New poll shows 1 in 4 Americans Open to Secession

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Has the government ever represented the will of the people? Maybe by accident now and then. Not as a rule.

That is a very sweeping generalization.

The government represents the government. The founding fathers knew that government has never represented the will of the people, and so our government is supposed to be an impartial and disinterested arbiter of commerce and justice.

Again, that is a remarkably sweeping generalization. The founders certainly feared that the government could abuse its authority, hence the checks and balances. They obviously did not think that government was inherently evil or there would never have been a Constitution to establish one.

Doing the people's will is impossible and highly subject to hijacking.

"Impossible" and "subject to hijacking" are two entirely different things. It is extremely difficult to find a course of action that will please everyone, therefore a broad consensus is probably as close to executing the "will of the people" can come in practice. Subject to hijacking? Indeed. This is why the Constitution provides for things like impeachment and high treason.

George Washington called government " like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master"

Fire doesn't serve, it only consumes, just like government.

Even if government was predisposed to serve the will of the people, it could not, because the will of the people is a fantasy. Each individual has a different path through life, groupings of individuals can be called people, but, the notion of the "people" as an entity is a fraudulent oversimplification. Therefore the "will" of the people is an impossibility, and all political power accumulated from evocation of the "will of the people" is typically hijacked by collectivist government.

originally posted by: eriktheawful

I think what most people want is not to really leave the Union, but to have the federal government stop interfering with their lives and local affairs.

Mostly this. I don't see such a vote so much as my state leaving the union as I would see it as a vote kicking the feds the hell out of my state. In case there's any doubt, I would vote YES early and often given the chance to put a boot to Uncle Sam's ass on the way out the door.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: eriktheawful

I think what most people want is not to really leave the Union, but to have the federal government stop interfering with their lives and local affairs.

Mostly this. I don't see such a vote so much as my state leaving the union as I would see it as a vote kicking the feds the hell out of my state. In case there's any doubt, I would vote YES early and often given the chance to put a boot to Uncle Sam's ass on the way out the door.

Agreed, precisely how my state would act from the start as well.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: grandmakdw

I suspect that one thing the poll also reveals is that onei n four Americans do not know what the word "secession" means.

Theere is enough resentment of the political stalemate in Washington at the moment, that many are simply making a statement of disgust by claiming to favor secession. Whereas those in the states most vocal about seceding are allowing their regional pride to cloud their judgement. For example, the second largest employment sector in Texas is government, larger even than the energy sector. Can you imagine what Texas would look like if the United States closed all its military bases in Texas and moved NASA north? Now that modern naval craft do not require coal, the United States fleet could easily close its bases in Hawaii, and it could depend entirely on tourism and pineapple farming. Somehow, I don't think either state would welcome that reality.

Actually, Texas would fare quite well. It has lots of oil that due to EPA regulations they have not be allowed to get. There are 2 major military bases, true. But the extra revenue and jobs from oil production would easily make up for it. The NASA contingent in Houston is actually relatively small, the really large NASA facilities are not in Houston and so would not be any worse than a major employer moving. It really would not hurt Texas, as a matter of fact, it would probably be a boon to the Texas economy since no one will be paying federal taxes. They could also close their borders and not be forced to educate, house and feed so many immigrants that the federal government has forced on them by not enforcing the immigration and border laws.

As for Hawaii, they don't grow pineapple there anymore, costs too much, haven't for a very very very long time. The only pineapple fields are really small showcase/tourist or tiny personal farms. Same with sugar cane, they gave up farming that a long time ago. The only export Hawaii really has is tourism. Tourism would probably stay the same. But Hawaii would be in a real world of hurt. They have a lot of people on welfare and federal programs and rely heavily on subsidies from the federal government to run everything. The cost of goods would not change, they are already through the roof expensive due to the cost of shipping and that would not change. Hawaii relies heavily on the military (Army, Air Force, Marine, Navy) There are very large numbers of military in Hawaii and that would hurt the Hawaiian economy because the military makes up a much larger percentage of the total population than it does in Texas.

So Texas going it's own way would actually be good for Texas.

Hawaii going it's own way would be devastating to the Hawaiian economy. They want it worse because many wish to return to Hawaii being it's own country, perhaps even the Monarchy. However, Hawaii has little to nothing to sustain itself without the USA support in the form of all kinds of welfare and grants.


As for all the people not knowing what secession means, well, that's simply an arrogant assumption. Both states have lots of quite vigorous debates on the subject all the time and I think people in those states know quite well what it is.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: AllSourceIntel


By the way, have you noticed, if you happen to watch, the more left centered news outlets hiss and spit about states exercising more of their legal autonomy? The progressives have convinced a good number of constitutional ignorant folks that states rights means back to slavery and a bunch of other bulls*it. What really bothers them is that state coffers may become state coffers and not federal a slush fund.

Excellent point! Many of the states, including Texas would be far better off economically without the Federal government. The states that are economically strong would probably be much better off and could do away with many of the regulations that hamper economic growth.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
If your state breaks away from the US, your state will have to pay it's share of the national debt back.

I don't ever, EVER see this happening. So, no -- we will not ever see this happening anytime soon.

I'm not sure that is accurate.

Is there a law requiring that? I don't think so.

I'll leave it to wiser heads to give us the answer.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Or they're just jokes because it's never going to happen?

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: jimmyx
let the red states go, they're the ones sucking out all the federal tax dollars from the blue states. they are also the ones that complain the loudest about taxes, all the while getting the biggest share. screw them...they're the ones that are still pissed off about losing the civil war...now they can have the chance to bring back slavery, outlaw abortions and women's rights, deport anyone that isn't white or a slave, and form a Christian nation run by the bible.

This is just ignorant. Abraham Lincoln was a conservative.

No it is not, what is ignorant is you not realizing the Republicans and Democrats of that time had platforms that are in reverse to the Party's they are today. In today's terms, Lincoln was a progressive ...
Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

The Left and RIght NEVER 'switched' sides.

Biggest example of the is Senator Robert Byrd of the Democrats.

And when he died.

The left heralded that guy as a 'hero'.

I promised grand I wouldn't drift this thread debating and discussing this specific issue but I have to ask if you read the attached article? The platform switch is well known and studied in every Political Science 101 class.

I will not address this myself further in this thread.

Once again a gracious thank you.

I so appreciate all the civil discourse and discussion.

I really appreciate all the effort not to resort to snarky remarks or name calling. Thank you everyone!

This is turning into a great discussion of the issues and a fun thread.

a reply to: grandmakdw
I must have overlooked that post. I am not sure about it but I am looking for information. While starting, I cam across another lengthy article discussing The Right of Secession, I haven't read it all myself yet, but it looks like it is good, fair, and balanced. I came across some academic articles but I can't find them in the public domain to link them here (I'm using University access).

JUST FYI THIS IS A NEW CONSPIRACY THEORY GOING AROUND:

" All new ammo will go bad in 2-3 years they changed it to be that way, this is why the gov bought up mass quantities of ammo by the billions a few years ago and gave to agencies like postal service, social security admin etc. They don't need ammo let alone use the calibers they bought! For real the new crap is gonna go bad and have short shelf life. So yeah you may be able to find ammo now just remember it will go bad eventually."

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
If your state breaks away from the US, your state will have to pay it's share of the national debt back.



I don't ever, EVER see this happening. So, no -- we will not ever see this happening anytime soon.

Alaska... 735,000 residents. $55,656 US debt per US citizen... $41 Billion



Federal land holdings in Alaska = 222 MILLION Acres
$184/acre

That's the best deal in town right there. Kick those leeches all the way back to DC, IMO. (By the way, our permanent fund has a total value of $51 Billion... we could make that deal happen pretty easily.)

originally posted by: shadowhatmangoogleit
JUST FYI THIS IS A NEW CONSPIRACY THEORY GOING AROUND:

" All new ammo will go bad in 2-3 years they changed it to be that way, this is why the gov bought up mass quantities of ammo by the billions a few years ago and gave to agencies like postal service, social security admin etc. They don't need ammo let alone use the calibers they bought! For real the new crap is gonna go bad and have short shelf life. So yeah you may be able to find ammo now just remember it will go bad eventually."

While off topic it must be asked ... source?

originally posted by: rusblued9217
a reply to: grandmakdw

The effects of the Scottish vote in the era of global 24-7 instant communication will quickly spread all over earth.

I hope it will cause a mass decentralization of power in English speaking countries and hope for places like Catalunya, at-least we gave the Scots the choice to vote!

Viva democracy, viva the people, viva the UK

Vote all you want. The results are always the same.

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: jimmyx
let the red states go, they're the ones sucking out all the federal tax dollars from the blue states. they are also the ones that complain the loudest about taxes, all the while getting the biggest share. screw them...they're the ones that are still pissed off about losing the civil war...now they can have the chance to bring back slavery, outlaw abortions and women's rights, deport anyone that isn't white or a slave, and form a Christian nation run by the bible.

This is just ignorant. Abraham Lincoln was a conservative.

No it is not, what is ignorant is you not realizing the Republicans and Democrats of that time had platforms that are in reverse to the Party's they are today. In today's terms, Lincoln was a progressive ...
Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

From the article you posted:

From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."

If you wanted to prove your belief, you should have picked a different article.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: eriktheawful

I think what most people want is not to really leave the Union, but to have the federal government stop interfering with their lives and local affairs.

Mostly this. I don't see such a vote so much as my state leaving the union as I would see it as a vote kicking the feds the hell out of my state. In case there's any doubt, I would vote YES early and often given the chance to put a boot to Uncle Sam's ass on the way out the door.

Agreed.

That is pretty much the attitude from most of the folks that I know here.

They really don't want to leave the US.

They just want the federal government to get the hell out of their lives, stop involving us in costly wars that we have no business being in, and to stop giving money away to other countries.

Mostly, however?

They just want to be left alone.

I really don't see how it's being unreasonable to want that here in the US.

originally posted by: jimmyx
let the red states go, they're the ones sucking out all the federal tax dollars from the blue states. they are also the ones that complain the loudest about taxes, all the while getting the biggest share. screw them...they're the ones that are still pissed off about losing the civil war...now they can have the chance to bring back slavery, outlaw abortions and women's rights, deport anyone that isn't white or a slave, and form a Christian nation run by the bible.

originally posted by: smithjustinb
This is just ignorant. Abraham Lincoln was a conservative.

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
No it is not, what is ignorant is you not realizing the Republicans and Democrats of that time had platforms that are in reverse to the Party's they are today. In today's terms, Lincoln was a progressive ...
Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

originally posted by: smithjustinb
From the article you posted:

From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."

If you wanted to prove your belief, you should have picked a different article.

originally posted by: neo96
The Left and RIght NEVER 'switched' sides.

Biggest example of the is Senator Robert Byrd of the Democrats.

And when he died.

The left heralded that guy as a 'hero'.

From a business perspective ... the loyalties of the parties did not really switch.

A business perspective does not represent the entirety or wholeness of the GOP platform

"Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," ... "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."

Rhetoric and policies from a business perspective being a part of the larger GOP platform. Please note, I never said they switched "sides" or "loyalties" I said "platform."

I think I know where we are at odds. I suspect you misunderstood/read my posts or misunderstand the term "party platform" which is

a political party's formal statement of its basic principles, objectives, and positions on major issues. It is a list of the actions which a political party supports in order to appeal to the general public for the purpose of attracting vote. Sometimes, a party platform shapes state and national elections by reflecting the changing issues, controversies, and public visions.

or mistook it as meaning loyalties or sides.

Quite clearly the party platforms switched, not loyalties.

Sorry grand, I had to reply just this once.

a reply to: grandmakdw

If one does a study of the founding father especially Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and even Alexander Hamilton in the federalist papers it was common knowledge that the union was to be voluntary and that the states were sovereign. Clear up into the 1850 the mid Atlantic states were talking about secession from the Yankees and the Yankees were talking about succeeding from the confederation of states. It was not until Lincoln and Whigs (Republicans) that the right of succession was squashed by the Federal government. Which the founders feared just like the government of England.

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: grandmakdw
If one does a study of the founding father especially Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and even Alexander Hamilton in the federalist papers it was common knowledge that the union was to be voluntary and that the states were sovereign. Clear up into the 1850 the mid Atlantic states were talking about secession from the Yankees and the Yankees were talking about succeeding from the confederation of states. It was not until Lincoln and Whigs (Republicans) that the right of succession was squashed by the Federal government. Which the founders feared just like the government of England.

Precisely, exactly, absolutely.
...

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

I have nothing but hatred for anyone but Libertarians. You people are not my countrymen.

Seriously? So do you screen your potential friends to determine their political views before you can decide if you like that person? If so, seriously get some professional help. People are people.

hatred. SMFH

I am not going to put up with authoritarians. If a war ever started in the US, it needs to be the Libertarians vs everyone else.

Republicans want to control your mind. Democrats want to control your money.

Hate. I will always hate authoritarians.

I think that this country would greatly benefit from splitting up.

Diversity is great, but this country is far too polarized for there to be an effective central government.

I think splitting the country into three or four countries would be better. We could even work together militarily in each others defense but be separate on economic and social issues.