is untenable as a system of government, while separately indoctrinating the populace to accept global governance as a good thing. I am as against this hacking away as I am the indoctrination.

sorry, Thorne, but I don't share your alarm, nor do I agree that we are dissolving the US form of governence in favor of some sort of goofy one world approach, which wouldn't be feasable on any real scale. That you view the system as hijacked, others of us would view as a logical evolution due to the fact that our world is far different,and our country is far different than the United States of 1784. The rise of corporations, industrialization, diversity of immigration and the change from a rural to urban society over the past two centuries have necessitated most of the changes that alarm you. What I feel you don't realize is that without many of those changes, the US would have become an oligarchy at best, and who knows what at worst. Yet, we have, warts and all, remained a functional Representative Republic, as we have been since founding. We haven't had to scrap our Constitution, nor had any coups d'etat. Sure, there have been missteps along the way, and our nation is far from perfect. It is, however, the model of governance for most of the rest of the planet's peoples, and, as far as I can tell, the best option out there.

a system that CAN be changed, with a host of checks and balances to keep change from happening too quickly. The latter keeps the US from falling into bad ideas due to fads or whims that overtake the citizenry.

You may get out, but I imagine it is also always with the same crowd. It limits your perspective. We don't want change. We want to stand with our foundational roots. You realize the Federal government is made up of less than a 1000 people, and the way you word this is such a way as you think they are protecting us from ourselves, when in all reality they are the ones that should be subject. It just says alot of your perception and role of the "citizenry" and your idea of change is one of slow erosion. I don't see US coming to agreement with the citizenry really and the only thing US has in their favor right now is dumbed down people. It won't stay that way.

flip, I am a bit more diverse in my contacts that you might suspect. On topic, though, I see the situation as the reverse of you....in other words, the dumbed down nature of the electorate is what gives you the feeling that government is out of touch. Oh, and the Federal Government is WAY more than 1000 people, last I checked.
I am curious what you mean by getting back to fundamental roots. You mean, running the place like we still had an agrarian economy with a bunch of small shopkeepers and a few international trading companies? Look around you, this isn't 1784, and 1784 fundamentals of governmental design won't work. Luckily, we were given a framework that enabled gradual evolution and modernization.

I guess I should be more specific. 545 policy makers, sure there is a great deal of delegation, but ultimately it is less than 600 people who make policy. Foundational means a strong sense of sovereignty, something I have seen myself destroyed since the 70's. Anyone that was born after 70-80, will never know how clean the air used to smell or how clear the water used to be. I remember drinking straight from the river. I remember when they attacked the Pledge and anything else that gave a strong sense of individualism, now they got everybody thinking their just a bunch of highly evolved apes, with the smartest apes of course being more able to lead. You can not control people who think they are unique creations. I always try to look at the end of a matter, not just right at it, and since I was a first hand witness to this transition, before and after, I KNOW the difference

heck, Flip, I've been around longer than you, and this is what I've seen:

I've seen a nation in which the vast bulk of the populace abdicated their civic responsibility to focus on acquiring stuff for themselves. I saw a nation gradually lose a sense of civic duty to their neighbors, and indeed become MORE individualistic, in terms of selfish focus. I saw a nation become so functionally illiterate as to have most of the voting eligible citizens not only not vote, but not be aware of who represented them. This is, and has been, a recipe for a society in decline. It isn't the fault of the Constitution, or the government, because we have a system that largely gives the citizenry the government they deserve(as a wiser man than I noted at the outset).