you’re doing real well in this thread, guy.
keep at it.
and if you think the state of red vs blue is america right now is the same as early america vs the british, you need to stop being such a drama queen.
these petitions are not some fight against tyranny. it’s just bitch-fits about things not going exactly how they think they should go. it’s not real oppression. it’s just whining.
i’m still awaiting a cite for the violence threat…?
The difference is that America won and Texas would lose. Sad as this may sound, when it comes to the relationship between nations, the sword is the only truth.
The future of the human race is to unite, not to divide. If states can secede from the union, what’s next? Individual counties seceding from states? Households from counties? Every door leading to a new flag and a new law? If everyone could just take their ball and go home whenever they felt the slightest bit offended or put out, whither then the empire? Whither then the nation? Think of the infinite and manifest glories of the United States; think of the enormous projects and undertakings it has created. Could fifty or two hundred or five thousand feuding principalities ever accomplish such greatness? Have you no pride in your motherland?
In any case, the federal government is a double-edged sword, true, but time and time again have the individual states begat tyrannies over their own citizens, and the federal government commanded them back to the ways of justice. If the Union had simply let the South secede, what would have happened to the black man?
I think it is an improvement.
All the previous hissy fits by a minority of extreme Reps demanded that the Dems DO stuff: produce Obama’'s birth certificate, produce a better birth certificate, produce college records…
Now the ball is in their court. They are supposed to DO stuff, instead of demanding the other party do stuff they can then whine about.
The seceders signed an e-mail petition, great. But now they have to find and pay a lawyer who will draft up the paperwork. And better paperwork. One in each state. And more paperwork. It should keep them happily occupied, and off the presidents back, for the next four years.
They have my blessing. And I propose that Trumps offer of five million be put towards the first lawyer costs.
One choice? The last time I checked, there were close to two hundred nations on this planet. In a number of those, there are subdivisions and territories that actually cause the number of available governments to be anywhere from a bit higher to a lot higher, depending on how carefully you define the distinction between a choice in governments.
If the fifty states were to break up and dissolve the federal government, becoming independent nations, I don’t see any reason to automatically assume one would have any more choice in which one to live in than one currently has in which country to live in. Each one would be likely to develop its own immigration rules, and moving between them would be little different than moving between existing countries now - not particularly easy.
What the fuck does this have to do with my OP?
And speaking of DOING stuff, what did Obama and his super majority in congress DO? I’ll tell you what they didn’t DO: produce a single budget.
You currently have 193 different forms of government to choose from, not one.
If the US fractured on State lines, you think you’d get fifty mini-republics? Half would ally against the other half in a matter of hours. (Maybe Canada would snap up a few while no-one were looking.) You think the rest of the world would let you keep your oil off-shore oil reserves when the US Navy suddenly gets cut into 50 pieces? What do you do when Russia, China, India and Pakistan realizes that the nuclear silos are suddenly in a different *nation’s *chain of command than your fricking nuclear radars?
Does not compute with…
You can’t make your primary argument against state choices being difficulty in moving from one to another, then say that people that support secession should just move out of the US. And there’s no way that each state becomes its own nation. IF secession became common place, there would be large groupings. And I’ve already said that that’s not the route that I would like to see pursued. I just want the FedGov’s power distributed BACK to the states.
That’s not verified in the least. Registering for an account on the site requires a name, email, and zip code. The only thing that is confirmed in order to activate registration is the email address. Non-US citizens can sign and citizens from any state can sign the petition for any other state. You can also register multiple accounts and sign things more than once.
I’d suggest this is all just hypothetical as you mentioned previously instead of trying to get the OP changed to reflect any kind of reality in the petitions.
anyone see how ironic it is this guy *angrily *asked why everyone is so *angrily *and *violently *against “peaceful secession” but he can’t discuss it without himself coming of as really angry?
all the hostility seems on that–> side.
i still await any cites where violence is suggested against peaceful seceding states. i’m doubtful any exist, unless you count a few snippets from the comments sections of random websites. i would, tho, hypothesis, that *perhaps *the belligerent, adversarial position you start with might aggravate your perception.
The people who started the “petitions” are just trolling in front of the biggest audience they could find, and they’ve gotten plenty of takers to roil up a shitstorm.
As we say on the internet: DNFTT (Do not feed the trolls.)
So you are implying that I can easily move from one nation to another? That’s not even remotely the case.
Again, I don’t support the dissolving of the entire US. I’m mostly trying to make a point that I would support secession primarily as a last resort, but would much prefer returning power back to the states and significantly limiting the power of the FedGov. One of the few powers that I would support for the national government WOULD be defense, albeit about half the size of the current budget.
And, if you haven’t noticed, the ENTIRE US would be affected by one of those countries taking over the Gulf’s oil reserves. TX/LA/MS/AL/FL would fight to maintain the land, but the other 45 states would be pretty stupid not join in. If another nation were to forcefully take our oil reserves, what’s to stop them from taking the Gulf South states themselves? I don’t support any of it, but in case you haven’t noticed, we have about 100K troops in Germany, Japan, and Italy. Your theory is out of line regardless. Did you not see that TX/LS/MS/AL/FL breaking off would result in the 6th largest economy on the planet, between France and the UK? Do any of the countries you think would decide to attack the Gulf South currently have either of those countries on their radar to invade? I didn’t think so.
See above. Do you honestly think one of those countries would sign their own death warrant simply because the most powerful nation were suddenly divided, resulting in the weaker but still most powerful nation on the planet, and the new 6th most powerful nation on the planet? Are China or Russia frequently trying to start shit with the UK and I’m just not reading about it in the news?
When there’s a democratic mandate for a state to secede, let me know.
What we have here is basically an online joke.
They are not signing petitions. They are “signing” with nothing more than an anonymous user name a “petition” that in reality is nothing more than a request to the President to have him reply to a question.
Any real motion for a state to leave the union would have to be done through a real petition presented to the legislature of the state in question. Said petition would also have to have some minimum number of (real) signatures determined as a percetage of the population of the state. Were such a petition to be actually carried out and reach the required number of signatures, it would still only be a request to the legislature to consider the idea of seceding. The legislature would still have to decide whether to secede or whether to open the question up to a citizens referendum.
This “petition” bullshit is just that, bullshit. A bunch of childish trolls crying for attention.
I wasn’t saying that people should just move out of the US, since it is a somewhat impractical answer. Just pointing out the fact that if the nation broke up, it wouldn’t give people ‘fifty choices’ like you suggested in a previous post, since it would at that point likely be equally impractical for people to move as it currently is.
In the end, the average person would still be stuck with the government of the state (or grouping of states) that they happen to be in. Since each state or grouping of states would be weaker in general than the entire country, I see little benefit in this for the average person, and a great deal of downside.
As far as distributing the federal government’s power back to the states goes, that wasn’t really the initial topic you brought up in the thread. It’s also a much more complicated issue; on some topics, I would agree that the power should reside in the states, and the federal government really shouldn’t be involved. On other topics, I likely disagree. There are things that are much more efficient and effective if centrally controlled and mandated. There are other things that benefit greatly from decentralization, and trying different approaches in different places.
What saddens me the most is the hypocrisy of all of you. You’re mostly pro gay marriage and pro choice. So am I. How does two men or two women getting married affect me negatively? How does someone else getting an abortion affect me negatively? Whether I support any of those decisions/lifestyles makes no difference, they don’t infringe on any of my rights to live as I choose and should be allowed. But what if a large region of the US, for the most part, supports something that the rest of the country has frowned upon? What if, while a bunch of dumb fuck voters across the nation continue to vote for war, continue to vote for unsustainable welfare (both corporate and personal), continue to vote against the free market, and continue to vote against reform that could fix most of these things? Should those people be shunned just as the anti gay marriage/anti pro-choice are?
Why would you support people that want one kind of freedom and not others that want another kind of freedom? Do you not see the hypocrisy in supporting the freedom only of those who hold the stances that you do while shunning those that disagree and simply want an out?
You’re welcome.
But in case that was sarcasm, let me counter you in more detail:
Acknowledging that at the time the British legally owned their colonies is not “supporting” imperialism, it’s being in touch with reality.
There are currently 200+ nations on planet Earth. You are free to emigrate to any of them that you like better than this one. Some are even more unfettered by laws and a central government than the US… like Somalia, which should be a libertarian paradise what with so few restrictions on people.
I don’t see why fracturing one nation into 50 is going to result in any wider range of choices.
You can say
Then with a straight face say
Basically, you want complete freedom to do whatever the hell you want, but you also want a strong Federal government to protect your rights. I’m sorry, those two impulses are contradictory.
Some differences (please have your crayon ready to take notes):
Obama wants to raise taxes on the richest as well as making some spending cuts in order to work on the deficit, Romney just wants to cut taxes (again) for the wealthiest while making cuts for the neediest citizens.
Obama is trying to end two wars, neither of which he started. Romney came within a hair’s breath of declaring he’d start yet another war (for three at the same time) against Iran.
Drugs: Romney has never even had a sip of coffee if he’s to be believed, Obama has admitted to trying cocaine. I’ll also point out that so far the Obama administration has been pretty quiet about the pot legalization in Colorado and Washington, which is not indicative of a hardline stance and may in fact be an indication his administration is actually willing to let the states make these decisions – in other words, the state of affairs you actually desire.
In regards to social issues – the Obama administration got rid of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell which I opposed from the beginning, has ceased fighting to defend DOMA in court, and part of Obamacare is making sure women have access to contraception so they can control whether or not they reproduce. Romney, on the other hand, opposes anything other than his own brand of marriage, is anti-gay, would oppose the right of the states to regulate marriage within their borders (as explicitly given in the constitution), make both healthcare and contraception more difficult to obtain, and would ban abortion even in the most extreme case, to save the life of a woman, which basically means he views 51% of the population expendable in pursing his religious beliefs and imposing them on others.
NDAA: What, you want to completely disband the US military? NDAA is how we fund our military, from paying for the latest weapons systems to paying the lowliest Army private. What do you propose to put in its place? Or do you expect to rely on the good will of the rest of the world to not invade a suddenly toothless US? Or do you expect the citizenry to take on modern armies and/or terrorist cells with their handguns and deer rifles?
First of all, the US government is far less “bloated” than the governments of some other nations, just like our taxes are lower than those of a lot of other nations, political propaganda saying otherwise notwithstanding. Second, damn few people in the US are “oppressed”, and those that are – gays, minorities, etc. - are some of those who you oppose. Things like gay rights is actually an INCREASE in social freedom, not a decrease – if you don’t want gay marriage don’t get married to someone of the same gender. But don’t tell homosexuals they can’t marry each other, because that would be restricting their freedom.
It doesn’t have to come to seceding – it is, in fact, ridiculous to say that it has, hence the use of terms like “tantrum” and “childish”. US states are not oppressed except in the minds of delusional individuals who can’t accept that other people can hold legitimate differences of opinion regarding how the world and nation should work, and that those other people might even be the majority. States voting to legalize pot and/or gay marriage is, in fact, an exercise of their power as states and the US military is hardly rolling tanks into those states to enforce someone else’s will over them. In fact, it is YOU who are proposing oppression by declaring that the majority aren’t correct on something such as “gay rights” and saying they are SO wrong that we should destroy the country in response.
IF the majority of the citizens of Louisiana sincerely wanted to leave I’d support debating the matter but that is NOT the case – it’s a disgruntled minority (some of which aren’t from Louisiana, and may not even be from the US) signing a powerless petition because they didn’t get their way in a fair election.
If you want to move to Texas absolutely nothing is stopping you from doing so – unlike post-US breakup when you would have to get a passport, a visa to visit the Lone Star Nation, and deal with a pile of immigration rules between Texas and Sovereign Louisiana.
We’re reliant on Middle East oil, too, but apparently that oil being located in another country hasn’t been a problem. I suppose if the Gulf Coast nation-states decided to boycott the rest of the former US the rest of the former US could ally and invade them and just take the oil…
Really, I don’t see how breaking up the US makes for an improvement here.
So what’s stopping you for running for political office?
Why would I do that? He’s free to leave NOW and emigrate to Canada if he so desires, if Canada will have him. It’s not comparable. What you’re proposing is as if Baldwin declared his California home as part of Canada, which is ludicrous.
If you don’t like the direction the US is going after a fair election you are welcome to go to a country more to your liking. Of course, as many Romney supporters discovered when, just after the election they declared a desire to do exactly that, every other First World nation is even MORE “socialist” than the US having things like an actual social safety net, national healthcare, and so forth. The only countries LESS restrictive are, in fact, places like Somalia which, for some reason, they don’t want to consider as a place to live despite the lack of restrictvie laws and taxes.
Why not? Because you wouldn’t like it? But that’s oppressive towards the freedom of others to fracture their nation! There are 50 petitions in place, correct? (Actually, I think some of those states have multiple petitions) How do you justify some breaking away but not all?
In fact, that last time we rode that merry-go-round, when Virginia seceded from the Union a bunch of counties seceded from the state, which is how we got West Virginia. What makes you think such a thing is impossible now, if we go down the road you proprose?
Why? Because you say so? Why should I believe you?
Doesn’t it make sense to keep the “large grouping” we already have?
Right, because that worked out so well back when some states decided part of humanity were not human but cattle. Right, because that worked so well when some states made marrying someone of a different skin color illegal. Right, because that worked so well when some states said some people didn’t deserve an equal education, or even the right to stay in a hotel or use the bathroom or drink from the same water fountain as some other people.
What you want is the ability to force your opinions and viewpoints on other people. YOU are the one proposing oppression, dressing it up in a false definition of freedom. Living in a democracy means that you don’t always get your own way.
Let me explain something to you: simply posting your views is not going to convince the millions of people who disagree with you because of fundamental differences in how they view the world. I’m sorry if you’re butt-hurt because yours is not a majority viewpoint but that’s the way it is. I’m in favor of raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans who, outside of cesspits like Somalia, enjoy some of the lowest tax rates in the world while their [del]peons[/del] secretaries and chauffeurs pay a far higher percentage of their income to support the government than their [del]masters[/del] employers. I’m in favor of “socail welfare” because I feel it is morally wrong to allow people to starve to death or die in the gutter of treatable illnesses. I’m in favor of “gay rights”, which is really guaranteeing equal rights for homosexuals, including gay marriage. I have just as much right to these beliefs as you have to yours. Declaring mine so wrong that they justify breaking up the US just reveals that you want to dictate to others instead of actually living in a functioning democracy.
Thank you for giving a legit counterpoint instead of freaking the fuck out. I disagree strongly, though. Say my hypothetical TX/LA/MS/AL/FL nation came up, and did not forcefully restrict people from leaving. Do you really think that it’s tougher to move from Florida to Georgia, or Texas to New Mexico, or Mississippi to Arkansas as it is to currently move from the US to ANY other nation? It’s not even close.
No shit. We’re all stuck with the same national government, and anyone currently dealing with a state government that they like/don’t like will not have their situation changed except that, in my ideal government, they would certainly have better options to move to.
Seriously? The federal government is fucking out of control. Saying that each individual state would be weaker than the entire country would be a downside is like saying that Rosa Parks is weaker alone than she would be teaming up with everyone else in prison, and thus should yield to their stances.
Glad we can agree on something.
Or maybe not. I’m sorry, but no one will ever convince me that a group of people making national decisions for ~350 million people will ever be more effective than people making state-wide decisions for 500k - 35million (and Cali’s 35m people is entirely too large, the state should be broken up).
So in 2016 the blue party (say) wins. 10 red states secede. The USA is down to 40 states.
In 2020 the red party wins. 8 blue states secede. The USA is down to 32 states.
In 2024 the blue party wins. 7 red states secede. The USA is now down to 25 states.
And the seceded states have themselves had secessions, which have themselves had secessions, and so ad infinitum.
This is your great idea? And you can’t see why people might be hostile to it? I’m 3000 miles away and I can see exactly why they might be hostile. 
No, it’s not - unless, of course, you have some sort of highly in demand skill, such as a medical degree, which makes you attractive to just about any country. Gee, maybe you should have made different choices in what to study as a career if you wanted such freedom of movement.
Now, if we break up the US as you propose what the hell makes you think you’d be able to move freely from one of those nations to another?
Really?
What if some other nation with a large military cuts a deal with, say, MD/VA/NC/SC/GA that if they join in the effort to conquer the Gulf Oil State they’ll split the crude afterwards?
You’re expecting all those seceded states to continue acting as if they were a larger union for purposes of defense, but why should they? They’re separate nations now, after all. What’s to stop the Socialist State of CA/OR/WA from allying with China against the rest of North America? What’s to stop California from splitting into two nations, a liberal South California and a conservative North California?
Right now? The second largest military in the world (China has the largest, if I recall correctly). Post-breakup? Not much, to be honest.
It’s not just oil, you know - several African nations have been complaining for years about other nations taking their fish that they need for food for their own people from their national waters and no one gives a damn, apparently. What do you think will happen to the coastal waters off Maine with their lobsters? With the Alaskan crab and salmon fisheries? Other nations hesistate to attempt to poach those waters because of the US Navy. The Maine Navy…? Not nearly as impressive.
For how long? Texas would lose all those choice defense contracts they currently enjoy. Florida tourism would drop if customs and visas were suddenly required to enter. Rinse and repeat. Part of the reason that grouping currently has such economic power is because they’re part of a larger union and benefit from it.
During the Cuban Missile crisis the USSR was quite willing to “start shit” with the entire US. What makes you think any part of a divided US would remain the “most powerful nation”? Look what happened when the USSR broke up - collectively, the group known as the former USSR do not still enjoy the power of the intact USSR, even if some of those nations, such as Russia, do still retain some weight on the world stage. What makes you think that a fractured US would fare any better?
I don’t know - why did you register as a Republican if you’re pro gay marriage and pro choice? That party is against those things. Why didn’t you register Democrat, for the party at least slightly inclined in that direction? Why did you register for a party at all? I’ve never “registered” as either party and I’ve had no problem voting these past 30 years.
If a block of states decide that slavery is a good idea, should we allow that? If a block of states decides woman are sub-human chattel that shouldn’t be permitted to set foot outside the home without a male relative escort should we support that? If a block of states decides that their citizens should be [insert religion here] or not be permitted to vote should we allow that?
I’m sorry if you’re just now discovering the real world is complicated and sometimes there aren’t easy answers.
If you think the majority are wrong then you are free to get up on your soapbox and convince them otherwise. In fact, these days it’s easier than ever to make your voice heard since all you need is an internet connection and you have not a national audience but a global one.
Some people want the freedom to restrict and oppress other people. There is a longstanding principal that your right to swing your fist about ends where my nose begins. Allowing people “more freedom” only works if that genuinely means EVERYONE is “more free” and not just some.
Some stances the world has, by and large, decided are wrong. Slavery, for example - although it still exists in festering pockets MOST nations have outlawed it. Someone pro-slavery is pretty much out of luck these days. We’ve decided that “freedom” shouldn’t include some people being free to take away the freedom of others. This is why some folks who are opposed to, say, the EPA in the name of “free market” and “freedom” are full of shit - because the EPA prevents one private citizen from dumping poison in the air, water, and ground of other private citizens. The right of people downstream to have clean, potable water supersedes your right to piss in the river.