AS DID YOUR HOME STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, NIMARATA
Honestly, I think you could make a pretty good case that this statement is "aid and/or comfort" to insurrectionists, and thus disqualifies Haley to hold federal office under the 14th amendment.
They didn't just lose the war.
They lost a fucking SCOTUS case in 1869 that said states do not have the Constitutionality to leave the Union. And the best part is, that case was called Texas vs. White. Texas has lost this fight twice.
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
The irony of the fact that conservatives want no-fault divorces for women.
Beautiful. Absolutely gorgeous.
I learned from Texas public school teachers in the 1990s that Texas is the only state that has the right to secede because of its state constitution, and I’m sure they’re still teaching that bullshit today. Yet they somehow ran out of time to mention TX v. White, but is anyone surprised?
Honestly, they probably didn't know. I don't think anyone is taught about it because we all just kind of assume that traitors losing the war would put the matter to rest. Turns out, they think it means they should try again.
That female pronoun for a state is awkward as fuck. Hope that isn't Wikipedia.
And I think we need to start pushing those cases hard, right now. These days you throw a fucken rock and it seems to hit 12 loser larpers before it even starts to wane.
We've had one war, yes. But what about a second war?
This is what happens when you let your enemies live and then give them full freedom to coalesce once more over a century and keep waging war against you along the way while you're fiddling your thumbs.
Booth's actions in April 1865 gave the Confederacy its best chance at returning. If Lincoln has presided over reconstruction, we wouldn't be in this mess.
I am a hobby historian but I am not that deep (yet) into US history for me to have an opinion on (this specific) topic. :)
Mind expanding on it?
Sure! So, when Lincoln, a Republican, ran for reelection in 1864, he chose as his running mate Andrew Johnson who, while a staunch unionist and opponent of secession, was a Southern Democrat from Tennessee, a Confederate state. Johnson was chosen as Lincoln's running mate as an attempted symbol of national unity, but they clashed on many political views.
Lincoln's plan for reconstruction was quite moderate. He wanted to allow the rebel states back into the union with mild changes and concessions, including that the rejoining states would not be led by anyone who had rebelled against the Union; he supported some level of civil rights for freed slaves; and there are some historians who argue that he had also signaled a support for Black suffrage.
However, upon his assassination, Lincoln's moderate plan was tossed out in favor of Johnson's coddling approach. Johnson was an anti-abolitionist, and showed no interest in providing any protections for freed Black people. He welcomed former Confederate states back in with little to no changes to structure or concessions following the war. He also vetoed attempts by the Republican Congress to limit the former Confederate states' ability to pass Jim Crow laws or allow former rebels to serve in positions of leadership again.
Were Lincoln alive to see reconstruction through, I believe the southern "Lost Cause" narrative would've withered and died on the vine, and civil rights would've been settled a century before it was litigated in reality. The South would've felt their loss and been chastised, rather than simply welcomed back with open arms. And people who had rebelled would have rightly been put out of public view and made to live out the rest of their lives in relative solitude.
That's interesting, he was re-elected during an ongoing civil war? I would think he'd be assumed to effectively be in a state of dictatorship (in the classic Roman sense of war-time appointee as commander-in-chief under martial law) under such circumstances.
During 1861-65, how did that work for the confederacy, did they hold elections too? If not, who was in charge? I ask as you seem very knowledgeable on the subject, and it is hard finding resources to learn more in depth about certain aspects of your history- asking a human is always the best option, always.
I will have to look up reconstruction, never delved that deep but when I think of it yeah damn, figuring out how to set up and manage post-war society must have been a pretty tough nut to crack. How would you even enforce it and avoid partisans and guerrilla warfare? Very interesting.
Edit: And THANK YOU for taking the time! :) <3
That's interesting, he was re-elected during an ongoing civil war?
Presidential elections are carried out every four years, regardless of outside activities. I believe the duration of the presidential term is actually constitutionally inviolable, largely because the USA was instituted as an explicitly anti-monarchical nation.
I would think he'd be assumed to effectively be in a state of dictatorship (in the classic Roman sense of war-time appointee as commander-in-chief under martial law) under such circumstances.
I think Caesar himself shows the danger of such a thing. It would certainly be a hard sell for most American voters, including myself.
During 1861-65, how did that work for the confederacy, did they hold elections too?
They did. They elected a man by the name of Jefferson Davis to serve as president of their rebel state.
you seem very knowledgeable on the subject,
I'm fascinated by history myself. I call myself an amateur or hobbyist historian, though really I'm just an amateur knower-of-things.
I will have to look up reconstruction, never delved that deep but when I think of it yeah damn, figuring out how to set up and manage post-war society must have been a pretty tough nut to crack. How would you even enforce it and avoid partisans and guerrilla warfare?
It's absolutely a fascinating time of history. The statement that you'll often see in accounts of the American Civil War is "brother against brother," and that's really what it was. Families and communities were torn apart by the conflict, and so their reconstitution had to be a careful process. I would argue that, in the end, it was not careful enough.
Haley's stated view that states can legally secede goes against the established precedent set after the American Civil War, which was fought over the issue of states seceding from the Union.
To be fair, Haley also has no idea, allegedly, why the Civil War was fought.
eConOmIC SyStEms.
(Had to go back and check, she said "how government was going to run" and "role of government" eventually rambling into "we need to have capitalism, we need to have economic freedom".)
In a sense, it was about an economic system: slavery. Economic freedom for me, not for thee.
Am Texan. While it’s a fun little thing to kind of be proud of - that Texas was its own country before joining the United States - we stopped being a country for a reason. And today we are 100% less capable of independence from the United States compared to then.
We are taught “We can opt out of the United States whenever we want to. Other states can’t because they weren’t their own countries beforehand.” as a fun fact in 7th grade (Texas History) and no one seems to clarify that we can’t to the students or later in life when they’re grown ass adults. But by then, most refuse to believe it… like they do with most inconvenient facts.
sigh.
You know who else was an independent state before the US came along? The Kingdom of Hawai'i.
Ya know, that sounds super obvious but no that wasn’t a fact that I consciously knew. Great point! That is definitely not taught to us…Thank you for teaching me that! It does kind of change my perspective, too…
There are actually 4 states that were independent countries at one point or another.
Hawai'i
Texas
California
Vermont
No way! What’s Vermont’s story?!
Here. Basically, some people carved out a territory and lived as a republic for fourteen years, despite no formal recognition. They were negotiating to rejoin Quebec, until the British had to go and surrender at Yorktown.
I feel like every time someone says this, a federal employee should be allowed to audit the schools that person went to on how the fuck they messed up so badly teaching this failure.
It does not. There are no clauses in the Constitution that allows a state to secede. Even if they did, that lack of federal funds and citizen exodus will kill the state.
North Carolina resident here, I'd live in New York if Money wasn't an object, it is... the problem with letting the problem states seceede is that you have trapped those who are physically locked in place by their finances (or lack thereof) into an even shittier situation.
Isn't that part of the objective for those problem states though? "All the productive smart people are leaving - lets succede so they're kinda stuck here."
Let's do the latter part of your statement. I'm ok with that outcome.
It would be wild. The Texas government can't even maintain a power grid. How the hell do they think they would do without help from the federal government and with a brain drain!
We should let them. Then, in a year, when they declare bankruptcy and everyone is freezing because there's no power, we'll just buy them. We can let Puerto Rico be the 50th state, and Texas can become that weird thing where they're part of the country, but have no voting rights.
Damn, I like this idea!
I was thinking something similar. They'd go bust in a heartbeat, and perhaps at that point it would be cheaper to just invade and make them a tributary state.
Sometime in the future:
Company Exec: We need more engineers to run our infrastructure, but 90% of the qualified people have TURNED TRAITOR and ran to the states.
Politician: it's fine, we control the regulations now so we'll just pass a bunch of engineers through school and it'll be taken care of sits back in solid gold chair puffing on Cuban cigar
CE: perfect! Genius! Problem solved forever! Didn't need a DemonRat for THAT!
6 months later
CE, looking haggard and with singed hair: well this has been a disaster. The engineers were just pushed through and graduated without learning anything! Nobody knows how to do the jobs we need done! My house caught fire because a power surge overloaded my entire block! Half the state is dark!
P, from behind a platinum, diamond-encrusted desk, in a gold-trimmed silk suit: well I haven't seen any evidence of this, my house is perfectly fine! The spotlights and private security do a great job of keeping the looters out. But that has nothing to do with this. Get back to work.
I think that last line would rather read: "That sounds like communism. You are not communist, are you? Now get the problem with that one nuclear plant fixed, or you might find yourself and your family sent to Guantalag labor camp, tovarisch."
A state can not secede, but it can be expelled.
Don't give them any ideas
What if we just give it back to Mexico? Would they even accept it? 🤷🏼♂️
Even if they did, that lack of federal funds and citizen exodus will kill the state.
And where would be the bad in that?
I'd feel bad for the many people that will be economically trapped there. I can imagine even in that scenario that people will stay put simply because they can't afford to up and move to a different state. The alternative would be to live in their car with their whole family in a neighbouring state, I assume.
Imagine the housing crisis when 50% of texans try to find a home in nearby states. And I'm being very conservative with that percentage, as I can't imagine half of the population of texas would even support secession and would want to stay in their doomed state.
And we shouldn't wage war on a country trying to invade us either, right, because some of the people in that country might not be agreeing with it. Fuck that, we're way past that point. They want to act like a state then they should be treated like a state, not being able to flip between being a state and down to single individuals who disagree with it whenever expedient. It sounds a bit like corporations privatizing profits while socializing losses. When they want to secede they are a state, but when dealing with the consequences they're all just poor individuals who happened to get caught in something they didn't want part of? Fuck off.
Well, nearly all those people had and have to power to vote. They got the government they deserved. Are they "economically trapped" to vote Republican?
I think generalising across the whole group like that is what got us into this mess.
Just look at the voter turnout in Texas and then still tell me there is no way to change the situation.
Bro and/or sis, do you know what a fucking Gerrymander is?
Yes, I know, and this has been done by people who got voted into power in the past. Texas has a history of f-ed up governments.
BUT: There are millions in Texas who don't care enough for their future to go to the polls, or even f-ing register to vote. Yes, it is more difficult than in civilized countries, but millions in Texas simply ignore the only way they have to change the situation. See here.
How do you feel about your GOP-majority House of Representatives? I guess you just didn't vote hard enough.
Luckily my country is not led by fundamentalist neo-fashists like the US. I wish your president all the best for the next election. Trump in the white house would be a catastrope for the whole world.
Careful around that edge. Back to class with you, son.
So much of today's politics could be summed up by the phrase "we already fought a war about this, and your side lost".
"we fought a war about this 160 years ago, so you can't have self-determination"
I agree with you about their politics within the US, but hell yeah they should be able to leave if there is popular support for it.
Even if they can't, can we just do a trade for Puerto Rico.
I mean, for it to be an equal trade, Texas has to remain at least a US territory. So Puerto Rico gets Statehood, and Texas keeps most of the downsides of Federal control while losing most of the benefits.
I see this as an absolute win.
You should probably ask the people of Puerto Rico if they even want to be a state, first.
We have, and last time I heard the official count they don't want to change status in either direction, but unofficially support was growing for statehood. That was before Agent Ornj, so I doubt even the unofficial support would have grown...
Except it doesn't, legally. We shut that shit down after the civil war, Nikki.
I hate to quote Antonin fucking Scalia here but... “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede." Source - TexasTribune.org
Is Scalia saying that whether or not a right exists can be decided through the use of force? I would expect a judge to disapprove of trial by combat.
No. He was saying a state cannot unilaterally secede from the union. Succession is technically possible but requires the union to agree to let whichever state is dumb enough to try it. Otherwise it is literally a declaration of war against the union.
But how did the Civil War establish that there is no right for a state to unilaterally secede, if not through trial by combat? If the Confederacy had won, all that would establish is that the Confederacy had the stronger army; the Union victory can hardly establish more that the reverse.
I suggest you read the article I linked to from the Texas Tribune in my original comment. It could not be more clear that you didn't bother and I'm not going to continue rephrasing it's conclusions for you.
The article doesn't have anything relevant to what I'm saying except that Scalia quote. I'm not denying that the Supreme Court of the USA has decided that there is no right to secession - it has decided exactly that. However, that's not what the Scalia quote says - it says that whether the right exists was decided by the outcome of physical conflict. That's what I think is silly. If there's no right to secede, there would have been no right to secede even if the Confederacy had won. Likewise, if there were a right to secede, it would exist even though the Union did win.
However, that’s not what the Scalia quote says - it says that whether the right exists was decided by the outcome of physical conflict.
As I explained already, that's not what the Scalia quote is saying. That's what you erroneously imagine it to say. There is a difference and it's already been explained to you both in the original article I linked to and by myself. We are done here. Any replies from you will be ignored.
I mean, can we allow them to?
Make Puerto Rico or Guam a state. Better food, infinitely cooler people.
We wouldn't even need new flags.
Implement a 1 in 1 out policy
I mean, lot of federal infrastructure needs to be moved out (NASA Houston, for example) so it’s not just as simple as “k bye”. There are probably nuke silos etc too and we don’t really wanna leave that kind of shit laying around…
I was being a little tongue in cheek.
My point was, they aren't a state that is loved by the rest of the country, and they wouldn't be missed, so their attention seeking behavior is pointless.
At least Florida, for its innumerable flaws, has nice beaches and attractions. Save for the rodeo crowd, not many Americans are like "ooh lets go to Texas for vacation!" It's Nebraska with a bad case of short man syndrome.
It's the child who constantly threatens to run away while their mother says "yes dear, would you like more pancakes?" and the child excitedly claps and says yes please before remembering that they're supposed to be brooding and mad.
Except the pancakes are just federal funding.
Holy fuck. This a short and clearly written article. She says a thing, it's well established this can't be done, she doubles down on being a dummy.
Haley said then that "I think that they do [have the right to secede from the federal union]. I mean, the Constitution says that."
Narrator: It does not.
There are over three thousand comments on this yahoo article. Keyboard warriors arguing over facts and/or simply repeating ideas from the article as if, shocker, they didn't read past the headline.
in defense of your sanity, some of those keyboard warriors aren't people: they're AI bots. (They're more keyboard than warrior)
And this is why Haley will lose. She continues to cater to a MAGA base that isn't large enough to carry the general election. She continues to tell the MAGA base what it wants to hear, even when it's unrealistic, nonsensical, or just plain wrong. And in doing it, she erodes the moderate and independent voters she'd need to actually win.
Not that she had much of a chance anyway. The entire field has been running scared this entire election cycle, refusing to even mildly criticize the man that they are supposed to be running against. They've all been basically auditioning for cabinet positions.
She continues to tell the MAGA base what it wants to hear
It isn't even that much. Hailey's response to the GOP shit fit at the border is "Yeah, sure, leave I guess". Trump's is "I love all my beautiful border guards and we need to stop the evil lying Biden from importing all the drugs and the crime."
Her pandering sucks. Its this tacit legalism that barely passes as sincere. Her heart clearly isn't in it.
Not that she had much of a chance anyway.
I mean, this illustrates why. She's running a defensive campaign designed not to offend her base, while Trump's out there throwing red meat and doubling down.
The struggle Hailey has is that she can't out-GOP Trump without looking deranged. Yes, you can go even further than Trump on this or that issue (like Ron DeSantis tried to do) but you just come off as a lunatic. Trump gets to play at being this usurped monarch rallying an army to retake his throne, while Hailey is just some lickspittle courtier trying to appease the angry mobs.
She knows.
She's trying to be their mommy when orange man isn't available anymore and hopefully she was lukewarm enough that she'll win next time or something
She's not even catering to the MAGA base that well either.
I agree with this☝️
Even if it could, which it cannot, imagine everyone on social security suddenly having no income, but still being able to vote.
They wouldn't be voting in any US elections in that case.
I'm more concerned with moving people who don't want to be a part of Texas. Would those who cannot afford to move be stuck in another (hostile) country? Would the federal government just... pay to move some tens or hundreds of thousands of people? What if that number ekes closer to millions?
As citizens of a rogue state, they'd be illegal immigrants at that point. Ironic.
A huge fence would be necessary.
And make Texas pay for it ?
Maybe offer to take those traitorous politicians, etc. into custody for a portion of the cost. See if that helps staunch the hemorrhaging of idiots. 🤌🏼
They would instantly become Texas citizens, but surely the US gov't would give everyone a time period to move out and retain their US citizenship.
Vote for who?
I pledge blah blah blah one nation* under god blah blah blah
*terms and conditions apply, non binding, we reserve the right to change terms without notice, no shirt no shoes no service
But you better stand, remove your hat, and salute the flag
So true, basically as un-American as it gets...
The last few years have taught me the flag they're effectively honoring is not the stars and stripes at all. Honestly, the situation today is kind of like them awakening to the fact that they were Confederate traitors all along and not only acknowledging it, but being proud of it.
Let's say she's right... do you really want to encourage the Democrats to have a sizable majority in congress, Nikki?
Please, everyone, laugh directly in the face of anyone you hear call this woman a "moderate". Treat the PR attempt like the joke it is.
I wish they just would, but beside that I'm laughing at how desperate Haley is for votes.
The Republicans will go the way of the Whigs and Federalists without Texas 40 electoral votes. They're headed that way already, but losing every national election would accelerate the process.
I strongly doubt that most Texans want to secede. The cities are strongly democratic and not all Republicans are traitors. Hell, most of them wrap themselves in the U.S. flag at the slightest encouragement.
The Republicans will go the way of the Whigs and Federalists without Texas 40 electoral votes.
The Whigs jettisoned their conservative wing and converted to a hard-in-the-paint Abolitionist / Free-Land Party under Lincoln, then went on to dominate US politics for a good 20 years.
I strongly doubt that most Texans want to secede.
Texans want to be in charge. You get this noise about secession every time a Democrat is in the Presidency. Then a Republican wins and they've all got their flags out screaming about how America is the Freest, Bestest, Strongest Country and if you don't agree we'll kick your ass.
You're referring here to dumbass republican Texans. They are not the majority, but they are vastly overrepresented in state government. If we had a Texit referendum—which we never will, because it's a crackpot scheme without broad support—it would fail spectacularly. It's just our depressingly evil governor trying to keep his name in the news, so he can do evil stuff to the rest of the country someday.
They are not the majority, but they are vastly overrepresented in state government.
Also the state police and in the heads of major industries.
If we had a Texit referendum—which we never will
The vote would be shamelessly rigged, with counties that polled against the decision getting voting machines that didn't work and lots of "election fraud" prevention that inhibited any kind of serious tally. But that would only happen if the governor and his ahem confederates seriously wanted to secede and didn't just want to ignore federal laws they found inconvenient in the moment.
Abbott has no interest in being the rump head of a rump state. He wants to command with the full might of the national government behind him. These plays simply serve to consolidate power under his locale, so that when he does assume higher office he can call on his Texas thug patrols as loyalists in crack downs aimed at dissidents in Houston, Dallas, and Austin.
It remains to be seen whether anyone but Trump can really bring all the morons to the yard. I have a hard time envisioning any of the current GOP bench—including Abbott—succeeding on a national stage, post-Trump. They're all such pathetic toadies.
It remains to be seen whether anyone but Trump can really bring all the morons to the yard.
Bush managed it in 2000. Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Dan Crenshaw have certainly demonstrated a following willing to wave guns at a rally in support of their candidate.
I have a hard time envisioning any of the current GOP bench—including Abbott—succeeding on a national stage, post-Trump.
Trump is sucking up all the oxygen in the room. The political winds are to support Trump first and foremost, then cultivate their factions from there.
They’re all such pathetic toadies.
They're well organized. They're well financed. They're militant. And they've got the police on their side. Toadies, absolutely. But they're far from pathetic.
Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000, although the fact that he actually did in 2004 is a telling indictment of the electorate, the DNC, and John Kerry. Nonetheless, Republicans are facing increasing demographic challenges, and we have seen that their response has not been to adopt more popular policy positions, but instead work to dismantle democracy.
Trump was never a Republican, just a populist that co-opted the GOP, and has completely subverted it to his will. They don't have anyone else like him—just pale imitations—and when he's gone, the party will be split between the traditionalist corporate cronies, and those competing to be the most mask-off fascist to appeal to the magats. A lot of money is going to flow to the corporatists who gravitate toward the pre-Trump status quo, but I think they've gone too far at this point to really revert to that. There's at least a chance it will divide the party enough to break it.
Also, I'd stipulate that regardless of popular support, they remain morally and intellectually pathetic.
Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000
Trump didn't win in '16, either. Nevertheless, they both became President.
Nonetheless, Republicans are facing increasing demographic challenges
Demographics only matters when the populations are fully enfranchised. And the consistent focus of conservative municipal and state governments has been to disenfranchise as many members of the political opposition as possible. Turns out, you can win a lot of elections if you reduce your local voting population to a meager half of the eligible overall population.
Oklahoma, Arkansas, West Virginia, ,Tennessee, Mississippi, and Texas have done a masterful job of caging and corralling their voters such that you really only need 33% of the overall electorate to win in what amounts to a landslide.
Trump was never a Republican
He was always a right-wing crank with an open wallet. What liberals don't like to realize is how much pull that gets you in both parties. Never even fucking mind all the Epstein / Mafia / Russia shit. The guy was a media darling because he knew whose palms to grease, whether that was Rudy Guiliani or Chuck Schumer. And the fact that he'd had the stink of fascism on him since the mid-80s did nothing to keep politicians from lining up.
That doesn't make him unique, though. If anything, Trump is a consequence of the burgeoning fascist movement within the Republican Party that lacked an outlet among mealy mouthed centrists like McCain/Graham and empty suits like Romney/Christi. Now that he's blazed a trail, we're seeing plenty of politicians follow in his footsteps. Greg Abbot is only the most obvious. Governors and Senators all over the country are getting in on the act.
Hell, NY's Mayor Adams has been happy enough to play up immigrant hysteria and take swipes at Joe Biden for being soft on crime.
I’d stipulate that regardless of popular support, they remain morally and intellectually pathetic.
Say it to their faces. I certainly didn't feel safe at the last political rally I passed through. Not when the cops seemed as eager for a pound of flesh as any of the flag waving chuds.
Welp, I guess we'll see what develops. Good luck to you.
Brexit was a fucking crackpot scheme without broad support. Then Russian money started flowing into changing all that, just like it is doing right now in the US, and has been for a pretty damn long time now.
This is true, but I'd be willing to bet that a strong majority of Texas citizens consider themselves to be Americans first, not Texans. Call me complacent on this issue, I just don't think it has legs. I'm not going to waste energy worrying about it.
I think the statistics show that "in favor of secession" is in the lower single digit percent, so from that point of view I agree.
Then again, that was the case for Brexit as well. Let's say pro-secession lies around 4%. Do you find that in all media space combined, talk about secession makes up for more or less than 4% of the media output?
I'd say it's a major topic overall right now, yet, it's based on the screaming of a fringe group. Those screams can get amplified easily, if one were so inclined. It's exactly what happened in Britain, and it's what happened in Germany. And now it's happening again with you.
Media controls the message. Who controls the media.
I've purposely forgotten about the Alamo just out of spite.
The what?
It was the last time Texas successfully seceded from a country.
I don't want my friends in Texas to become part of an ultra-fascist nation with no hope
Thank you. Seriously. There are a few good ones still here and we’re doing what we can to change things.
Hello from South Dakota! I'm in a similar predicament up here, so I get it.
Good on you. That's the best response.
California will take Texas refugees, most of them came from there anyway. And everyone can laugh at them, wow the egg on their face!
Nah, most of the transplants from California to Texas can go to hell. Many of them left because they were intolerant pieces of shit who wanted to live in a racist utopia. Those people are so bad that a lot of naive Texans don't even like them. I don't want them anywhere near CA. The pleasure of laughing at them coming back cap-in-hand isn't worth it.
Poor people? You going to pay for them to relocate? What about the people in concentration camps? Gonna just leave them? You gonna create a nation where kids are born and never have a chance? That's a solution?
It's always nice to think we could solve all our problems by putting groups of people on an island or forcing red states into sovereignty, but such would end up harming the very people we're trying to help.
Oh sorry I was being tongue in cheek! I was just making a joke about the "mass exodus" of people leaving California for Texas "because of taxes" or politics... that is the "they". Because it isn't even a self sustainable state, there is no way it could succeed as a country and this isn't even legal or possible in any way- so yeah just having a laugh at the concept. Not the ramifications of generations and shit
I have already let too much shit happen. If a Texas brexit is a possibility I need to know ahead of time...
Colorado is starting to look like a possibility for me.
Texit?
I am literally on my way to Colorado from Texas as I write this. We were already in the process of arranging a move when all this business with the governor thumbing his nose at the federal government and defying the Supreme Court broke, I really feel like I'm getting out just in time.
Just moved heh from Austin. Absolutely the best decision my wife and I have ever made.
"Texas, I will literally suck your dick vote for me"
Nikki Haley, probably.
Right? Like, show me the original document that says that Texas is permitted to leave the United States. The original agreement between the Republic of Texas and the United States. Name the members of Congress who approved the agreement and when.
Why do people think they need any right or permission to do it? These are Republicans we're talking about here.
I'm all for self determination at every level. Cut em loose. If they want to come back, maybe they can become a "territory".
I've always been a strong proponent of balkinizing Texas.
Seriously, it's wild to me that people are against this.
The right to self-determination is important, regardless of what an old document (the US constitution in this case) says. Tons of countries (including the US!) became independent despite 'not being allowed to'.
Also -- think of what cutting off Texas would do for the American political balance.... we might actually get to pass progressive legislation for once!
The results of a war fought about that (and other obvious things) disagrees too.
Texas didn't have to sign the treaty that prevents the other states from seceding, but they still can't secede. They can break the state up if they want.
If Abbot were a smarter man, he'd have thought of this. How I'd do it is I would split Texas into several smaller States, appoint new sub-governors for each of these new States, and they'd appoint Representatives for the counties in their separate jurisdictions, and somehow get each of these new States to form their own Union separate from the US Union. Call it something like, the Federation of Texan States.
How about this? Reject all financial and other aid, cut all electric grid / utility ties to the rest of the USA, then we'll talk.
In the meantime, nobody tell the other Republicans what happens to their electoral college numbers when TX leaves the game.
I thought Texas didn't have any power connections to the US, that's why it's grid goes tits up every time they get bad weather
As much as I would welcome seeing the shit hole that is Texas collapse under their own hubris from leaving the US; I'm not sure you realize that Texas has their own electrical grid and shares very few utilities with other states.
A power grid that's barely functioning and tied to other grids anyway because they don't make enough.
The threshold is the same as a constitutional amendment because it would take a constitutional amendment to make happen.
Eh the process to make a state is a basic referendum, ratifying a state constitution, and then a simple majority in Congress.
I'd say if they can get 3/4 yes vote on a new state constitution and get both parts of Congress to agree to let them leave it would be legal.
But that's a pretty high fucking bar.
Except they aren't gonna and they know that. Just like the time some dozen of southern states threatened to secede when a certain president won sometime back. They're all talk, just like North Korea.
Paging William Tecumseh Sherman. General Sherman to the Courtesy Phone.
It's funny, I can't find any information about where she got her law degree.
lol I was just literally wondering if she thought she was a lawyer.
Sounds like Kristi Noem recently who was complaining about how states have a right to protect their borders...and she's bordering fugging Canada.
Yep, party of Lincoln.
Honest question, why don't we just let them secede if they want to?
If this were the norm, every country would be split into a million pieces over every petty squabble. Each update to the tax code would fracture another shrinking state.
Think too of the power you wield when your Trump card is, "Okay, we'll just leave and you can have a potentially hostile country on your border. By the way, we're taking all of our natural resources and exports with us."
The gridlock in politics is bad enough. How little would get done if every small town in Alabama could hold the country hostage by threatening to create their own country?
We fought a war over this already and the secessionists lost. The courts also ruled that they cannot just leave. There is no legal mechanism to do so. They can try to pass an amendment but that won't happen because the rest of the country wouldn't agree to it.
If they don't want to be Americans anymore they're free to try and immigrate somewhere. That'd be hilariously ironic.
It's a pretty high bar to join, there's no reason leaving legally would be lower. It's certainly not something every small town in Alabama would be able to achieve. And if they did then they'd be stuck surrounded by a hard border with no trade agreement. That would last about a week.
So it would be limited to self sustaining regions and would still require consent from the US Congress.
Personally I would be in favor for granting DC the power to revoke Statehood, regardless of the desire of any given State to remain or leave. Sort of like, "These are the rules. Choose not to abide by them, and consider your membership in the Union revoked." Like, I'm sick of State governments egregiously flouting the authority of the Federal Government, of which they are ostensibly members, and getting away with it. At the very least Congress should have the power to place trade sanctions on States like Texas, since the Commerce Clause gives them the authority to "regulate interstate commerce".
Nah, California and NY would get the boot within 6 years.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the distinct communities really should be able to just leave.
Self-determination is everything and the idea that it has to be sacrificed in the name of cooperation is authoritarian manipulative garbage. Cooperation is a choice and requires voluntary participation to work, otherwise you're doing nothing more than justifying coercion and slavery while claiming to support democracy. Ain't how it works, champ.
So I say let the Kekistani motherfuckers leave. Let them leave. The U.S. can take its military assets out of their territories and they can build their own armies and forge their own alliances out there in the real world.
Let them leave so we all can be happy again.
I personally feel like if they actually had a real gripe then maybe it would be worth considering their self determination. Catalan, Northern Ireland, Bangladesh, etc etc etc. These are distinct cultures with actual claims of oppression of their foreign powers. "We eat beef barbecue, drive big trucks, used to be our own nation very very briefly and oh we hate the president" is not going to rise on the international stage as a cause for independence.
Why not? Self-determination is important. Countries split up all the time, the US isn't special.
If they genuinely want to leave, I'm all for letting them.
Because like I said, no one will recognize them as an independent country.
Why though? If we let them leave, there wouldn't be any reason to not recognize them.
Even countries that weren't 'allowed' to leave usually get recognized eventually. Kosovo is a decent example, since Serbia is adamant that they are still part of Serbia, but they declared independence around 15 years ago and roughly half of the UN recognizes them as independent.
Bc its not even a plurality of people in texas who want to leave. Only about 4.5 of 22.5 million adults voted for Republicans. 14 million didn't vote, a majority.
Because the nation gets ~40% of crude oil from Texas and oil companies can't miss out on that
Sure it does. Self determination and all that. Has every right to revolt like the original 13 colonies did. But, that doesn't make it a good idea for Texas or its people.
Has every right to revolt like the original 13 colonies did.
But they... didn't. That's why they had to revolt. If they'd had the right, they wouldn't have needed to do the war.
I think they were referring to a natural right not necessarily a legal right.
Like everyone has a natural right to jump off a cliff if they want, but you're not going to find a statute that says: For those who are jumping off a cliff, please use good manners and stay to the right.
Texas has the natural right to secede, not a legal one.
I think they were referring to a natural right not necessarily a legal right.
If Washington had been ambushed at Valley Forge and the Continental Congress rounded up and executed, what would those natural rights have been worth? I don't know if you can realistically call something a right when your ability to exercise it is predicated on your membership in a victorious military campaign.
Like everyone has a natural right to jump off a cliff if they want
I think you might be confusing natural rights with natural laws. Like, if someone puts up a fence around the edge of a cliff, what does this do to your natural rights? If someone throws you in a psych ward for attempted suicide, what then?
Texas has the natural right to secede
Again, I don't think this is evident. If the Texas state legislature/governor proposed plans to incorporate as an independent nation, how would the populace respond inside the state? Would people meekly just go along for the ride, would they flee the state en mass, would they revolt, would they join the Texas National Guard in anticipation of fending off a response from the US military?
How many people would have to die before the question was settled? This feels far from "natural" by any definition of the term. It strikes me as entirely bound up in the decisions and actions of large bodies of individuals at odds with one another.
Yup! And just like jumping off the cliff it wouldn't be a good idea
Do it just so we can call it Texit
Every day, I think more and more we should've let the Confederacy have what they want at the end of the war. Liberate the slaves, relocate the freedmen North, and leave the South to itself.
Take in refugees and migrants who want to escape. And let the racist, arrogant bigots rot.
No, we should have kept Sherman marching and burning for much longer, shot or hanged every confederate officer, dispossessed and redistributed every southern plantation to the slaves, and occupied the South with federal troops for two generations. The problem with the South is that they were not treated harshly enough. Instead, they were left to reassert most of their old privileges and teach their kids how great their "heritage" is.
Or that, yeah. Either teach them a lesson or let them learn the folly of their stupidity itself. Probably easier to just let Sherman keep going though.
As a born and bred southerner, I wish Reconstruction had continued with harsh penalties until the freedmen would be able to retain their stake in government without the backing of the Union Army. As it was, after the compromise following the election of 1876, the Republicans effectively sold out the former slaves for thirty pieces of silver. Of course things went right back to white supremacy, just with different words for the institutions--not to be funny, but it was literally slavery with extra steps (sharecropping, Jim Crow, poll taxes, literacy tests, and the like).
There were so many missed opportunities from the late war to that election. I've always thought land redistribution to the freed slaves (aka "forty acres and a mule") would have gone a long way towards establishing a class of black landowners while eating away at the power and wealth of their former masters. That kind of economic freedom would have gone a long way towards ensuring personal freedoms could be defended and retained. Simultaneously giving poor whites more education and economic freedom could have robbed the elites of their mob over time.
As it turned out, they created a stratified set of underclasses, with African-Americans at the bottom all over again.
Anyway, it would have been a mercy to white trash like myself and freed slaves to just crush the old master class until they couldn't rise again. Lincoln was wrong about letting the Confederates up easy. Maybe if Andrew Johnson's impeachment had resulted in a conviction, things would have been different. Again, so many missed opportunities...
The North got tired of reconstruction and said fuck it. Their apathy let the South emerge relatively unpunished.
So this would have not worked at all, just because the Union was abolitionist doesn’t mean it wasn’t also really racist. They just weren’t “we are willing to die for the right to own people” racist. Plus this is underestimating the sheer scale of the amount of slaves in the Confederacy, in 1850 there were nearly 4 million slaves in the American south. While I’m obviously pro taking in migrants and refugees something on that level, during that period of history is not something logistically possible. The transportation alone would be a staggering feat.
No what should have been done is to hang all plantation owners and everyone in a position of authority in government and occupy until a new system is put into place and freedmen are secure in their new lives
I can get down with that.
DO IT! We triple dog dare you!
People were outraged over this scene in John Cleese's stage adaptation and demanded its removal, because of transphobia.
lol
It may have the right, but does it have the guts?
It doesn’t have either
If Nikki says it...
Then we better start packing, the jig is up.
Is she auditioning for emperor of Texas or POTUS?
I mean, anyone can do anything if they want to. They just can't do it without consequence.
Listen here, no one is going fucking anywhere. Now sit the fuck down.
That is the weakest executive assertion that I have ever read.
Please do.
I wonder if Texas could be financially sufficient if they do leave. They are for now, but the defense industry is huge there, and if they really did leave, theres no way the US wouldn't move that production. This is also the reason they will never leave, the MIC and clandestine orgs that oil it have done worse things for less sever threats to the MIC. Abbot would get Kennedy'd if they so much as though this was a real possibility.
That! That should disqualify her. But America is too dumb to realize it.
The USA is a country created by seceding from Britain, and Texas itself seceded from Mexico before joining the USA. In this context, arguing that secession is wrong in principle seems to be hypocrisy. If there really was strong support for independence in Texas (there isn't) then I think holding a referendum like Scotland did would be the right thing to do.
‘Texas Government’ and ‘The Right Thing To Do’ are oxymorons.
The UK and the US are not structured similarly: Scotland is a country, Texas is not.
But the main point here is that all of America belongs to all Americans. The people living in Texas don't have some special right to the land of Texas and the people of California don't have some special right to the land of California.
Texas seceding and becoming its own country because the people currently squatting on it want to leave America makes as little sense as your neighbor doing the same. If people living in America no longer want to live in America they are free to leave but they are not free to take part of America with them when they go.
I was confused because I assume any state can have a referendum and decide if they want to become a country similar to what Quebec was looking for.
While it make sense legally if you say Texas belong to America, I still feel that if the majority of people who currently lives there decided they want to be their own country, it doesn't make sense to force them to be part of the states.
Even if we set aside Scotland as a special case, how is your argument against Texas secession inapplicable to the secession of the thirteen colonies in 1776? Or to the secession of Texas from Mexico? Doesn't it imply that the USA should give Texas back?
The colonies seceding wasn't legal. There was a war about it, and the very people who fought that war didn't encode a right to secede into the constitution.
They were colonies. Does that really need to elaborated on? If a territory of the US like Puerto Rico wants to vote for independence more power to them.
Or to the secession of Texas from Mexico? Doesn’t it imply that the USA should give Texas back?
If we were having this conversation between 1836 and 1848, yeah, probably. But since Mexico conceded the land that contains Texas to America as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that's since been settled.
Ngl I’d be down with it if Texas also takes Florida and Cali with them and allows people who want to stay in the US emigrate out safely
Pretty sure Cali wants nothing to do with Texas
I think they're referring to the new Civil War movie.
Nah, Cali is just a shit hole. If Texas wants to secede, might as well benefit from it lol.
Shit holes the world over are known for their super high housing markets and extremely large and diverse economies.
So you’re saying that California as the state with the largest economy in the Union as well as the PLANET’S fifth largest economy should go ahead and leave our system to the benefit neither of themselves nor anyone else? That’s a bold yet indefensible and ultimately idiotic statement.
We are all now dumber as a result of your comment. Please do not procreate.
Can we stop electing people with no civics knowledge whatsoever?
Apparently no. We can't.
We settled this 150 years ago
There was a war
YOU LOST
TEXAS, SPECIFICALLY, LOST
AS DID YOUR HOME STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, NIMARATA
Honestly, I think you could make a pretty good case that this statement is "aid and/or comfort" to insurrectionists, and thus disqualifies Haley to hold federal office under the 14th amendment.
They didn't just lose the war.
They lost a fucking SCOTUS case in 1869 that said states do not have the Constitutionality to leave the Union. And the best part is, that case was called Texas vs. White. Texas has lost this fight twice.
The irony of the fact that conservatives want no-fault divorces for women.
Beautiful. Absolutely gorgeous.
I learned from Texas public school teachers in the 1990s that Texas is the only state that has the right to secede because of its state constitution, and I’m sure they’re still teaching that bullshit today. Yet they somehow ran out of time to mention TX v. White, but is anyone surprised?
Honestly, they probably didn't know. I don't think anyone is taught about it because we all just kind of assume that traitors losing the war would put the matter to rest. Turns out, they think it means they should try again.
That female pronoun for a state is awkward as fuck. Hope that isn't Wikipedia.
And I think we need to start pushing those cases hard, right now. These days you throw a fucken rock and it seems to hit 12 loser larpers before it even starts to wane.
We've had one war, yes. But what about a second war?
This is what happens when you let your enemies live and then give them full freedom to coalesce once more over a century and keep waging war against you along the way while you're fiddling your thumbs.
Booth's actions in April 1865 gave the Confederacy its best chance at returning. If Lincoln has presided over reconstruction, we wouldn't be in this mess.
I am a hobby historian but I am not that deep (yet) into US history for me to have an opinion on (this specific) topic. :)
Mind expanding on it?
Sure! So, when Lincoln, a Republican, ran for reelection in 1864, he chose as his running mate Andrew Johnson who, while a staunch unionist and opponent of secession, was a Southern Democrat from Tennessee, a Confederate state. Johnson was chosen as Lincoln's running mate as an attempted symbol of national unity, but they clashed on many political views.
Lincoln's plan for reconstruction was quite moderate. He wanted to allow the rebel states back into the union with mild changes and concessions, including that the rejoining states would not be led by anyone who had rebelled against the Union; he supported some level of civil rights for freed slaves; and there are some historians who argue that he had also signaled a support for Black suffrage.
However, upon his assassination, Lincoln's moderate plan was tossed out in favor of Johnson's coddling approach. Johnson was an anti-abolitionist, and showed no interest in providing any protections for freed Black people. He welcomed former Confederate states back in with little to no changes to structure or concessions following the war. He also vetoed attempts by the Republican Congress to limit the former Confederate states' ability to pass Jim Crow laws or allow former rebels to serve in positions of leadership again.
Were Lincoln alive to see reconstruction through, I believe the southern "Lost Cause" narrative would've withered and died on the vine, and civil rights would've been settled a century before it was litigated in reality. The South would've felt their loss and been chastised, rather than simply welcomed back with open arms. And people who had rebelled would have rightly been put out of public view and made to live out the rest of their lives in relative solitude.
That's interesting, he was re-elected during an ongoing civil war? I would think he'd be assumed to effectively be in a state of dictatorship (in the classic Roman sense of war-time appointee as commander-in-chief under martial law) under such circumstances.
During 1861-65, how did that work for the confederacy, did they hold elections too? If not, who was in charge? I ask as you seem very knowledgeable on the subject, and it is hard finding resources to learn more in depth about certain aspects of your history- asking a human is always the best option, always.
I will have to look up reconstruction, never delved that deep but when I think of it yeah damn, figuring out how to set up and manage post-war society must have been a pretty tough nut to crack. How would you even enforce it and avoid partisans and guerrilla warfare? Very interesting.
Edit: And THANK YOU for taking the time! :) <3
Presidential elections are carried out every four years, regardless of outside activities. I believe the duration of the presidential term is actually constitutionally inviolable, largely because the USA was instituted as an explicitly anti-monarchical nation.
I think Caesar himself shows the danger of such a thing. It would certainly be a hard sell for most American voters, including myself.
They did. They elected a man by the name of Jefferson Davis to serve as president of their rebel state.
I'm fascinated by history myself. I call myself an amateur or hobbyist historian, though really I'm just an amateur knower-of-things.
It's absolutely a fascinating time of history. The statement that you'll often see in accounts of the American Civil War is "brother against brother," and that's really what it was. Families and communities were torn apart by the conflict, and so their reconstitution had to be a careful process. I would argue that, in the end, it was not careful enough.
Great questions. Thank you!
Haley's stated view that states can legally secede goes against the established precedent set after the American Civil War, which was fought over the issue of states seceding from the Union.
To be fair, Haley also has no idea, allegedly, why the Civil War was fought.
eConOmIC SyStEms.
(Had to go back and check, she said "how government was going to run" and "role of government" eventually rambling into "we need to have capitalism, we need to have economic freedom".)
In a sense, it was about an economic system: slavery. Economic freedom for me, not for thee.
Am Texan. While it’s a fun little thing to kind of be proud of - that Texas was its own country before joining the United States - we stopped being a country for a reason. And today we are 100% less capable of independence from the United States compared to then.
We are taught “We can opt out of the United States whenever we want to. Other states can’t because they weren’t their own countries beforehand.” as a fun fact in 7th grade (Texas History) and no one seems to clarify that we can’t to the students or later in life when they’re grown ass adults. But by then, most refuse to believe it… like they do with most inconvenient facts.
sigh.
You know who else was an independent state before the US came along? The Kingdom of Hawai'i.
Ya know, that sounds super obvious but no that wasn’t a fact that I consciously knew. Great point! That is definitely not taught to us…Thank you for teaching me that! It does kind of change my perspective, too…
There are actually 4 states that were independent countries at one point or another.
Hawai'i
Texas
California
Vermont
No way! What’s Vermont’s story?!
Here. Basically, some people carved out a territory and lived as a republic for fourteen years, despite no formal recognition. They were negotiating to rejoin Quebec, until the British had to go and surrender at Yorktown.
The battle of Yorktown.
Seventeen Eighty-One.
You're my favorite Texan in this thread!
Ah shit, the bar must be so low then.
And took a coup for that to happen.
I feel like every time someone says this, a federal employee should be allowed to audit the schools that person went to on how the fuck they messed up so badly teaching this failure.
It does not. There are no clauses in the Constitution that allows a state to secede. Even if they did, that lack of federal funds and citizen exodus will kill the state.
North Carolina resident here, I'd live in New York if Money wasn't an object, it is... the problem with letting the problem states seceede is that you have trapped those who are physically locked in place by their finances (or lack thereof) into an even shittier situation.
Isn't that part of the objective for those problem states though? "All the productive smart people are leaving - lets succede so they're kinda stuck here."
Let's do the latter part of your statement. I'm ok with that outcome.
It would be wild. The Texas government can't even maintain a power grid. How the hell do they think they would do without help from the federal government and with a brain drain!
We should let them. Then, in a year, when they declare bankruptcy and everyone is freezing because there's no power, we'll just buy them. We can let Puerto Rico be the 50th state, and Texas can become that weird thing where they're part of the country, but have no voting rights.
Damn, I like this idea!
I was thinking something similar. They'd go bust in a heartbeat, and perhaps at that point it would be cheaper to just invade and make them a tributary state.
Sometime in the future:
Company Exec: We need more engineers to run our infrastructure, but 90% of the qualified people have TURNED TRAITOR and ran to the states.
Politician: it's fine, we control the regulations now so we'll just pass a bunch of engineers through school and it'll be taken care of sits back in solid gold chair puffing on Cuban cigar
CE: perfect! Genius! Problem solved forever! Didn't need a DemonRat for THAT!
6 months later
CE, looking haggard and with singed hair: well this has been a disaster. The engineers were just pushed through and graduated without learning anything! Nobody knows how to do the jobs we need done! My house caught fire because a power surge overloaded my entire block! Half the state is dark!
P, from behind a platinum, diamond-encrusted desk, in a gold-trimmed silk suit: well I haven't seen any evidence of this, my house is perfectly fine! The spotlights and private security do a great job of keeping the looters out. But that has nothing to do with this. Get back to work.
I think that last line would rather read: "That sounds like communism. You are not communist, are you? Now get the problem with that one nuclear plant fixed, or you might find yourself and your family sent to Guantalag labor camp, tovarisch."
A state can not secede, but it can be expelled.
Don't give them any ideas
What if we just give it back to Mexico? Would they even accept it? 🤷🏼♂️
And where would be the bad in that?
I'd feel bad for the many people that will be economically trapped there. I can imagine even in that scenario that people will stay put simply because they can't afford to up and move to a different state. The alternative would be to live in their car with their whole family in a neighbouring state, I assume.
Imagine the housing crisis when 50% of texans try to find a home in nearby states. And I'm being very conservative with that percentage, as I can't imagine half of the population of texas would even support secession and would want to stay in their doomed state.
And we shouldn't wage war on a country trying to invade us either, right, because some of the people in that country might not be agreeing with it. Fuck that, we're way past that point. They want to act like a state then they should be treated like a state, not being able to flip between being a state and down to single individuals who disagree with it whenever expedient. It sounds a bit like corporations privatizing profits while socializing losses. When they want to secede they are a state, but when dealing with the consequences they're all just poor individuals who happened to get caught in something they didn't want part of? Fuck off.
Well, nearly all those people had and have to power to vote. They got the government they deserved. Are they "economically trapped" to vote Republican?
I think generalising across the whole group like that is what got us into this mess.
Just look at the voter turnout in Texas and then still tell me there is no way to change the situation.
Bro and/or sis, do you know what a fucking Gerrymander is?
Yes, I know, and this has been done by people who got voted into power in the past. Texas has a history of f-ed up governments.
BUT: There are millions in Texas who don't care enough for their future to go to the polls, or even f-ing register to vote. Yes, it is more difficult than in civilized countries, but millions in Texas simply ignore the only way they have to change the situation. See here.
How do you feel about your GOP-majority House of Representatives? I guess you just didn't vote hard enough.
Luckily my country is not led by fundamentalist neo-fashists like the US. I wish your president all the best for the next election. Trump in the white house would be a catastrope for the whole world.
Careful around that edge. Back to class with you, son.
So much of today's politics could be summed up by the phrase "we already fought a war about this, and your side lost".
"we fought a war about this 160 years ago, so you can't have self-determination"
I agree with you about their politics within the US, but hell yeah they should be able to leave if there is popular support for it.
Even if they can't, can we just do a trade for Puerto Rico.
I mean, for it to be an equal trade, Texas has to remain at least a US territory. So Puerto Rico gets Statehood, and Texas keeps most of the downsides of Federal control while losing most of the benefits.
I see this as an absolute win.
You should probably ask the people of Puerto Rico if they even want to be a state, first.
We have, and last time I heard the official count they don't want to change status in either direction, but unofficially support was growing for statehood. That was before Agent Ornj, so I doubt even the unofficial support would have grown...
Except it doesn't, legally. We shut that shit down after the civil war, Nikki.
I hate to quote Antonin fucking Scalia here but... “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede." Source - TexasTribune.org
Is Scalia saying that whether or not a right exists can be decided through the use of force? I would expect a judge to disapprove of trial by combat.
No. He was saying a state cannot unilaterally secede from the union. Succession is technically possible but requires the union to agree to let whichever state is dumb enough to try it. Otherwise it is literally a declaration of war against the union.
But how did the Civil War establish that there is no right for a state to unilaterally secede, if not through trial by combat? If the Confederacy had won, all that would establish is that the Confederacy had the stronger army; the Union victory can hardly establish more that the reverse.
I suggest you read the article I linked to from the Texas Tribune in my original comment. It could not be more clear that you didn't bother and I'm not going to continue rephrasing it's conclusions for you.
The article doesn't have anything relevant to what I'm saying except that Scalia quote. I'm not denying that the Supreme Court of the USA has decided that there is no right to secession - it has decided exactly that. However, that's not what the Scalia quote says - it says that whether the right exists was decided by the outcome of physical conflict. That's what I think is silly. If there's no right to secede, there would have been no right to secede even if the Confederacy had won. Likewise, if there were a right to secede, it would exist even though the Union did win.
As I explained already, that's not what the Scalia quote is saying. That's what you erroneously imagine it to say. There is a difference and it's already been explained to you both in the original article I linked to and by myself. We are done here. Any replies from you will be ignored.
I mean, can we allow them to?
Make Puerto Rico or Guam a state. Better food, infinitely cooler people.
We wouldn't even need new flags.
Implement a 1 in 1 out policy
I mean, lot of federal infrastructure needs to be moved out (NASA Houston, for example) so it’s not just as simple as “k bye”. There are probably nuke silos etc too and we don’t really wanna leave that kind of shit laying around…
I was being a little tongue in cheek.
My point was, they aren't a state that is loved by the rest of the country, and they wouldn't be missed, so their attention seeking behavior is pointless.
At least Florida, for its innumerable flaws, has nice beaches and attractions. Save for the rodeo crowd, not many Americans are like "ooh lets go to Texas for vacation!" It's Nebraska with a bad case of short man syndrome.
It's the child who constantly threatens to run away while their mother says "yes dear, would you like more pancakes?" and the child excitedly claps and says yes please before remembering that they're supposed to be brooding and mad.
Except the pancakes are just federal funding.
Holy fuck. This a short and clearly written article. She says a thing, it's well established this can't be done, she doubles down on being a dummy.
Narrator: It does not.
There are over three thousand comments on this yahoo article. Keyboard warriors arguing over facts and/or simply repeating ideas from the article as if, shocker, they didn't read past the headline.
in defense of your sanity, some of those keyboard warriors aren't people: they're AI bots. (They're more keyboard than warrior)
And this is why Haley will lose. She continues to cater to a MAGA base that isn't large enough to carry the general election. She continues to tell the MAGA base what it wants to hear, even when it's unrealistic, nonsensical, or just plain wrong. And in doing it, she erodes the moderate and independent voters she'd need to actually win.
Not that she had much of a chance anyway. The entire field has been running scared this entire election cycle, refusing to even mildly criticize the man that they are supposed to be running against. They've all been basically auditioning for cabinet positions.
It isn't even that much. Hailey's response to the GOP shit fit at the border is "Yeah, sure, leave I guess". Trump's is "I love all my beautiful border guards and we need to stop the evil lying Biden from importing all the drugs and the crime."
Her pandering sucks. Its this tacit legalism that barely passes as sincere. Her heart clearly isn't in it.
I mean, this illustrates why. She's running a defensive campaign designed not to offend her base, while Trump's out there throwing red meat and doubling down.
The struggle Hailey has is that she can't out-GOP Trump without looking deranged. Yes, you can go even further than Trump on this or that issue (like Ron DeSantis tried to do) but you just come off as a lunatic. Trump gets to play at being this usurped monarch rallying an army to retake his throne, while Hailey is just some lickspittle courtier trying to appease the angry mobs.
She knows.
She's trying to be their mommy when orange man isn't available anymore and hopefully she was lukewarm enough that she'll win next time or something
She's not even catering to the MAGA base that well either.
I agree with this☝️
Even if it could, which it cannot, imagine everyone on social security suddenly having no income, but still being able to vote.
They wouldn't be voting in any US elections in that case.
I'm more concerned with moving people who don't want to be a part of Texas. Would those who cannot afford to move be stuck in another (hostile) country? Would the federal government just... pay to move some tens or hundreds of thousands of people? What if that number ekes closer to millions?
As citizens of a rogue state, they'd be illegal immigrants at that point. Ironic.
A huge fence would be necessary.
And make Texas pay for it ?
Maybe offer to take those traitorous politicians, etc. into custody for a portion of the cost. See if that helps staunch the hemorrhaging of idiots. 🤌🏼
They would instantly become Texas citizens, but surely the US gov't would give everyone a time period to move out and retain their US citizenship.
Vote for who?
I pledge blah blah blah one nation* under god blah blah blah
*terms and conditions apply, non binding, we reserve the right to change terms without notice, no shirt no shoes no service
But you better stand, remove your hat, and salute the flag
So true, basically as un-American as it gets...
The last few years have taught me the flag they're effectively honoring is not the stars and stripes at all. Honestly, the situation today is kind of like them awakening to the fact that they were Confederate traitors all along and not only acknowledging it, but being proud of it.
Let's say she's right... do you really want to encourage the Democrats to have a sizable majority in congress, Nikki?
Please, everyone, laugh directly in the face of anyone you hear call this woman a "moderate". Treat the PR attempt like the joke it is.
Fucking do it pussies
I wish they just would, but beside that I'm laughing at how desperate Haley is for votes.
The Republicans will go the way of the Whigs and Federalists without Texas 40 electoral votes. They're headed that way already, but losing every national election would accelerate the process.
I strongly doubt that most Texans want to secede. The cities are strongly democratic and not all Republicans are traitors. Hell, most of them wrap themselves in the U.S. flag at the slightest encouragement.
The Whigs jettisoned their conservative wing and converted to a hard-in-the-paint Abolitionist / Free-Land Party under Lincoln, then went on to dominate US politics for a good 20 years.
Texans want to be in charge. You get this noise about secession every time a Democrat is in the Presidency. Then a Republican wins and they've all got their flags out screaming about how America is the Freest, Bestest, Strongest Country and if you don't agree we'll kick your ass.
You're referring here to dumbass republican Texans. They are not the majority, but they are vastly overrepresented in state government. If we had a Texit referendum—which we never will, because it's a crackpot scheme without broad support—it would fail spectacularly. It's just our depressingly evil governor trying to keep his name in the news, so he can do evil stuff to the rest of the country someday.
Also the state police and in the heads of major industries.
The vote would be shamelessly rigged, with counties that polled against the decision getting voting machines that didn't work and lots of "election fraud" prevention that inhibited any kind of serious tally. But that would only happen if the governor and his ahem confederates seriously wanted to secede and didn't just want to ignore federal laws they found inconvenient in the moment.
Abbott has no interest in being the rump head of a rump state. He wants to command with the full might of the national government behind him. These plays simply serve to consolidate power under his locale, so that when he does assume higher office he can call on his Texas thug patrols as loyalists in crack downs aimed at dissidents in Houston, Dallas, and Austin.
It remains to be seen whether anyone but Trump can really bring all the morons to the yard. I have a hard time envisioning any of the current GOP bench—including Abbott—succeeding on a national stage, post-Trump. They're all such pathetic toadies.
Bush managed it in 2000. Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Dan Crenshaw have certainly demonstrated a following willing to wave guns at a rally in support of their candidate.
Trump is sucking up all the oxygen in the room. The political winds are to support Trump first and foremost, then cultivate their factions from there.
They're well organized. They're well financed. They're militant. And they've got the police on their side. Toadies, absolutely. But they're far from pathetic.
Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000, although the fact that he actually did in 2004 is a telling indictment of the electorate, the DNC, and John Kerry. Nonetheless, Republicans are facing increasing demographic challenges, and we have seen that their response has not been to adopt more popular policy positions, but instead work to dismantle democracy.
Trump was never a Republican, just a populist that co-opted the GOP, and has completely subverted it to his will. They don't have anyone else like him—just pale imitations—and when he's gone, the party will be split between the traditionalist corporate cronies, and those competing to be the most mask-off fascist to appeal to the magats. A lot of money is going to flow to the corporatists who gravitate toward the pre-Trump status quo, but I think they've gone too far at this point to really revert to that. There's at least a chance it will divide the party enough to break it.
Also, I'd stipulate that regardless of popular support, they remain morally and intellectually pathetic.
Trump didn't win in '16, either. Nevertheless, they both became President.
Demographics only matters when the populations are fully enfranchised. And the consistent focus of conservative municipal and state governments has been to disenfranchise as many members of the political opposition as possible. Turns out, you can win a lot of elections if you reduce your local voting population to a meager half of the eligible overall population.
Oklahoma, Arkansas, West Virginia, ,Tennessee, Mississippi, and Texas have done a masterful job of caging and corralling their voters such that you really only need 33% of the overall electorate to win in what amounts to a landslide.
He was always a right-wing crank with an open wallet. What liberals don't like to realize is how much pull that gets you in both parties. Never even fucking mind all the Epstein / Mafia / Russia shit. The guy was a media darling because he knew whose palms to grease, whether that was Rudy Guiliani or Chuck Schumer. And the fact that he'd had the stink of fascism on him since the mid-80s did nothing to keep politicians from lining up.
That doesn't make him unique, though. If anything, Trump is a consequence of the burgeoning fascist movement within the Republican Party that lacked an outlet among mealy mouthed centrists like McCain/Graham and empty suits like Romney/Christi. Now that he's blazed a trail, we're seeing plenty of politicians follow in his footsteps. Greg Abbot is only the most obvious. Governors and Senators all over the country are getting in on the act.
Hell, NY's Mayor Adams has been happy enough to play up immigrant hysteria and take swipes at Joe Biden for being soft on crime.
Say it to their faces. I certainly didn't feel safe at the last political rally I passed through. Not when the cops seemed as eager for a pound of flesh as any of the flag waving chuds.
Welp, I guess we'll see what develops. Good luck to you.
Brexit was a fucking crackpot scheme without broad support. Then Russian money started flowing into changing all that, just like it is doing right now in the US, and has been for a pretty damn long time now.
This is true, but I'd be willing to bet that a strong majority of Texas citizens consider themselves to be Americans first, not Texans. Call me complacent on this issue, I just don't think it has legs. I'm not going to waste energy worrying about it.
I think the statistics show that "in favor of secession" is in the lower single digit percent, so from that point of view I agree.
Then again, that was the case for Brexit as well. Let's say pro-secession lies around 4%. Do you find that in all media space combined, talk about secession makes up for more or less than 4% of the media output?
I'd say it's a major topic overall right now, yet, it's based on the screaming of a fringe group. Those screams can get amplified easily, if one were so inclined. It's exactly what happened in Britain, and it's what happened in Germany. And now it's happening again with you.
Media controls the message. Who controls the media.
I've purposely forgotten about the Alamo just out of spite.
The what?
It was the last time Texas successfully seceded from a country.
I don't want my friends in Texas to become part of an ultra-fascist nation with no hope
Thank you. Seriously. There are a few good ones still here and we’re doing what we can to change things.
Hello from South Dakota! I'm in a similar predicament up here, so I get it.
Good on you. That's the best response.
California will take Texas refugees, most of them came from there anyway. And everyone can laugh at them, wow the egg on their face!
Nah, most of the transplants from California to Texas can go to hell. Many of them left because they were intolerant pieces of shit who wanted to live in a racist utopia. Those people are so bad that a lot of naive Texans don't even like them. I don't want them anywhere near CA. The pleasure of laughing at them coming back cap-in-hand isn't worth it.
Poor people? You going to pay for them to relocate? What about the people in concentration camps? Gonna just leave them? You gonna create a nation where kids are born and never have a chance? That's a solution?
It's always nice to think we could solve all our problems by putting groups of people on an island or forcing red states into sovereignty, but such would end up harming the very people we're trying to help.
Oh sorry I was being tongue in cheek! I was just making a joke about the "mass exodus" of people leaving California for Texas "because of taxes" or politics... that is the "they". Because it isn't even a self sustainable state, there is no way it could succeed as a country and this isn't even legal or possible in any way- so yeah just having a laugh at the concept. Not the ramifications of generations and shit
I have already let too much shit happen. If a Texas brexit is a possibility I need to know ahead of time...
Colorado is starting to look like a possibility for me.
Texit?
I am literally on my way to Colorado from Texas as I write this. We were already in the process of arranging a move when all this business with the governor thumbing his nose at the federal government and defying the Supreme Court broke, I really feel like I'm getting out just in time.
Just moved heh from Austin. Absolutely the best decision my wife and I have ever made.
"Texas, I will literally suck your dick vote for me"
Nikki Haley, probably.
Right? Like, show me the original document that says that Texas is permitted to leave the United States. The original agreement between the Republic of Texas and the United States. Name the members of Congress who approved the agreement and when.
Why do people think they need any right or permission to do it? These are Republicans we're talking about here.
I'm all for self determination at every level. Cut em loose. If they want to come back, maybe they can become a "territory".
I've always been a strong proponent of balkinizing Texas.
Seriously, it's wild to me that people are against this.
The right to self-determination is important, regardless of what an old document (the US constitution in this case) says. Tons of countries (including the US!) became independent despite 'not being allowed to'.
Also -- think of what cutting off Texas would do for the American political balance.... we might actually get to pass progressive legislation for once!
To love someone is to let them go
Texas v. White disagrees.
The results of a war fought about that (and other obvious things) disagrees too.
Texas didn't have to sign the treaty that prevents the other states from seceding, but they still can't secede. They can break the state up if they want.
If Abbot were a smarter man, he'd have thought of this. How I'd do it is I would split Texas into several smaller States, appoint new sub-governors for each of these new States, and they'd appoint Representatives for the counties in their separate jurisdictions, and somehow get each of these new States to form their own Union separate from the US Union. Call it something like, the Federation of Texan States.
How about this? Reject all financial and other aid, cut all electric grid / utility ties to the rest of the USA, then we'll talk.
In the meantime, nobody tell the other Republicans what happens to their electoral college numbers when TX leaves the game.
I thought Texas didn't have any power connections to the US, that's why it's grid goes tits up every time they get bad weather
As much as I would welcome seeing the shit hole that is Texas collapse under their own hubris from leaving the US; I'm not sure you realize that Texas has their own electrical grid and shares very few utilities with other states.
A power grid that's barely functioning and tied to other grids anyway because they don't make enough.
yeah people all over the world know about Texas' electrical grid failing and then their governor fucking leaving to go on vacation during a crisis. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/18/ted-cruz-cancun-power-outage/
The threshold is the same as a constitutional amendment because it would take a constitutional amendment to make happen.
Eh the process to make a state is a basic referendum, ratifying a state constitution, and then a simple majority in Congress.
I'd say if they can get 3/4 yes vote on a new state constitution and get both parts of Congress to agree to let them leave it would be legal.
But that's a pretty high fucking bar.
Except they aren't gonna and they know that. Just like the time some dozen of southern states threatened to secede when a certain president won sometime back. They're all talk, just like North Korea.
Paging William Tecumseh Sherman. General Sherman to the Courtesy Phone.
It's funny, I can't find any information about where she got her law degree.
lol I was just literally wondering if she thought she was a lawyer.
Sounds like Kristi Noem recently who was complaining about how states have a right to protect their borders...and she's bordering fugging Canada.
Yep, party of Lincoln.
Honest question, why don't we just let them secede if they want to?
If this were the norm, every country would be split into a million pieces over every petty squabble. Each update to the tax code would fracture another shrinking state.
Think too of the power you wield when your Trump card is, "Okay, we'll just leave and you can have a potentially hostile country on your border. By the way, we're taking all of our natural resources and exports with us."
The gridlock in politics is bad enough. How little would get done if every small town in Alabama could hold the country hostage by threatening to create their own country?
We fought a war over this already and the secessionists lost. The courts also ruled that they cannot just leave. There is no legal mechanism to do so. They can try to pass an amendment but that won't happen because the rest of the country wouldn't agree to it.
If they don't want to be Americans anymore they're free to try and immigrate somewhere. That'd be hilariously ironic.
It's a pretty high bar to join, there's no reason leaving legally would be lower. It's certainly not something every small town in Alabama would be able to achieve. And if they did then they'd be stuck surrounded by a hard border with no trade agreement. That would last about a week.
So it would be limited to self sustaining regions and would still require consent from the US Congress.
Personally I would be in favor for granting DC the power to revoke Statehood, regardless of the desire of any given State to remain or leave. Sort of like, "These are the rules. Choose not to abide by them, and consider your membership in the Union revoked." Like, I'm sick of State governments egregiously flouting the authority of the Federal Government, of which they are ostensibly members, and getting away with it. At the very least Congress should have the power to place trade sanctions on States like Texas, since the Commerce Clause gives them the authority to "regulate interstate commerce".
Nah, California and NY would get the boot within 6 years.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the distinct communities really should be able to just leave.
Self-determination is everything and the idea that it has to be sacrificed in the name of cooperation is authoritarian manipulative garbage. Cooperation is a choice and requires voluntary participation to work, otherwise you're doing nothing more than justifying coercion and slavery while claiming to support democracy. Ain't how it works, champ.
So I say let the Kekistani motherfuckers leave. Let them leave. The U.S. can take its military assets out of their territories and they can build their own armies and forge their own alliances out there in the real world.
Let them leave so we all can be happy again.
I personally feel like if they actually had a real gripe then maybe it would be worth considering their self determination. Catalan, Northern Ireland, Bangladesh, etc etc etc. These are distinct cultures with actual claims of oppression of their foreign powers. "We eat beef barbecue, drive big trucks, used to be our own nation very very briefly and oh we hate the president" is not going to rise on the international stage as a cause for independence.
Why not? Self-determination is important. Countries split up all the time, the US isn't special.
If they genuinely want to leave, I'm all for letting them.
Because like I said, no one will recognize them as an independent country.
Why though? If we let them leave, there wouldn't be any reason to not recognize them.
Even countries that weren't 'allowed' to leave usually get recognized eventually. Kosovo is a decent example, since Serbia is adamant that they are still part of Serbia, but they declared independence around 15 years ago and roughly half of the UN recognizes them as independent.
Bc its not even a plurality of people in texas who want to leave. Only about 4.5 of 22.5 million adults voted for Republicans. 14 million didn't vote, a majority.
Because the nation gets ~40% of crude oil from Texas and oil companies can't miss out on that
Sure it does. Self determination and all that. Has every right to revolt like the original 13 colonies did. But, that doesn't make it a good idea for Texas or its people.
But they... didn't. That's why they had to revolt. If they'd had the right, they wouldn't have needed to do the war.
I think they were referring to a natural right not necessarily a legal right.
Like everyone has a natural right to jump off a cliff if they want, but you're not going to find a statute that says: For those who are jumping off a cliff, please use good manners and stay to the right.
Texas has the natural right to secede, not a legal one.
If Washington had been ambushed at Valley Forge and the Continental Congress rounded up and executed, what would those natural rights have been worth? I don't know if you can realistically call something a right when your ability to exercise it is predicated on your membership in a victorious military campaign.
I think you might be confusing natural rights with natural laws. Like, if someone puts up a fence around the edge of a cliff, what does this do to your natural rights? If someone throws you in a psych ward for attempted suicide, what then?
Again, I don't think this is evident. If the Texas state legislature/governor proposed plans to incorporate as an independent nation, how would the populace respond inside the state? Would people meekly just go along for the ride, would they flee the state en mass, would they revolt, would they join the Texas National Guard in anticipation of fending off a response from the US military?
How many people would have to die before the question was settled? This feels far from "natural" by any definition of the term. It strikes me as entirely bound up in the decisions and actions of large bodies of individuals at odds with one another.
Yup! And just like jumping off the cliff it wouldn't be a good idea
Do it just so we can call it Texit
Every day, I think more and more we should've let the Confederacy have what they want at the end of the war. Liberate the slaves, relocate the freedmen North, and leave the South to itself.
Take in refugees and migrants who want to escape. And let the racist, arrogant bigots rot.
No, we should have kept Sherman marching and burning for much longer, shot or hanged every confederate officer, dispossessed and redistributed every southern plantation to the slaves, and occupied the South with federal troops for two generations. The problem with the South is that they were not treated harshly enough. Instead, they were left to reassert most of their old privileges and teach their kids how great their "heritage" is.
Or that, yeah. Either teach them a lesson or let them learn the folly of their stupidity itself. Probably easier to just let Sherman keep going though.
As a born and bred southerner, I wish Reconstruction had continued with harsh penalties until the freedmen would be able to retain their stake in government without the backing of the Union Army. As it was, after the compromise following the election of 1876, the Republicans effectively sold out the former slaves for thirty pieces of silver. Of course things went right back to white supremacy, just with different words for the institutions--not to be funny, but it was literally slavery with extra steps (sharecropping, Jim Crow, poll taxes, literacy tests, and the like).
There were so many missed opportunities from the late war to that election. I've always thought land redistribution to the freed slaves (aka "forty acres and a mule") would have gone a long way towards establishing a class of black landowners while eating away at the power and wealth of their former masters. That kind of economic freedom would have gone a long way towards ensuring personal freedoms could be defended and retained. Simultaneously giving poor whites more education and economic freedom could have robbed the elites of their mob over time.
As it turned out, they created a stratified set of underclasses, with African-Americans at the bottom all over again.
Anyway, it would have been a mercy to white trash like myself and freed slaves to just crush the old master class until they couldn't rise again. Lincoln was wrong about letting the Confederates up easy. Maybe if Andrew Johnson's impeachment had resulted in a conviction, things would have been different. Again, so many missed opportunities...
The North got tired of reconstruction and said fuck it. Their apathy let the South emerge relatively unpunished.
So this would have not worked at all, just because the Union was abolitionist doesn’t mean it wasn’t also really racist. They just weren’t “we are willing to die for the right to own people” racist. Plus this is underestimating the sheer scale of the amount of slaves in the Confederacy, in 1850 there were nearly 4 million slaves in the American south. While I’m obviously pro taking in migrants and refugees something on that level, during that period of history is not something logistically possible. The transportation alone would be a staggering feat.
No what should have been done is to hang all plantation owners and everyone in a position of authority in government and occupy until a new system is put into place and freedmen are secure in their new lives
I can get down with that.
DO IT! We triple dog dare you!
People were outraged over this scene in John Cleese's stage adaptation and demanded its removal, because of transphobia.
lol
It may have the right, but does it have the guts?
It doesn’t have either
If Nikki says it... Then we better start packing, the jig is up.
Is she auditioning for emperor of Texas or POTUS?
I mean, anyone can do anything if they want to. They just can't do it without consequence.
Listen here, no one is going fucking anywhere. Now sit the fuck down.
That is the weakest executive assertion that I have ever read.
Please do.
I wonder if Texas could be financially sufficient if they do leave. They are for now, but the defense industry is huge there, and if they really did leave, theres no way the US wouldn't move that production. This is also the reason they will never leave, the MIC and clandestine orgs that oil it have done worse things for less sever threats to the MIC. Abbot would get Kennedy'd if they so much as though this was a real possibility.
That! That should disqualify her. But America is too dumb to realize it.
The USA is a country created by seceding from Britain, and Texas itself seceded from Mexico before joining the USA. In this context, arguing that secession is wrong in principle seems to be hypocrisy. If there really was strong support for independence in Texas (there isn't) then I think holding a referendum like Scotland did would be the right thing to do.
‘Texas Government’ and ‘The Right Thing To Do’ are oxymorons.
The UK and the US are not structured similarly: Scotland is a country, Texas is not.
But the main point here is that all of America belongs to all Americans. The people living in Texas don't have some special right to the land of Texas and the people of California don't have some special right to the land of California.
Texas seceding and becoming its own country because the people currently squatting on it want to leave America makes as little sense as your neighbor doing the same. If people living in America no longer want to live in America they are free to leave but they are not free to take part of America with them when they go.
I was confused because I assume any state can have a referendum and decide if they want to become a country similar to what Quebec was looking for.
While it make sense legally if you say Texas belong to America, I still feel that if the majority of people who currently lives there decided they want to be their own country, it doesn't make sense to force them to be part of the states.
Even if we set aside Scotland as a special case, how is your argument against Texas secession inapplicable to the secession of the thirteen colonies in 1776? Or to the secession of Texas from Mexico? Doesn't it imply that the USA should give Texas back?
The colonies seceding wasn't legal. There was a war about it, and the very people who fought that war didn't encode a right to secede into the constitution.
They were colonies. Does that really need to elaborated on? If a territory of the US like Puerto Rico wants to vote for independence more power to them.
If we were having this conversation between 1836 and 1848, yeah, probably. But since Mexico conceded the land that contains Texas to America as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that's since been settled.
Ngl I’d be down with it if Texas also takes Florida and Cali with them and allows people who want to stay in the US emigrate out safely
Pretty sure Cali wants nothing to do with Texas
I think they're referring to the new Civil War movie.
Nah, Cali is just a shit hole. If Texas wants to secede, might as well benefit from it lol.
Shit holes the world over are known for their super high housing markets and extremely large and diverse economies.
So you’re saying that California as the state with the largest economy in the Union as well as the PLANET’S fifth largest economy should go ahead and leave our system to the benefit neither of themselves nor anyone else? That’s a bold yet indefensible and ultimately idiotic statement.
We are all now dumber as a result of your comment. Please do not procreate.
Thank you.