Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: makattak on April 17, 2009, 01:32:29 PM
-
With all the talk of Texas and secession lately (disclaimer: I do not think Texas will or should secede yet) I began thinking:
Currently the country is fairly evenly divided. Unfortunately, it is becoming more polarized as well.
As such, when one side wins, their goals are irreconcilable to those of their opponents. There is no "middle ground".
(Aside: Ironically, I view the Bush presidency as an attempt at this middle ground. He lowered taxes (a conservative position) which allowed the government to take in more revenue but also increased spending (a liberal position).
Even before Iraq, though, he was villified and rejected by the left. Therefore, I contend that the left will not accept any "compromise".)
Now, given the current rumblings of "Secession!", however unlikely they may be, what will happen in the states left behind?
Politicaly, it is simple to run the math: Texas has 34 electoral college votes. 32 Representatives, 2 Senators.
These have gone to the Republican candidate for president since 1976.
On balance, the Representatives are 12 Democrat, 22 Republican. The senators are both republican.
Now, should Texas secede, we will be left in the House with: 244 Democrats and 156 Republicans. (3 Independent).
The Senate would be at 57 Democrat 39 Republican. (2 Independent).
At this point, the Democratic platform cannot be opposed. With the loss of Texas, the presidency will be firmly in Democratic hands as would be the house.
In the current Senate, even a filibuster would be impossible.
My thought is, then: If one State leaves the union, how could any other states that share its political views not follow?
This is my question about the breaking point: Should one state begin secession, how could the other states not follow?
-
Good question, although Texans have always considered themselves a breed apart.
-
There would be the opposite effect if CA seceded . . .
Hmmmm.
-
I've gotta think if things get bad enough that it's looking like time to go (which I don't believe will happen) it would be a coalition of states doing it together. But assuming the governors have heard about that little spat we like to call the Civil War I don't see that happening.
-
But assuming the governors have heard about that little spat we like to call the Civil War I don't see that happening.
That also presumes that said governors would have learned from history.
-
There would be the opposite effect if CA seceded . . .
Hmmmm.
Precisely. Which is why I didn't make this about conservative or liberal- should one (especially the very large) state secede, why would any similar states remain in the Union?
Note, though, that the Senate is still safely Democratic without California. The Democrats would not win the presidency for a long time, though, and the House would have a dramatic shift.
-
I've gotta think if things get bad enough that it's looking like time to go (which I don't believe will happen) it would be a coalition of states doing it together. But assuming the governors have heard about that little spat we like to call the Civil War I don't see that happening.
Despite the hype, Obama is no Lincoln. This is a different "Union" than the one that broke in 1861. Presuming that a deal could be worked out to return, or pay for, fed.gov property in said state(s), is it crazy to think that Washington might just let them go?
-
But assuming the governors have heard about that little spat we like to call the Civil War I don't see that happening.
What about the Civil War?
I understand that many people feel that Lincoln's victory there somehow 'proved' secession illegal, but we both know it's not true. More importantly, do you think there would be a will today to fight a second one?
Suppose a state like Montana seceded. Do you think many soldiers in the military would be enthusiastic about fighting and killing people who just 24 hours ago were their fellow Americans? Today, the sort of things that Lincoln's troops were forced to do to bring the South back into the union are (rightly), not even acceptable to most people when inflicted on foreigners who attacked America.
The North, in 1861, also had a powerful propaganda weapon, namely slavery – while it wasn't the single or even main direct reason for the war, many people saw it (and again, rightly) as an incredible evil. Do you imagine a liberal John Brown willing to lay down his life for the cause of secularism and socialized health care? If California secedes, do you imagine invading them to fight to the death in the streets of San Francisco?
Now. Again. I am not advocating secession of any part of the United States, just as I am not advocating any form of rebellion. I am merely pointing out that it is not likely that a modern President, being fully aware of the Civil War's horrors, would chose to go down that path unless there was a powerful compelling reason that he could explain to the general public and get them on board with it.
-
Looks like ole Perry spoke a little too soon.
In Texas, 31% Say State Has Right to Secede From U.S., But 75% Opt To Stay
Thirty-one percent (31%) of Texas voters say that their state has the right to secede from the United States and form an independent country.
However, the latest Rasmussen Reports poll in the state finds that if the matter was put to a vote, it wouldn’t even be close. Three-fourths (75%) of Lone Star State voters would opt to remain in the United States. Only 18% would vote to secede, and seven percent (7%) are not sure what they'd choose.
Texas Governor Rick Perry, in response to a reporter’s question about secession at a protest "tea party," said Wednesday, "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that? But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot." The comment was widely reported in the media.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls.) Rasmussen Reports updates also available on Twitter.
The underlying views of Texans about government are generally similar to those in the rest of the nation. By a 73% to 11% margin, Texans trust the collective judgment of the American people more than the judgment of political leaders.
By a 62% to 21% margin, voters in Perry’s state believe that big business and big government typically work together against the interests of consumers and investors. And, by a 63% to 24% margin, Texans view the federal government itself as a special interest group.
Overall, seven percent (7%) of Texas voters have views that align with America’s Political Class or lean in that direction. Fifty-two percent (52%) of Texans hold views that can be considered populist or Mainstream. Nationally, those figures are seven percent (7%) for the Political Class and 55% for the Mainstream view.
When “leaners” are included, 15% of Texans can be counted as somewhat supportive of the Political Class while 73% hold the opposite perspective.
Texas voters who view the federal government as a special interest group are evenly divided as to whether or not their state has the right to secede. However, two-thirds (64%) of those who view the federal government as a special interest group would still vote to stay in the union rather than secede.
Nationally, the divide between the Mainstream and the Political Class is clear on an issue like immigration. While 66% of voters nationwide say it is Very Important for the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration, just 32% of America’s Political Class agrees.
The secession question was prompted by "tea parties" nationwide on April 15 to express frustration about the high level of new federal government spending. But President Obama has maintained solid approval ratings over the past month in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.
In recent weeks, short-term expectations for the economy have improved dramatically, but longer-term expectations have moved in the opposite direction. Sixty percent (60%) of Americans now say it will take three years or longer for housing prices to recover. Confidence in the U.S. banking system is up slightly since February, though.
The Rasmussen Consumer and Investor Indexes, which measure confidence on a daily basis, ended a four-day skid on Friday.
In Texas, Perry finds himself in a challenging environment for reelection as he seeks an unprecedented third consecutive term as governor. Another Republican, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, will be running against him. Hutchison is viewed favorably by 67% of voters statewide, Perry by 55%.
Twenty-five percent (25%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Hutchison while only five percent (5%) of Texas voters have a Very Unfavorable opinion of her. For Perry, the numbers are 19% Very Favorable and 19% Very Unfavorable.
Among Republicans, Hutchison earns positive reviews from 83%, Perry from 78%.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free)… let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
-
What about the Civil War?
I understand that many people feel that Lincoln's victory there somehow 'proved' secession illegal, but we both know it's not true. More importantly, do you think there would be a will today to fight a second one?
Bingo.
The US doesn't have the will to stomach the number of casualties that would be sustained in a prolonged civil war and insurgency. Iraq is proof enough of that. Any civil war would involve casualty numbers at least an order of magnitude higher in a much shorter time span.
-
Secessation ?
Firstly, it would require will. A State or states would have to have a very large majority of peoples in agreeance.
Secondly, after the memo this week, does anyone doubt that the fed.gov would treat an organized secessationist movement as "right wing nut jobs" and fill up gitmo?
We're in a deep recession. Big deal. Our country has been in many recessions before.
It would take some serious catastrophies like another full blown depression to kick off any serious movement. Even then, the fed.gov wouldn't make it easy.
-
Secondly, after the memo this week, does anyone doubt that the fed.gov would treat an organized secessationist movement as "right wing nut jobs" and fill up gitmo?
There are real 'right-wing nut jobs' out there. Do you see them being put away?
-
Secessation ?
Firstly, it would require will. A State or states would have to have a very large majority of peoples in agreeance.
Secondly, after the memo this week, does anyone doubt that the fed.gov would treat an organized secessationist movement as "right wing nut jobs" and fill up gitmo?
We're in a deep recession. Big deal. Our country has been in many recessions before.
It would take some serious catastrophies like another full blown depression to kick off any serious movement. Even then, the fed.gov wouldn't make it easy.
First, we're not in a deep recession. We are in a recession. It may be a protracted recession, but it's not that bad.
Secondly, you are quite right that it would take a serious catastrophe to cause any such movement (hence my statement that Texas won't and shouldn't secede yet). My argument was that once that point is reached, there simply cannot be a single state that does so because of the consequences for those that remain.
-
Depends who you ask.
Some analysts are tracking it right along with the Great Depression of 1929.
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3421
Me? I have my own views, but only because I got laid off in what was supposed to be a recession-proof industry...
-
...Secondly, you are quite right that it would take a serious catastrophe to cause any such movement (hence my statement that Texas won't and shouldn't secede yet). My argument was that once that point is reached, there simply cannot be a single state that does so because of the consequences for those that remain.
Just for the sake of argument (I think Perry screwed the pooch really badly with his incorrect contention that Texas has the right to secede):
If there's any one state that could secede by its self and make it work then it is Texas (maybe CA). Large state with a very, very loyal and large population. You have to be a Texan - which I was for most of my life - even after moving to OK - to understand what it means to most of them to be Texan.
If those poll numbers reversed from 75% no to 75% yes I could see Texas seceding and making it work.
Diversified and strong economy, strong military presence that would IMO go with TX rather than stay loyal to the fed, long shoreline with access to the high seas thus assuring trade with the world community, loyal, well educated population all would work towards making TX a viable, thriving new country if the US just let 'em go.
If they didn't - well - it'd be one hell of a fight and if it did come to that - a fight - it is at that point that other like minded states might very well join in on TX's side. Oklahoma would be a strong contender to join in along with maybe Arkansas. I imagine MT, WY and maybe ID would at that time declare their independence.
Domino effect...
If Texas ever did secede it would probably be in the best interest of the USA to just let 'em go.
-
Depends who you ask.
Some analysts are tracking it right along with the Great Depression of 1929.
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3421
Me? I have my own views, but only because I got laid off in what was supposed to be a recession-proof industry...
I don't know about the analysts you are citing, GW, but others are saying the much same thing. In my opinion, this is going to get much worse before it gets any better. We may not be far from falling into a full blown depression.
FWIW, Oregon is already at 12.1% unemployment, and the rate of increase is not showing any signs of slowing.
-
Micro: I think you're missing the point. If the state.gov of Tejas tried to secede, the instigators would be Gitmo'ed pdq. No large scale battles, just a whole lotta empty seats in the state.gov.
-
Micro: I think you're missing the point. If the state.gov of Tejas tried to secede, the instigators would be Gitmo'ed pdq. No large scale battles, just a whole lotta empty seats in the state.gov.
The Fed's have to arrest them first...
-
Do that and you pretty much ensure a state's secession.
-
The Fed's have to arrest them first...
You think they'd have trouble? Uber-monitoring once they start talking about it, if they're about to go official it's hello no-knock in the middle of the night.
Do that and you pretty much ensure a state's secession.
Who'd lead that rebellion? Anyone publicly identifying themselves gets snatched, anyone going to direct action gets labeled terrorist.
-
Who'd lead that rebellion? Anyone publicly identifying themselves gets snatched, anyone going to direct action gets labeled terrorist.
People don't get elected by magic. If Texas (or any other state) managed to elect so many pro-secession representatives that they could actually get a secession resolution through, it would mean a majority of people support secession. And people don't take kindly to brute force. The people in question would become insta-martyrs for the cause, and replacements would pop up in an eyeblink.
-
You think they'd have trouble? Uber-monitoring once they start talking about it, if they're about to go official it's hello no-knock in the middle of the night.
Who'd lead that rebellion? Anyone publicly identifying themselves gets snatched, anyone going to direct action gets labeled terrorist.
QFT!
People don't get elected by magic. If Texas (or any other state) managed to elect so many pro-secession representatives that they could actually get a secession resolution through, it would mean a majority of people support secession. And people don't take kindly to brute force. The people in question would become insta-martyrs for the cause, and replacements would pop up in an eyeblink.
If such a movement were to begin gaining traction, I'd expect the fed.gov to be well ahead of it and begin interring people pretty quick.
-
I don't think it'd get to resolution passing time. I think the feds are monitoring the pro-secession people closely now, and if they started getting too serious the feds would pay em a visit. I'd say one, maybe two high profile "accidents" followed by a night time visit to the rest would do the trick.
-
QFT!
If such a movement were to begin gaining traction, I'd expect the fed.gov to be well ahead of it and begin interring people pretty quick.
That would be the spark that really gets it going. While Texans might be very passive at the moment and mostly think the idea of secession is silly, all it would take is the feds forcibly messin' with our state (especially stuff like no-knock snatching of dissenters), and you'd have plenty of folks ready to fight.
-
That would be the spark that really gets it going. While Texans might be very passive at the moment and mostly think the idea of secession is silly, all it would take is the feds forcibly messin' with our state (especially stuff like no-knock snatching of dissenters), and you'd have plenty of folks ready to fight.
How would you know?
Besides, one major secessionist and his family dies in a "tragic house fire" and the rest get a visit from the feds saying knock it off or you're next, and it's bye-bye secessionist movement.
-
Texas never had any such bit in their treaty to sccede. They CAN split into 5 different states, though, which I think would be a far better option. 10 more republican senators, and at LEAST 5 more congressmen?
-
Besides, one major secessionist and his family dies in a "tragic house fire" and the rest get a visit from the feds saying knock it off or you're next, and it's bye-bye secessionist movement.
How would you know?
If we ever get to the point where FedGov is threatening the physical safety of our families, then it's entirely possible that an awful lot of people would be willing to use violence to defend themselves. You could easily find a lot of people willing to fight back.
Killing a secessionist's family could easily have the exact opposite results of what you describe. It would almost certainly convince more and more people of the need to secede.
-
If they secede, they have to take Austin with them. Them's the rules. =D
-
How would you know?
Besides, one major secessionist and his family dies in a "tragic house fire" and the rest get a visit from the feds saying knock it off or you're next, and it's bye-bye secessionist movement.
How would you know?
-
How would you know?
Probably by the sound of gunfire when the fighting started.
Besides, one major secessionist and his family dies in a "tragic house fire" and the rest get a visit from the feds saying knock it off or you're next, and it's bye-bye secessionist movement.
You're joking, right? By "the rest", do you mean the 18% who would vote to secede? I'll let someone else do the math, but that's a lot of visits by feds to people who might already dislike feds (and certainly will after the "tragic house fire" :mad:), and it's not unreasonable to assume that roughly 100% of Texans who are on the secession bandwagon are armed.
-
;/
If you think fed.gov monitoring of subversive types stopped with hippy protestors in the 60's your naive. If you think the fed.gov is unwilling to kill innocents you weren't paying attention to Waco and Ruby Ridge.
I'm saying that any type of secessionist movement would need strong charismatic leaders. They might have thousands of followers, but it'd be a handful of people spearheading the effort. If one died in an accident, would you say "The feds did it!" or would you accuse anyone who said that of wearing tinfoil? How many of these leaders would risk either 1. defying a credible threat of certain death for them and their families or 2. saying in public that the fed.gov is threatening them, whereupon they'd be laughed out of the room as Alex Jones-style conspiracy theorists.
We gave the fed.gov the power to declare American citizens "enemy combatants" and hold them for as long as they want. You can argue about how the Bush Administration didn't violate the rules or abuse that law. Whatever, that's a moot point. The same crime political family that used the FBI to spy on their enemies and sold national secrets to the ChiComs for campaign funds is deeply involved in the White House. You really think they wouldn't go there?
Edit: are the people who routinely mock conspiracy theorists really saying that one political opponent of the fed.gov dying (apparently accidentally) would incite them to start an armed revolution? Sure......
-
f one died in an accident, would you say "The feds did it!" or would you accuse anyone who said that of wearing tinfoil?
If you couldn't credibly say FedGov did it, how could people be threatened by it? After all, everybody would think it's just an accident.
That's a major hole in your argument. You're saying that the Federal Government could simultaneously threaten counltess people with murder and keep it completely secret from these same people that they're being murdered.
-
;/
If you think fed.gov monitoring of subversive types stopped with hippy protestors in the 60's your naive. If you think the fed.gov is unwilling to kill innocents you weren't paying attention to Waco and Ruby Ridge.
I don't think anyone believes the federal government gave up monitoring subversive types. I, along with the rest of Texas (and I'm guessing plenty of other people in the US), watched the Branch Davidian activities as they happened. It did a lot to shape locals' perception of the feds.
I'm saying that any type of secessionist movement would need strong charismatic leaders. They might have thousands of followers, but it'd be a handful of people spearheading the effort. If one died in an accident, would you say "The feds did it!" or would you accuse anyone who said that of wearing tinfoil?
Charismatic leaders are always helpful. If it didn't look like the feds did it, it wouldn't influence anyone in either direction. I would not accuse anyone who thought it was not an accident of wearing tinfoil.
How many of these leaders would risk either 1. defying a credible threat of certain death for them and their families or 2. saying in public that the fed.gov is threatening them, whereupon they'd be laughed out of the room as Alex Jones-style conspiracy theorists.
1. I have no idea.
2. Who would be laughing them out of what room?
We gave the fed.gov the power to declare American citizens "enemy combatants" and hold them for as long as they want. You can argue about how the Bush Administration didn't violate the rules or abuse that law. Whatever, that's a moot point. The same crime political family that used the FBI to spy on their enemies and sold national secrets to the ChiComs for campaign funds is deeply involved in the White House. You really think they wouldn't go there?
Why wouldn't they go there?
-
I don't think that you know many Texans very well. I lived in Texas for 11 years, grew up there. We took just as much Texas History and American and World history. If suddenly one day two or three leading representatives in a seccession movement did not show up to work, and the other high profiles stfu about it, at least publically, then pretty sure that the rest of the state would figure out just wtf was going on and act on it.
-
Micro: I'm assuming the people who did it would be able to prove it. And as I said, cut off the head and the body dies. Eliminate the potential leaders and the movement goes down.
Let's say tomorrow a big time "Let's secede" policritter and his family die. Prolly looks accidental. A year or two from now any serious rabble-rousers get a late night visit from fed.gov, they show him proof they did the hit, and tell him stfu or your next.
You think that's impossible? You think if the policritter who was threatened went public with the story many people would believe him?
If no one went all revolutionary over Waco, and very few people were willing to even look at the death of all the witnesses against the Clintons I find all these "Any threat against a governor would mean WAR!" posts amusing but showcasing a naivety about recent history.
-
So. You're implying that the United States government would operate, in America, a classified assassination program against local legislators. That nobody would leak this program. And that the United States government would be capable of carrying out what is essentially a conspiracy worthy of Alex Jones, and nobody would find out? And that the United States government can go into the houses of dozens of state legislators and threaten them in the middle of the night, and it would remain secret? That it would risk doing so despite the obvious risks of failure?
I have a question.
Why don't people like Farrakhan get midnight visits?
Why didn't John Walker Lindh have a terrible, and tragic, accident?
Why didn't the leaderships of the Alaskan Independence Party (or any number of similar groups) have terrible accidents happen to them?
Finally, consider this:
If it turns out that the Federal Government is running a covert assassination program against political opponents in local governments, then it would effecitvely mean that the American Republic had died. No ifs and buts about it. If you have people executing people in the middle of the night for their political views, what you have is not a Republic. It's not even a Democracy.
If that happens - and I do not believe it would ever happen, for the reasons I outline above - then it would be morally permissible to rise up against such a government. Becuase that would have gone far beyond the normal restrictions that all Western democracies impose on their citizens (restrictions which are already, IMO, repressive and unjust) and straight into 1930's-type political tyranny.
Such a thing happening, if it became public, would vindicate the most horrendous tinfoil hat accusations of any secession movement - which is precisely why it wouldn't happen. Not because the people in Washington are nice people, but because the most minute failure would bring the whole works down.
-
So. You're implying that the United States government would operate, in America, a classified assassination program against local legislators. That nobody would leak this program. And that the United States government would be capable of carrying out what is essentially a conspiracy worthy of Alex Jones, and nobody would find out? And that the United States government can go into the houses of dozens of state legislators and threaten them in the middle of the night, and it would remain secret? That it would risk doing so despite the obvious risks of failure?
Yeah, I agree that kind of thing would get out.
Balog, the people who were threatened don't need to hold a press conference. It's much easier to just slip clues anonymously to certain people, telling them the whole story and then dropping hints about where to look for confirmation. Even if the establishment press didn't take the bait, you could still find people willing and able to get to the bottom of something like that.
-
The FBI or other members of the federal alphabet soup could swoop in and snatch a few politicos. If they did, they'd probably need gunships for a second session. You'd be seeing FBI/ATF/DEA/whatever offices torched, probably folks shooting whoever came out the door (because in the absence of leaders, you can get some really bloodthirsty folks running the show). Texas would likely be a very, very dangerous place for federales.
You think if the policritter who was threatened went public with the story many people would believe him?
Do you know how many people think Elvis is still alive? That the mob/Castro/whoever killed Kennedy? That 9/11 was an inside job? What makes you think that a public figure with some actual credibility would be ignored? They're blaming a very popular scapegoat.
-
They're blaming a very popular scapegoat.
Hey, thanks. I kind of suspected you guys secretly liked me.
-
Most people talk big, but when confronted with a small army of feds carrying automatic weapons and using APC's, they would capitiualate easily. Maybe a few former military types that would, but most wouldn't.
-
How would you know?
First guy visited (or second, or third, or nineteenth...) gets on the Intarwebz (perhaps through a buddy?), the story gets out, more people start relating similar stories, etc.
The word *WOULD* get out.
-
First, let me say that I don't put much faith in polls. There are too many ways for them to be manipulated.
In general, why would the fed.gov care enough to start a shooting war if a state did in fact want to secede? What harm would it cause the other 49 states? Except that maybe one or more others may want to leave also. And in that case, why should that be such a big deal, since they'd be getting rid of at least most of the malcontents and would then be able to set up the rest of the U.S. as they see fit.
A couple things not mentioned about Texas; we have our own power grid and oil distribution system - with the oil to go with it. Basically, there should be enough in the way of infrastructure to support us as a stand-alone country.
If secession was being seriously considered and if there seemed to be inappropriate fed.gov interference with any of the process, I'd bet there would be enough volunteers show up to provide 24/7 protection for the affected individuals.
-
First, let me say that I don't put much faith in polls. There are too many ways for them to be manipulated.
In general, why would the fed.gov care enough to start a shooting war if a state did in fact want to secede? What harm would it cause the other 49 states? Except that maybe one or more others may want to leave also. And in that case, why should that be such a big deal, since they'd be getting rid of at least most of the malcontents and would then be able to set up the rest of the U.S. as they see fit.
A couple things not mentioned about Texas; we have our own power grid and oil distribution system - with the oil to go with it. Basically, there should be enough in the way of infrastructure to support us as a stand-alone country.
If secession was being seriously considered and if there seemed to be inappropriate fed.gov interference with any of the process, I'd bet there would be enough volunteers show up to provide 24/7 protection for the affected individuals.
We've gone to Iraq, twice, to help secure our oil source.....why not Texas?
-
We've gone to Iraq, twice, to help secure our oil source.....why not Texas?
How would Texas seceding endanger your oil source?
-
We've gone to Iraq, twice, to help secure our oil source.....why not Texas?
How would Texas seceding endanger your oil source?
Exactly. Ya'll could still go to Iraq, or buy ours.
-
I'm not saying it would happen, or it would necessarily happen in that manner. But if a serious independence movement ever came close to be a real issue, the feds would stop it before it became a real danger. Or try to do so.
Wouldn't take many people, and lots of people is what make most comspiracies unworkable. 5-10 real loyal ATF agents could do a lot of damage, and get away with it. You think the same fed.gov that thought no one would ever call them on letting blacks with syphilis die untreated, and thought they'd get away with all the other things they've done (and who have gotten away with it largely) would be so terrified of blowback they'd not do that?
I love the "It would be the end of the world!!!!" objections. If we didn't revolt when the feebs torched a building full of women and little kids then machine gunned them as they ran out, you really think a couple guys saying the feds threatened them means Civil War part 2? That's funny. Naïve, but funny.
As for why they care about states leaving.... Are you serious? The people who so lust to control every aspect of your life (seatbelt and helmet laws, .gov healthcare, .gov retirement) that they make the expansion of power their chief political goal are just gonna concede hundreds of millions in taxes and tens of millions of voters? Right......
-
Someone check the temp in Hell: I have to agree with Balog.
The next civil war is NOT going to be "Us v Them". If and when it happens, it'll be "Us v Them v Those Dudes Over There v Many Other Groups".
Think the standoff scene at the end of Reservoir Dogs, only on a mass scale.
-
Or try to do so.
Try being the operative term.
The scenario as you put it out is impossible to accomplish.
If we didn't revolt when the feebs torched a building full of women and little kids then machine gunned them as they ran out, you really think a couple guys saying the feds threatened them means Civil War part 2?
There is a difference between a failed police operation against a group of highly unpopular people (remember, it's not like Clinton actually deliberately ordered the FBI to kill the Branch Davidians. If he had done that, they'd all be dead) and actually going out and executing/threatening political dissidents.
-
How would Texas seceding endanger your oil source?
They would probably identify the loss of GDP, and the loss of the oil, oil refineries and ports as a threat to national security. I'm no economist and don't know how it would affect the rest of the states.
-
Micro: what part is impossible?
5-10 alphabet soup agents going off and whacking a politico? Foster and Brown.
You think they wouldn't try to intimidate others? Clintons using the FBI and IRS to track and harrass their enemy.
You don't think the threatened politicos would back down? Maybe maybe not; it's easy to be a hero and say "I'd never back down" when no one is pointing a gun at your head. That's assuming they couldn't be bribed, or blackmailed, or smeared and discredited etc etc.
The feds would crush any serious secessionist movement.
-
The feds would crush any serious secessionist movement.
But they'd have to do it outside the law and when the populace inevitably discovered what they were doing I don't imagine that being a fed anywhere anytime would be a particularly safe thing to be.
-
Texicans are invincible.
Just ask them. =D
-
I like the idea of a peacefull secession, and the original topic of the snowball effect that would be sure to follow is even more interesting, since it would seem like states most likely to join would split the country in half from TX to MT. TX really is the key, since the interior States would be landlocked if they attempted it alone.
And that the United States government would be capable of carrying out what is essentially a conspiracy worthy of Alex Jones, and nobody would find out?
It's not that nobody would find out, it's that nobody would do anything if they did. See previous arguments about branch davidians etc.
But they'd have to do it outside the law and when the populace inevitably discovered what they were doing I don't imagine that being a fed anywhere anytime would be a particularly safe thing to be.
Texans are great and tewibble, sure. But most Americans are not Texans. There seems to be sentiment that if the American People found out that Texan secessionists were being retaliated against, they would be outraged at the feds and support Texas. The people expressing these sentiments may not spend as much time on college campuses as I do, but my perception is that America(TM) looks to mommy Federal Government to see what is legal/ok/allowed/right, and thus the rebels would be Bad People(TM) to those outside of Texas, or aloyal to Texas. I'd wager that most Americans consider secession to be a criminal or at least an anti-social thing to do, and immediately feel that it is legally appropriate for the Federales to take significant millitary action to prevent it. If this escalated to the point of serious conflict with civilians in the crossfire, then people might start to lose their stomach for it. But the smart bet is on it NOT escalating that far because as soon as a the few most brazen rebels/dissenters/insurgents/terrorists are killed, the Texas population will back down in the face of the black helicopters and other military hardware in their backyards. I would expect the Feds to bet on this outcome as well, and thus go forth with the whole thing. So in this completely hypothetical scenario that I envision as most likely, a peaceful secession is not likely.
This reminds me of the scene in Gone with the Wind when Rhett Butler gives his unpopular advice at the meeting of plantation owners at the outbreak of the War Between the States (v.1)
RHETT BUTLER
I think it's hard winning a war with words,
gentlemen.
CHARLES
What do you mean, sir?
RHETT
I mean, Mr. Hamilton, there's not a cannon factory in
the whole South.
MAN
What difference does that make, sir, to a gentleman?
RHETT
I'm afraid it's going to make a great deal of
difference to a great many gentlemen, sir.
CHARLES
Are you hinting, Mr. Butler, that the Yankees can
lick us?
RHETT
No, I'm not hinting. I'm saying very plainly that the
Yankees are better equipped than we. They've got
factories, shipyards, coal-mines... and a fleet to
bottle up our harbors and starve us to death. All
we've got is cotton, and slaves and ...arrogance.
MAN
That's treacherous!
CHARLES
I refuse to listen to any renegade talk!
RHETT
Well, I'm sorry if the truth offends you.
CHARLES
Apologies aren't enough sir. I hear you were turned
out of West Point Mr. Rhett Butler. And that you
aren't received in an decent family in Charleston.
Not even
your own.
RHETT
I apologize again for all my shortcomings. Mr.
Wilkes, Perhaps you won't mind if I walk about and
look ver your place. I seem to be spoiling
everybody's brandy and cigars and...dreams of
victory.
So while we are talking about all this in completely hypothetical terms, for the speculative fiction that we are all interested in as fans of speculative fiction, and nothing more, just what kind of military hardware does TX have? Does it have a fleet? Air power? Ground power for that matter?
-
I could turn out an infantry squad in rifles and boots.
-
They have their egos.
That's all they need. ;)
-
I could turn out an infantry squad in rifles and boots.
And nothing else, I presume?
They'd need red diapers, you know.
-
Why would the secessionists need military hardware? Why couldn't they turn the tables on the government assassins and start burning their homes down? If such tactics would work against the secessionists there's no reason they wouldn't work against evil government agents.
-
Why would the secessionists need military hardware? Why couldn't they turn the tables on the government assassins and start burning their homes down? If such tactics would work against the secessionists there's no reason they wouldn't work against evil government agents.
You can't find the evil .gov's homes when they shut down google earth. :laugh:
In the event of secession, whoever owned flyover country would likely be in charge... after all, aren't most of the nukes there?
-
True.
I know the nukes aren't at Carswell AFB, anymore.
-
Paradoxically, I think the the only way a peaceful secession could be pulled off is if Texas had antihistamine military capabilities and the apparent willingness to use it. Otherwise the feds would interpret the power dynamic as I did above.
It's interesting to remember that TX also has DFW airport, a major hub.
-
I could turn out an infantry squad in rifles and boots.
The next civil war won't be about uniformed armies and gentlemen....it will look more like Northern Ireland or Bosnia.....
...and it won't stay withing the borders of Texas, either....
...scary times a-comin'.....
-
Paradoxically, I think the the only way a peaceful secession could be pulled off is if Texas had antihistamine military capabilities and the apparent willingness to use it.
Antihistamine? Are you saying an army marches on its benadryl? =D
-
5-10 alphabet soup agents going off and whacking a politico? Foster and Brown.
Vince Foster committed suicide. Five investigations, including those conducted by political enemies of WJC, concluded so. No credible evidence to the theory that he was murdered has ever been brought up.
You think they wouldn't try to intimidate others? Clintons using the FBI and IRS to track and harrass their enemy.
Different from actually going and threatening assassination.
Maybe maybe not; it's easy to be a hero and say "I'd never back down" when no one is pointing a gun at your head.
The point is, they couldn't safely bet on it.
Your suggestion is that:
1.The Federal government would explicitly threaten dozens of political opponents with death, and perhaps even secretly exterminate these opponents.
2. They would threaten dozens of people with death, and have the entire leadership of a group already opposed to their rule keep it secret that they had been threatened.
3. Maintain squads of hitmen and goons evil enough to perform those acts, and yet not corrupt enough to betray them or leak the evidence for a political benefit or bribe.
4. Maintain plausible deniability throughout the operation.
-
antihistamine military capabilities
"nothing to sneeze at"
1.
2.
3.
4.
Am I the only one who doesn't think they have to maintain plausible deniability? They don't. Just round them up, they are dangerous dissenters, and nobody is going to care, because OMG it's for the children/our own good.
-
>Maintain squads of hitmen and goons evil enough to perform those acts, and yet not corrupt enough to betray them or leak the evidence for a political benefit or bribe.<
Ever see the movie Serenity? Remember the Operative? There ARE people in the world with that much of a messed-up worldview. And actually, some of the Obamatons show exactly that kind of sociopathy...
-
Am I the only one who doesn't think they have to maintain plausible deniability? They don't. Just round them up, they are dangerous dissenters, and nobody is going to care, because OMG it's for the children/our own good.
Look at Moldavia.
What you're talking about here is not some gun law passing you don't like.
It's democracy as you know it being cancelled.
If they did it, America would no longer be a Western country - not even to the extent of Britain or France today. It would become a run-of-the-mill third-world craphole.
People in actual post-Soviet countries - like the Ukraine and now Moldavia - revolt and riot in the streets for less than that, and they're right to.
If America turns into a country where political dissidents are taken away and executed, you've gone past the grade of oppression that exists in a welfare state and gone straight to open tyranny. You would be completely justified in rising up against such a state, rifle in hand.
Of course, such a scenario is even less feasible than Texas seceding from the Union.
I can sort of see America getting there after half a century of incrementalist creep. MAYBE. Kind of.
But the notion that in the current political climate the FedGov can actually haul political dissidents away or kill them in the middle of the night and get away with it is completely unrealistic.
-
They wouldn't HAVE to haul them away in the middle of the night. They wouldn't want to either. Am I missing something here?
By "political dissidents" we aren't talking about people who have different views on small government issues. If I understand the thread correctly, we are discussing a state seceding from the union, while assuming that the federal government of the then-former united states is not rolling the red carpet out for them. That can't be legal.
The feds would crush any serious secessionist movement.
But they'd have to do it outside the law
No, they wouldn't. I mean we are talking about breaking tons of federal laws here, that could be prosecuted by the federal government. No longer obeying social security, no longer paying federal income taxes, no longer using the postal system, kicking TSA out of DFW airport, breaking FAA/DOT/$alphabet regulations galore. These are all crimes. What do you do about all the federal property in the state, such as post offices? Projects in progress that get federal funding? Schools that receive federal funding? Military bases in TX? Anyone perpetuating a movement to secede could be seized on trumped up charges, held indefinitely, and prosecuted under a heavy tome of glorious federal laws as they now exist, and it wouldn't be "taking away and executing political dissidents". Well, that's exactly what it would be, but that's not how it would come down politically. Maybe I'm being thick and showing my ignorance of history or politics, but as a 23 year old American male this is the way I can see it going down, so that in itself might give you some perspective on how middle America perceives these things.
-
Oh ffs, ok Micro. I'll give you my statement (which I repeatedly and explicitly stated as unlikely) is really unlikely. Ok?
Just admit that any kind of secession is way, way more unlikely. Unpossible, as it were. Over a hundred odd years of schools indoctrinating kids means there are very, very, very few people who take the idea of a state seceding seriously. Anyone trying to stir up a movement like that would be breaking a huge number of pre-existing laws, that many people have already been tried under.
Americans now care less about personal freedom than ever before. We've been conditioned to accept .gov schools, income tax etc. Our forefathers would've revolted a long, long time ago if even half the crap that exists now was forced on them. People like us may know secession is legal, but we are in a huge minority. And even amongst those who think secession is legal, very few would actively support trying to do it.
Arresting people for stirring up secession would meet about as much horror and incite as much revolution as the tax protestors in NH getting snatched up did.
-
I for one believe that the wave of Big Government indoctrination has actually crested.
I also think that secession is unlikely. But that's simply most people don't think it's a good idea.
I do not however agree with your overall assessment of the American people. I am however incapable of elaborating right now, if you don't mind, I'll do that a bit later today. I apologize for not responding in as much detail as your post merits.
-
News Flash from CNN.
Ron Paul says it's OK to talk secession:
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/21/ron-paul-secession-is-american/
I think I just made Microbalrog's day by posting this, too. =D
-
:rolleyes:
I hate to pull this card, but I think I understand the sentiments of the average American better than you Micro. We have access to the same written resources and studies etc, but I can actually meet and talk to hundreds of people. The average sample size for my opinions are far larger.
-
Americans now care less about personal freedom than ever before. We've been conditioned to accept .gov schools, income tax etc.
Unfortunately true. I'm currently in a college class where presentations must be made on ethical dilemmas. The most common conclusion is "the government should make stronger regulations." For every topic discussed.
That speaks of an underlying issue of "the government is the answer to our problems."
-
News Flash from CNN.
Ron Paul says it's OK to talk secession:
Ron Paul says secession is okay? Who would have thought it!
-
If there's any one state that could secede by its self and make it work then it is Texas (maybe CA). Large state with a very, very loyal and large population. You have to be a Texan - which I was for most of my life - even after moving to OK - to understand what it means to most of them to be Texan.
California lacks enough electricity to pull it off. We'd have more than enough food, though. But it will never happen here, because our state would never leave Uncle Sugar's teat. Our legislators had spent the stimulus money before they knew the amount, in a weaselly attempt to balance this year's budget. :mad:
So what teat does Texas suck at?
They'd need red diapers, you know.
55 posts before a Zardoz reference? You guys are slipping. :laugh: