3 ms·

I mean the popular support isn't there but they'd in reality only need the support of the texas national guard. A traitor president also helps. And you also hav

by _8j50 3y ago

I mean the popular support isn't there but they'd in reality only need the support of the texas national guard. A traitor president also helps. And you also have a ton of people who go "who cares, let them leave" like they're breaking up with a romantic partner lol, absolutley no sense of patriotism. I mean, I don't care if it is texas, missisipi or claifornia, I am an american and all of it is mine. Whether it is a buch of small skirmishes or a full on civil war again, sececession can only be accomplished by a lot of blood spilled. I can't stand guns and I don't even care enough about politics to vote but if any state tries to secede, I would join whatever military opposing them or just buy a gun and find a secessionist armed soldier to kill and hope that I have a death as honorable as fighting to defend your homeland, sure bests rotting in a bed or in a hospital. Even if I can't get others to join me I can contribute just my tiny drop of blood to the price that needs to be paid to separate a land from its people. Now, there is exactly one scenario where I'd have no opposition to them seceding: if the constitution is changed to get rid of the electoral college, senatorial representation or if religious rights are infringed upon (even by a SCOTUS decision), and I don't mean protections for miniorities who disagree with a religion but anything that prevents people from sincerely believing (not satanists whose belief according to themselves is fake! For example) in a creator and acting on that belief (including voting). Because before you are a citizen you are a human and before you have legal rights you have natural rights that supersede legal rights(see: declararion of independence) which were the foundation and reasoning used to justify America's secession from Britain. For Texas secessionists though, all they can acheive is destabilization of the US and as a result the whole world. Russia and China's wet dream but my take on it is that secession is as realistic as a neo-nazi white nationalist state.

mschuster91 3y ago
> Whether it is a buch of small skirmishes or a full on civil war again, sececession can only be accomplished by a lot of blood spilled. There have been peaceful secessions in the past - the split of Czechia and Slovakia back in 1993 was one example. And I believe that both Scotland and Catalonia can achieve a peaceful secession, assuming that their respective central governments decide to actually listen to the will of the people.
- _8j50 3y ago
  Of course it is possible, just not gonna happen in the US.
rayiner 3y ago
[flagged]
- nobody9999 3y ago
  >Why should we be forced in this country of 300 million people to agree on everything? It's more like 340,000,000 and no one is forcing anyone to agree about anything. There are many things about which I disagree with my neighbors/friends/family/local, state and Federal governments, but I feel no no need to justify such disagreements to them (or anyone else, for that matter), nor are their choices/ideas impinging on my ability to disagree (or agree, for that matter) about anything. And even if I vehemently disagree, that's no reason to commit acts of violence and/or attempt to secede from the Union. What is it, exactly (not vague pronouncements or complaints about what other people think, say or do), that makes you feel like you must agree with everyone else? Please do enlighten us.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    People have to agree on certain basic values to workable operate the kind of sweeping federal government we have.
    - nobody9999 3y ago
      >People have to agree on certain basic values to workable operate the kind of sweeping federal government we have. Sorry for the late reply. Absolutely. Things like the rule of law (which is mostly the case in the US, with certain really frustrating exceptions -- we should all be treated equally under that law), free and fair elections (there are significant issues there -- especially with gerrymandering and the politicization of the officials who run elections -- e.g., state Secretaries of State) which, we mostly have. I'd add well-regulated capitalism/market economy, which is something of an issue (the sewer of filthy lucre in our political system is the primary culprit in causing problems) here. Freedom (although not unlimited, but pretty expansive) of expression and thought are also important. Most everything else should be left to individuals and communities. While the US system certainly has some significant issues, that's not because (IMNSHO) we (the collective 'we', in the vast majority) agree on the above. The enormous amounts of money in our political system is the biggest issue, with gerrymandering and the (often codified into law in the several states) hegemony of the two-party system not far behind. So no. Americans as a population are mostly in agreement about important things, making compromise possible. But the hegemony of the two-party system creates perverse incentives to demonize the other party and eschew cooperation for fear of alienating the constituencies the parties have riled up by "othering" their fellow Americans. Publicly funded, non-partisan elections, along with regular geometric shapes for congressional districts would go a long way to fix those problems.

by _8j50 3y ago

mschuster91 3y ago

> Whether it is a buch of small skirmishes or a full on civil war again, sececession can only be accomplished by a lot of blood spilled. There have been peaceful secessions in the past - the split of Czechia and Slovakia back in 1993 was one example. And I believe that both Scotland and Catalonia can achieve a peaceful secession, assuming that their respective central governments decide to actually listen to the will of the people.

_8j50 3y ago
Of course it is possible, just not gonna happen in the US.

rayiner 3y ago

[flagged]

nobody9999 3y ago
>Why should we be forced in this country of 300 million people to agree on everything? It's more like 340,000,000 and no one is forcing anyone to agree about anything. There are many things about which I disagree with my neighbors/friends/family/local, state and Federal governments, but I feel no no need to justify such disagreements to them (or anyone else, for that matter), nor are their choices/ideas impinging on my ability to disagree (or agree, for that matter) about anything. And even if I vehemently disagree, that's no reason to commit acts of violence and/or attempt to secede from the Union. What is it, exactly (not vague pronouncements or complaints about what other people think, say or do), that makes you feel like you must agree with everyone else? Please do enlighten us.
- rayiner 3y ago
  People have to agree on certain basic values to workable operate the kind of sweeping federal government we have.
  - nobody9999 3y ago
    >People have to agree on certain basic values to workable operate the kind of sweeping federal government we have. Sorry for the late reply. Absolutely. Things like the rule of law (which is mostly the case in the US, with certain really frustrating exceptions -- we should all be treated equally under that law), free and fair elections (there are significant issues there -- especially with gerrymandering and the politicization of the officials who run elections -- e.g., state Secretaries of State) which, we mostly have. I'd add well-regulated capitalism/market economy, which is something of an issue (the sewer of filthy lucre in our political system is the primary culprit in causing problems) here. Freedom (although not unlimited, but pretty expansive) of expression and thought are also important. Most everything else should be left to individuals and communities. While the US system certainly has some significant issues, that's not because (IMNSHO) we (the collective 'we', in the vast majority) agree on the above. The enormous amounts of money in our political system is the biggest issue, with gerrymandering and the (often codified into law in the several states) hegemony of the two-party system not far behind. So no. Americans as a population are mostly in agreement about important things, making compromise possible. But the hegemony of the two-party system creates perverse incentives to demonize the other party and eschew cooperation for fear of alienating the constituencies the parties have riled up by "othering" their fellow Americans. Publicly funded, non-partisan elections, along with regular geometric shapes for congressional districts would go a long way to fix those problems.