2 ms·
> I'm saying that I don't think Texas is uniquely qualified to be self-sufficient. Oh. I'll do you one better then. Texas is uniquely unqualified to be self-su
by NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> I'm saying that I don't think Texas is uniquely qualified to be self-sufficient.
Oh. I'll do you one better then. Texas is uniquely unqualified to be self-sufficient. They tried it once and went bankrupt in 10 years.
> I mostly think Texas would not be able to win a civil war against the US,
I don't know why one would or should be fought. The people who think that the US has the right to prevent secession are pretty weird... ask them if they think divorce should be illegal or if the husband should be allowed to murder a wife who tries.
- tombert 2y ago> Oh. I'll do you one better then. Texas is uniquely unqualified to be self-sufficient. They tried it once and went bankrupt in 10 years In fairness, a lot can change in 100+ years. Texas has much better utilization of its resources with a much higher population now than it did the last time they were independent. It's possible that they'd do better now. > I don't know why one would or should be fought. The people who think that the US has the right to prevent secession are pretty weird It might be weird but wasn't that the conclusion of the US Civil War? I very highly doubt that the fed woudl let Texas secede without a fight.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y agoI would hope that one of the things that has changed in 100 years is that the rest of the US wouldn't want to go murder a few million people simply because they don't want to be together anymore. > I very highly doubt that the fed woudl let Texas secede without a fight. Sure. And I would expect the fight to be litigative, or even diplomatic in nature. But martial? Though, I will say I keep forgetting how bloodthirsty the typical person is, and how few socially approved avenues they have to engage in that mindset. So who knows.