Texit It is real!

[Anonymous]

What’s going to happen when the next state after Texas leaves? And the one after that? And after that?

When they form a new nation together? What then?

What will the US (what remains of the US, I mean) govt do to stop states from leaving? Will they use force? Won’t that just strength their resolve and encourage more to follow?

You cannot hold groups of disparate peoples together without brutal, crushing force. Iraq, Yugoslavia/The Balkan states, and the old Soviet Bloc was an illustration of this.

Will the government of the remaining US use that kind of force to try and hold the country together?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s going to happen when the next state after Texas leaves? And the one after that? And after that?

When they form a new nation together? What then?

What will the US (what remains of the US, I mean) govt do to stop states from leaving? Will they use force? Won’t that just strength their resolve and encourage more to follow?

You cannot hold groups of disparate peoples together without brutal, crushing force. Iraq, Yugoslavia/The Balkan states, and the old Soviet Bloc was an illustration of this.

Will the government of the remaining US use that kind of force to try and hold the country together?

Let’s hope not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From an academic standpoint this could be fun. What are the laws regarding secession? I

There is no Constitutional provision for a state to secede from the union.

So does that mean it's expressly forbidden? Because that sounds like saying "there's no agreement in our marriage to do this." But the marriage is so bad at this point that it seems like it might make a whole lot more sense for the parties to agree to an amicable divorce due to irreconcilable differences. The NYT had a headline yesterday about Republicans who joined the impeachment vote facing severe backlash. Another article a week or two ago somewhere else said many were remaining quiet because they feared for their lives. Congress has essentially been paralyzed for years.

We could have ironclad separation of church and state, free and widely available contraception, bans on gun ownership, free basic healthcare for all with QALY limits and optional premium private plans, a higher minimum wage, cheaper public universities and a slew of trade/apprenticeship programs starting in high school, strong environmental protection...

They could have mandatory prayer in schools, vouchers, a total ban on contraception and abortion, free and open carry everywhere, privatized everything, no minimum wage, no environmental protection laws...they could even have Trump as their king if they want!

People could just sell their property and move to the country they liked better during an interim transition period. After that, immigration laws would apply.

Just wondering. Explain to me why this is a really bad idea.

Because it would not end there. Democrats and republicans are not as monolithic as many would hope you believe. Many democrats oppose free, aka "other people pay for", abortions and support responsible gun ownership laws and education reform. Many Republicans support providing some forms of taxpayer funded birth control and a minimum wage and oppose free and open carry everywhere. So what do you do with the vast majority of moderates? Only the extremists will be happy in such a scenerario which means there will be even more secessions. The house divided will fall.

+1. I'm a moderate to conservative Dem and wouldn't like either of those governments, though I'd prefer the liberal option.

[Anonymous]

The Texans I know are always threatening to secede and at this point, I say let them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From an academic standpoint this could be fun. What are the laws regarding secession? I

There is no Constitutional provision for a state to secede from the union.

So does that mean it's expressly forbidden? Because that sounds like saying "there's no agreement in our marriage to do this." But the marriage is so bad at this point that it seems like it might make a whole lot more sense for the parties to agree to an amicable divorce due to irreconcilable differences. The NYT had a headline yesterday about Republicans who joined the impeachment vote facing severe backlash. Another article a week or two ago somewhere else said many were remaining quiet because they feared for their lives. Congress has essentially been paralyzed for years.

We could have ironclad separation of church and state, free and widely available contraception, bans on gun ownership, free basic healthcare for all with QALY limits and optional premium private plans, a higher minimum wage, cheaper public universities and a slew of trade/apprenticeship programs starting in high school, strong environmental protection...

They could have mandatory prayer in schools, vouchers, a total ban on contraception and abortion, free and open carry everywhere, privatized everything, no minimum wage, no environmental protection laws...they could even have Trump as their king if they want!

People could just sell their property and move to the country they liked better during an interim transition period. After that, immigration laws would apply.

Just wondering. Explain to me why this is a really bad idea.

I worry it could go as badly as the partition of India.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s going to happen when the next state after Texas leaves? And the one after that? And after that?

When they form a new nation together? What then?

What will the US (what remains of the US, I mean) govt do to stop states from leaving? Will they use force? Won’t that just strength their resolve and encourage more to follow?

You cannot hold groups of disparate peoples together without brutal, crushing force. Iraq, Yugoslavia/The Balkan states, and the old Soviet Bloc was an illustration of this.

Will the government of the remaining US use that kind of force to try and hold the country together?

This is a minor point, but I don't think it makes sense to compare Yugoslavia with the USSR. Yugoslavia was not held together with a "brutal, crushing force". Most of the inhabitants of Yugoslavia loved their country and loved each other, regardless of their ethnicity. Today, most people in the Balkans have nostalgia for Yugoslavia, and would gladly return to that happy time if they could. The country was not held together by force; rather, it was ripped apart by force. Milosevic was a horrible leader who encouraged racism and ethno-nationalism, and who did not represent the views of most Yugoslavs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Still want to leave?

cuz, asking for a dc federal bail out isn't the way to show independence.

+1 what happened to self reliance and small government?

[Anonymous]

Carve them out a homeland like we did for Israel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Carve them out a homeland like we did for Israel.

That’s going to be a pretty large chunk of the country. Basically the upper plains, lower plains, mountain west, and virtually all of the south.

Blue states would have the west coast, HI, PR, the upper Midwest, and the northeast. Red states get the rest.

You’d be ok with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s going to happen when the next state after Texas leaves? And the one after that? And after that?

When they form a new nation together? What then?

What will the US (what remains of the US, I mean) govt do to stop states from leaving? Will they use force? Won’t that just strength their resolve and encourage more to follow?

You cannot hold groups of disparate peoples together without brutal, crushing force. Iraq, Yugoslavia/The Balkan states, and the old Soviet Bloc was an illustration of this.

Will the government of the remaining US use that kind of force to try and hold the country together?

This is a minor point, but I don't think it makes sense to compare Yugoslavia with the USSR. Yugoslavia was not held together with a "brutal, crushing force". Most of the inhabitants of Yugoslavia loved their country and loved each other, regardless of their ethnicity. Today, most people in the Balkans have nostalgia for Yugoslavia, and would gladly return to that happy time if they could. The country was not held together by force; rather, it was ripped apart by force. Milosevic was a horrible leader who encouraged racism and ethno-nationalism, and who did not represent the views of most Yugoslavs.

Um.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Broz_Tito

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carve them out a homeland like we did for Israel.

That’s going to be a pretty large chunk of the country. Basically the upper plains, lower plains, mountain west, and virtually all of the south.

Blue states would have the west coast, HI, PR, the upper Midwest, and the northeast. Red states get the rest.

You’d be ok with that?

Yes. It’s time to kick these free loading states off our couch. The transfer of wealth to this states needs to stop. Do you have any idea how much more federal money these state take in vs generate?

A big upside would be it would be much easier to manage these states as third world countries. There would be 6-9 independent states all fighting among themselves with no military. The CIA would ensure these countries remain a basket cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s going to happen when the next state after Texas leaves? And the one after that? And after that?

When they form a new nation together? What then?

What will the US (what remains of the US, I mean) govt do to stop states from leaving? Will they use force? Won’t that just strength their resolve and encourage more to follow?

You cannot hold groups of disparate peoples together without brutal, crushing force. Iraq, Yugoslavia/The Balkan states, and the old Soviet Bloc was an illustration of this.

Will the government of the remaining US use that kind of force to try and hold the country together?

Most states will not want to leave. And this time, we should just let the ones that do, go. Good riddance to the taker states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still want to leave?

cuz, asking for a dc federal bail out isn't the way to show independence.

+1 what happened to self reliance and small government?

As long as TX is forced to pay the Feds, they should demand reciprocity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carve them out a homeland like we did for Israel.

That’s going to be a pretty large chunk of the country. Basically the upper plains, lower plains, mountain west, and virtually all of the south.

Blue states would have the west coast, HI, PR, the upper Midwest, and the northeast. Red states get the rest.

You’d be ok with that?

Yes. It’s time to kick these free loading states off our couch. The transfer of wealth to this states needs to stop. Do you have any idea how much more federal money these state take in vs generate?

A big upside would be it would be much easier to manage these states as third world countries. There would be 6-9 independent states all fighting among themselves with no military. The CIA would ensure these countries remain a basket cases.

They’d probably join together and form their own republic.

It would behoove you to stay friendly with them, since they’d have most of the farmland and virtually all of the mineral, petroleum and natural gas resources and refining capacity. Interfering with them is a good way to wind up hungry, in the dark, and cold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still want to leave?

cuz, asking for a dc federal bail out isn't the way to show independence.

+1 what happened to self reliance and small government?

As long as TX is forced to pay the Feds, they should demand reciprocity.

They get it plenty. But, if they left as they are threatening to do, would they be able to deal with natural disasters on their own? They'd have to raise their taxes to make up for the shortfall.