7 ms·

Texas also has loudly proclaimed that they want to secede from the USA, but keep the military bases and equipment, the jobs, the money, the people...but still b

Texas also has loudly proclaimed that they want to secede from the USA, but keep the military bases and equipment, the jobs, the money, the people...but still be totally independent. Good luck, Texas. You'll quickly find that regulations are in place for a reason.

BurningFrog 2y ago
When did Texas most recently proclaim this?
- mikeyouse 2y ago
  "Texas" never proclaims anything but basically every time there's some setback (I think most recently it was the Supreme Court ruling that they couldn't pile trash in the Rio Grande to prevent crossings) there's a whole crop of politicians banging the secession drum. The Confederacy claimed that the US Government had broken the 'compact' that the states had agreed to in order to join the union when they abolished slavery - so their justification for secession under these dubious legal theories was called the "compact theory" -- it's no accident that after that most recent SC ruling, Texas's governor was out there saying that the US Government had broken the compact between the Federal government and the states. He then issued a series of unconstitutional orders daring the Federal government to stop him; https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/Border_Statement_1.24.2024.pdf https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/Border_Statement_1... It wasn't an overt threat to secede (though many in his party do make that specific threat) but it was an obvious nod to where they think this will end up if they don't get their way.
michelb 2y ago
Small steps towards 'the Western front'.
paganel 2y ago
> but keep the military bases and equipment, the jobs, the money, the people. That's how secessions/federal disintegrations generally work, just look at the USSR post-1991. And I also see this move as a potential further step towards Texas's devolution from the government in DC, who's going to stop them once they'll decide to "pass the Rubicon" for good?
- silisili 2y ago
  IIRC, this was also more or less the kickoff of fighting in the Civil War. SC decided it was just going to keep Fort Sumter, and the US Gov didn't take so kindly to that thought.
- NickC25 2y ago
  >That's how secessions/federal disintegrations generally work, just look at the USSR post-1991. Yeah, it might be, but think of it this way - if Texas said "we're independent, and all the military installations and research facilities are now ours" I have a strong suspicion the US government might say "yeah, no, that's not happening". The likes of Lockheed Martin and other major AF/Army/Navy contractors have production and research facilities in the DFW area. Texas goes independent, that's a lot of stuff in those facilities that the USA wouldn't want an openly hostile neighbor to have.
bionsystem 2y ago
[flagged]
- malcolmgreaves 2y ago
  Don’t mistake a government for the people that live in the state. They’re hostages to gerrymandering.
  - bionsystem 2y ago
    I'm not talking about gov mistakes, but about basic climate trends. There is no way the place stays alive, hence any debate about what they do or why they do it is meaningless.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  Because of the heat and humidity? When wet bulb temps get high enough to cause migrations north.
  - bionsystem 2y ago
    Yep, climate change will kill it. It's going to be mad max at best.
- latency-guy2 2y ago
  I'll take that bet, put money on it otherwise your words are meaningless.
  - bionsystem 2y ago
    If there is something on longbets dot org that's a fair description on what I expect I will gladly do it.
technofiend 2y ago
Governor Rick Perry joked about it in 2009, but it was just a joke. Even so trolls are having fun fanning the flames of political discontent by spreading this and other conspiracy theories. No rational person is asking for this, nor would it be legal. [1] The Smithsonian claims it might be legal if Texas hews to its original agreement to break into five states if they did secede. [2] Of course the trolls are ignoring that since it doesn't appeal to anyone's pride to break up into the state of Dallas, Houston, etc. It would also undermine the alleged conservative vision for a pure red state since Texas metro areas trend purple to blue. Texas actually breaking into five states that remain would be bitterly fought against since it would dramatically raise the number of House and Senate seats and shift the balance of power. [1] https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/29/texas-secession/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/29/texas-secession/ [2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/more-150-years-texas-has-had-power-secede-itself-180962354/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/more-150-years-texas-...
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  What is 'Legal' nor Not-legal about succession . Legal implies some authority over both parties, that they have agreed to some common rules. If you are succeeding, you are no longer bound by the laws of the original country, you are your own country with own laws. And then you can just make some new laws to make it 'legal'.
- rufus_foreman 2y ago
  >> Of course the trolls are ignoring that since it doesn't appeal to anyone's pride to break up into the state of Dallas, Houston, etc. North Austin, East Austin, South Austin, West Austin, and Greater Texas.
  - technofiend 2y ago
    Ask anyone from Austin and it's the second greatest city in Texas. The greatest city in Texas is Austin twenty years ago before everyone else discovered it and came here.
marcusverus 2y ago
Texas is not only viable as an independent nation, it is more viable as an independent nation than the overwhelming majority of independent nations. It would be in the 95th percentile by land area, the 95th percentile by GDP, and the 90th percentile by proven oil reserves. Texas independence can't come soon enough!
- tombert 2y ago
  I don't really dispute any of the points you made here, though I do wonder how much of that is confounded by the fact that the federal government picks up a lot of the slack that an independent Texas would have to do themselves. The federal government handles the military, subsidizes a lot of education programs, and pays a large percentage of medical costs for the lower-income and elderly; if Texas split off on their own, they of course would be stuck footing the bill themselves. I'm not saying that they couldn't do it, I'm just curious to how much that actually messes with the numbers, and moreover I haven't really seen any compelling evidence that Texas being part of the USA has held them back.
  - marcusverus 2y ago
    > The federal government picks up a lot of the slack that an independent Texas would have to do themselves... Federal money doesn't grow on a tree in D.C.--it comes from taxpayers in the several states! So while it's true that the Federal government would stop paying for these things, it's also true that Texans would stop paying Federal taxes. With this in mind, it's clear that Texas could easily afford to assume any and all federal obligations by replacing federal taxes with their own equivalent taxes. I've heard it said that Texas is a net recipient of Federal dollars, but only by 1-2%. Given that Texans will likely want a signaficantly smaller government, this can easily be covered via spending cuts. > I haven't really seen any compelling evidence that Texas being part of the USA has held them back. Texans are subject to federal law, which is regularly dicated to us by people from thousands of miles away, with whom we have little in common. If that's not being 'held back', what is?
    - tombert 2y ago

BurningFrog 2y ago

When did Texas most recently proclaim this?

mikeyouse 2y ago
"Texas" never proclaims anything but basically every time there's some setback (I think most recently it was the Supreme Court ruling that they couldn't pile trash in the Rio Grande to prevent crossings) there's a whole crop of politicians banging the secession drum. The Confederacy claimed that the US Government had broken the 'compact' that the states had agreed to in order to join the union when they abolished slavery - so their justification for secession under these dubious legal theories was called the "compact theory" -- it's no accident that after that most recent SC ruling, Texas's governor was out there saying that the US Government had broken the compact between the Federal government and the states. He then issued a series of unconstitutional orders daring the Federal government to stop him; https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/Border_Statement_1.24.2024.pdf https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/Border_Statement_1... It wasn't an overt threat to secede (though many in his party do make that specific threat) but it was an obvious nod to where they think this will end up if they don't get their way.

michelb 2y ago

Small steps towards 'the Western front'.

paganel 2y ago

> but keep the military bases and equipment, the jobs, the money, the people. That's how secessions/federal disintegrations generally work, just look at the USSR post-1991. And I also see this move as a potential further step towards Texas's devolution from the government in DC, who's going to stop them once they'll decide to "pass the Rubicon" for good?

silisili 2y ago
IIRC, this was also more or less the kickoff of fighting in the Civil War. SC decided it was just going to keep Fort Sumter, and the US Gov didn't take so kindly to that thought.
NickC25 2y ago
>That's how secessions/federal disintegrations generally work, just look at the USSR post-1991. Yeah, it might be, but think of it this way - if Texas said "we're independent, and all the military installations and research facilities are now ours" I have a strong suspicion the US government might say "yeah, no, that's not happening". The likes of Lockheed Martin and other major AF/Army/Navy contractors have production and research facilities in the DFW area. Texas goes independent, that's a lot of stuff in those facilities that the USA wouldn't want an openly hostile neighbor to have.

bionsystem 2y ago

[flagged]

malcolmgreaves 2y ago
Don’t mistake a government for the people that live in the state. They’re hostages to gerrymandering.
- bionsystem 2y ago
  I'm not talking about gov mistakes, but about basic climate trends. There is no way the place stays alive, hence any debate about what they do or why they do it is meaningless.
FrustratedMonky 2y ago
Because of the heat and humidity? When wet bulb temps get high enough to cause migrations north.
- bionsystem 2y ago
  Yep, climate change will kill it. It's going to be mad max at best.
latency-guy2 2y ago
I'll take that bet, put money on it otherwise your words are meaningless.
- bionsystem 2y ago
  If there is something on longbets dot org that's a fair description on what I expect I will gladly do it.

technofiend 2y ago

Governor Rick Perry joked about it in 2009, but it was just a joke. Even so trolls are having fun fanning the flames of political discontent by spreading this and other conspiracy theories. No rational person is asking for this, nor would it be legal. [1] The Smithsonian claims it might be legal if Texas hews to its original agreement to break into five states if they did secede. [2] Of course the trolls are ignoring that since it doesn't appeal to anyone's pride to break up into the state of Dallas, Houston, etc. It would also undermine the alleged conservative vision for a pure red state since Texas metro areas trend purple to blue. Texas actually breaking into five states that remain would be bitterly fought against since it would dramatically raise the number of House and Senate seats and shift the balance of power. [1] https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/29/texas-secession/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/29/texas-secession/ [2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/more-150-years-texas-has-had-power-secede-itself-180962354/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/more-150-years-texas-...

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
What is 'Legal' nor Not-legal about succession . Legal implies some authority over both parties, that they have agreed to some common rules. If you are succeeding, you are no longer bound by the laws of the original country, you are your own country with own laws. And then you can just make some new laws to make it 'legal'.
rufus_foreman 2y ago
>> Of course the trolls are ignoring that since it doesn't appeal to anyone's pride to break up into the state of Dallas, Houston, etc. North Austin, East Austin, South Austin, West Austin, and Greater Texas.
- technofiend 2y ago
  Ask anyone from Austin and it's the second greatest city in Texas. The greatest city in Texas is Austin twenty years ago before everyone else discovered it and came here.

marcusverus 2y ago

Texas is not only viable as an independent nation, it is more viable as an independent nation than the overwhelming majority of independent nations. It would be in the 95th percentile by land area, the 95th percentile by GDP, and the 90th percentile by proven oil reserves. Texas independence can't come soon enough!

tombert 2y ago
I don't really dispute any of the points you made here, though I do wonder how much of that is confounded by the fact that the federal government picks up a lot of the slack that an independent Texas would have to do themselves. The federal government handles the military, subsidizes a lot of education programs, and pays a large percentage of medical costs for the lower-income and elderly; if Texas split off on their own, they of course would be stuck footing the bill themselves. I'm not saying that they couldn't do it, I'm just curious to how much that actually messes with the numbers, and moreover I haven't really seen any compelling evidence that Texas being part of the USA has held them back.
- marcusverus 2y ago
  > The federal government picks up a lot of the slack that an independent Texas would have to do themselves... Federal money doesn't grow on a tree in D.C.--it comes from taxpayers in the several states! So while it's true that the Federal government would stop paying for these things, it's also true that Texans would stop paying Federal taxes. With this in mind, it's clear that Texas could easily afford to assume any and all federal obligations by replacing federal taxes with their own equivalent taxes. I've heard it said that Texas is a net recipient of Federal dollars, but only by 1-2%. Given that Texans will likely want a signaficantly smaller government, this can easily be covered via spending cuts. > I haven't really seen any compelling evidence that Texas being part of the USA has held them back. Texans are subject to federal law, which is regularly dicated to us by people from thousands of miles away, with whom we have little in common. If that's not being 'held back', what is?
  - tombert 2y ago