Texas Seceding from the Union

[DrLove42]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20301477

A little related to the other thread asking is sore losers are damaging the party....

Does this damage the good normal folk who make up the other 99.9% of the population of the fair state of Texas (i'm sure we have a few of the "normal" straight thinking Texans on here

I only single out Texas as its the biggest one so far according to the article. A lot of other people from other states are at fault.

EDIT - I suppose I should have called this "a vocal minority of Texas asks for permission to cecede" - but that didn't have the same ring to it

[Psychosplodge]

Didn't they try that once?

[DrLove42]

Yeah, and i don't think it ended well for them

[Nabterayl]

A little related to the other thread asking is sore losers are damaging the party....

Does this damage the good normal folk who make up the other 99.9% of the population of the fair state of Texas (i'm sure we have a few of the "normal" straight thinking Texans on here

In this specific instance, I think the answer is no. Although it doesn't receive constant reporting, there is a constant presence of minority movements in America asking for or declaring the right of a state to secede (as of this writing, the Texas petition (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-texas-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/BmdWCP8B) has 97,795 signatures, which is about 0.4% the state's population if you take the most conservative recent census numbers). In other words, although being able to petition on a federal website is new, the actual request is something most Americans have long since learned to live with/dismiss.

Part of the reason this is generally dismissed, I think, is because we never actually resolved whether a state can secede from the Union. The American Civil War was fought on the occasion of secession, but neither our federal constitution (which was radically amended in a pro-union way following the anti-secessionist victory in that war) nor our jurisprudence actually states outright that secession is not allowed. If there were an explicitly recognized mechanism to secede, however narrow, it might be different; instead, there is simply the bare historical fact that, last time anybody actually tried it, the rest of the nation hauled them back through force of arms. As a result, the majority feeling is that requests to secede are simply re-fighting a long-dead cause, and dismissed as such.

EDIT: In particular, I think most Americans would shrug at this and say, "Well, that's Texas." Although Texas was not one of the core states of the Confederacy (that's the secessionist side of the American Civil War), it probably has the greatest reputation for a secessionist movement. In part this is attributed to the stereotype of Texans as among the most ruggedly independent Americans, and in part it is attributed (even trumpeted by proud Texans who have no actual interest in seceding) to the fact that Texas is the only state that was a sovereign nation in its own right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas) prior to joining the Union - the feeling being along the lines of, "We went it without you once, we can do it again."

[Psychosplodge]

As a country founded by secessionists, it would be in poor taste not to allow it...

[Houghten]

Much like Scotland, Texas threatens to "leave forever" at least twice a year.

[Mr Mystery]

Except Scotland is about to vote on the matter.

With the Texas things, it always seems to happen when it's extreme conservatives don't get their way. Great respect for democratic process their showing! (The numpties, not Texans in general).

[Nabterayl]

Well, yes, because only Texas' extreme conservatives are interested in seceding, and the only reason to secede is because you don't like the organization you've joined.

The truth is, the balance of the legal and historical arguments are absolutely on the secessionists' side, as they were during our Civil War. The fact that most Americans agree that it is nevertheless Not Allowed is a direct slap in the face of American federalism, which in this country is a right-wing philosophy.

[Necron2.0]

It should be stated that petitions have been filed on behalf of 23 states in total to secede from the Union. All are of course purely symbolic.

What really needs to be addressed here is the entirely incorrect assumption that there is a mythical 99% of "normal" people. Obama only got 50.6% of the popular vote. That means that the other 49.4% did not want him. According to the statistics, 47.8% PASSIONATELY did not want him. The movements on the stock market alone speak volumes on how little joy was taken in the results of the election.

[Nabterayl]

Well, to be fair, the assumption in this case was that at least 99.9% of Texans don't want their state to secede from the Union. Assuming the Texas signatures are genuine rather than symbolic that's not actually true, but it probably is true that no more than 0.1% of Americans (~311,592) genuinely want their states to secede.

[lobster-overlord]

Let them secede. It means we won't have to allow any more Bush family members to run for president since they will have been born on what would then be foreign soil... (note: Not political commentary... anti-idiot commentary. )

[Necron2.0]

Well, to be fair, the assumption in this case was that at least 99.9% of Texans don't want their state to secede from the Union.

I'd be very surprised if anyone who signed any of these various petitions actually wants to secede. I think the whole business is entirely symbolic. I'm just trying to dispell the notion that a rabid 1% is somehow holding a sane and rational 99% hostage. The truth is that the US population is very much polarized and very passionate in their overt hatred of one another. I know of families who have disowned their children based on who they've voted for. The other day, a wife intentionally ran her husband over because he forgot to vote. There isn't one group to blame here. Right now the US is a very fractured society.

Someone asked once why the GOP offers up such offensive candidates. It's because the GOP electorate does not tolerate the other side and will not tolerate a candidate for which there is the slightest hint of compromise. It's the same on the DNC side as well. That's why you get the likes of Gore, Kerry and (yes) Obama - folks who, when looked at objectively, should never have been considered for public office at a national level.

[Nabterayl]

I'm just trying to dispell the notion that a rabid 1% is somehow holding a sane and rational 99% hostage.
I agree with you there. So to bring it back to the OP and reiterate my agreement with you, I actually don't think these "secessionists" discredit their related moderates at all. I don't think anybody (well okay, a meaningful number of people) looks at these petitions as anything other than an expression of the country's polarization - which not everybody is happy about but everybody already knows about. I think there are crazies in America who make their related moderates look bad, at least to people who don't know them well, but
the people signing these "secession" petitions aren't them, and
I certainly wouldn't say that our crazies are holding their related moderates "hostage."

[templarboy]

Real live Texan here. I was born in Texas and live there now. Texans can be a bit different to people in the rest of the country. Europeans really have no idea what it is like to live in a state that has a bigger GDP than many EU countries and is really massive geographically. Twice the size of Germany. It really stinks to have the east coast and west coast liberals dictate who runs the country. If you look at a map, all the interior states went to Romney. Many in the Midwest and Texas feel mis-used and unappreciated. That is what is causing attitudes like the desire to secede. BTW Texas has the right to secede written into it's state constitution. Heck, Texas has it's own Pledge of Allegiance and it's own State Guard. We are an independent bunch here.

[Kirsten]

they should just do it now, it will happen eventually anyway, the states are too different to survive together. All this talk of secession and marching on the white house just goes to show how little respect these people have for any opinion other than their own. America is wonderful and the best country in the world, up until it doesn't vote the way these people want, then suddenly they must destroyeverything they claim to stand for. Petty and ridiculous. The divide would be far better off happening now though by choice rather than later when it will include violence and be catastrophic for the country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-the-confederacy-of-takers/2012/11/13/d8adc7ee-2dd4-11e2-beb2-4b4cf5087636_story.html?hpid=z2

[scadugenga]

What all these secessionist asstastic monkeys forget, is that under our system of government, the longest you have to deal with a specific person you don't like in the President's office is 8 years. We put up with 8 years of "Dubya." I think the rabid twits can put up with Obama for another 4.

[Chronowraith]

It really stinks to have the east coast and west coast liberals dictate who runs the country.

This is simply the reverse argument that liberals felt when Bush was in power. Someone has to lose the election and that means that some % of the population will be unhappy. I don't feel it's proper to complain that just because the candidate that Texas has voted for the past two elections didn't win that means that the liberals are dictating who runs the country.

The coastal regions of the US have a large impact on national elections because of their massive population. Check out this cartogram that depicts states in relation to their population and you see why they are so influential.

http://www.census.gov/dataviz/visualizations/021/


If you look at a map, all the interior states went to Romney. Many in the Midwest and Texas feel mis-used and unappreciated.

You have an odd definition of "interior". Here is the election map;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/election-map-2012/president/

So you are saying that Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, and Ohio are not interior states? All the "red" interior states have some of the lowest populations in the country. Add up the populations of Idaho, Montana, both Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas and you equal roughly the population of Michigan.

[Chris Copeland]

BTW Texas has the right to secede written into it's state constitution. No. Texas does NOT have the right to secede. No state does. This was decided definitively in 1865. The Supreme Court ruling called Texas v White in 1869 further went on to explicitly lay out that no State can unilaterally secede from the Union and that any provisions that they had saying so were automatically void. To paraphrase James Petigru, "Texas is too small to be a republic and too large for an insane asylum." (Petigru was refering to South Carolina when he said it in 1860).

[templarboy]

No. Texas does NOT have the right to secede. No state does. This was decided definitively in 1865. The Supreme Court ruling called Texas v White in 1869 further went on to explicitly lay out that no State can unilaterally secede from the Union and that any provisions that they had saying so were automatically void. To paraphrase James Petigru, "Texas is too small to be a republic and too large for an insane asylum." (Petigru was refering to South Carolina when he said it in 1860).

Hey, you guys need to back off. Nit-picking my statements does not make your point. I never said I agreed with any of the secessionist garbage. Although I can see where you might draw that conclusion. I was just trying to give a broad view of what is going on.

Oh and Chris-Read the Texas constitution. It's in there just like I said it is. The part about Texas only being subject to the US Constitution and the part where it says the people may throw off the government anytime they choose. Whether it could legally happen is another story entirely. The boldface and all CAPS stuff was a nice touch though.

Chronowraith-Thank you for illustrating my point. The entire center of the map you posted is red with the exception of two states. Both New Mexico and Colorado are filled with people from the west and east coasts. The natives tend to be poorer and more conservative. I know this because I spent a majority of my life in those two states. My point was the lower population states in the middle feel ignored because the large populations are concentrated on the coasts. The more urban and populated a state the more likely it is filled with liberals folks. These states get all the attention during the election season. Both parties spent stupid huge amounts campaigning in Ohio.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I am a hardcore libertarian. I think both parties are stupid.

[Psychosplodge]

Europeans really have no idea what it is like to live in a state that has a bigger GDP than many EU countries and is really massive geographically. Twice the size of Germany.
Only the poor ones, or the low population ones, assuming based on this (http://www.governor.state.tx.us/files/ecodev/GDP_Comparisons.pdf).



No. Texas does NOT have the right to secede. No state does.

Yet when we said that to you, you chucked the tea out the pram...

[Chronowraith]

Chronowraith-Thank you for illustrating my point. The entire center of the map you posted is red with the exception of two states. Both New Mexico and Colorado are filled with people from the west and east coasts. The natives tend to be poorer and more conservative. I know this because I spent a majority of my life in those two states. My point was the lower population states in the middle feel ignored because the large populations are concentrated on the coasts. The more urban and populated a state the more likely it is filled with liberals folks. These states get all the attention during the election season. Both parties spent stupid huge amounts campaigning in Ohio.

If this was true then no Republican would ever get elected to the Presidency. Just because a state voted Blue doesn't make it "liberal". Obama won many states by a slim margin so categorizing the whole state as liberal is a gross generalization. Also, more urban centers does not mean that a state will vote for the democratic candidate. Several states that voted for Obama have exactly one major urban center and yet counties all over the state voted for Obama. Also, Texas itself violates this basic principle since it has more large urban centers than almost any other state (aside from California).

As for the arguement about the huge population states getting more attention, also not true. Ohio gets attention because the state doesn't have a track record of voting for one party or the other. If they based campaigns solely on population we'd see the candidates rushing off to California, Texas, and New York and yet we don't because those states have a historic trend of voting one way or another.

As for Natives of Colorado being poorer... I beg to differ (dead on in New Mexico though). I have relatives in Colorado and spent many years there. All of the natives I knew were either cattle ranchers, mine operators, or simply owned huge tracts of land.


I think both parties are stupid.

I think the party system in general serves no purpose other than to divide people into divisive groups for the purpose of useless rhetoric.

[wittdooley]

What all these secessionist asstastic monkeys forget, is that under our system of government, the longest you have to deal with a specific person you don't like in the President's office is 8 years. We put up with 8 years of "Dubya." I think the rabid twits can put up with Obama for another 4.

Not singling out scad here, because this "put up with" viewpoint is pretty prevelant in the US. And I think it's part of our problem. "Putting up with" a candidate for however many years just doesn't seem like the best way for our entire country to be represented. I dont know what the solution is, but I'm always so put off by these "put up with" statements.

I think what Templarboy is driving at is there is a GREAT population of this country that feels marginalized because of the way the elections work and the fact that the urban centers receive all the attention. I'm from Ohio, so I saw a great deal of it this year. Here's some food for thought: if Ohio split its electoral votes like Maine or Nebraska, Romney wins the State 12-6 in terms of those votes. Now, I realize that based on population density it makes "sense" for urban centers to have weighted electors, but having all the electoral votes go to one side regardless of how many congressional districts they won doesn't seem to make sense. If we're going to do this, why do we even have congressmen outside those urban centers? Because the whole of the state needs to have their voices heard.

The fact that we have two states that do split their electoral votes based on congressional district and others don't just gums things up more. And listen, I agree population is important, but in states like Ohio and Wisconsin, where 2-3 cities change the outcome of the entire state, it seems like 'everyone else' that doesn't live in those congressional district is marginalized. I'm sure a lot of voters in Florida ALSO feel the same way.

I keep looking for someone to do an election breakdown by number of congressional districts won. If anyone finds one let me know!

And FWIW, I don't consider Ohio a central state at all.

[Necron2.0]

All this talk of secession and marching on the white house just goes to show how little respect these people have for any opinion other than their own.

When you say "these" people, do you mean Democrats or Republicans? Remember, people say to this day that George W. stole the election from Gore and that he stole Florida, even though every single recount showed him winning. Liberals repeatedly tried to impeach him for no more substantial a reason than that they just didn't like him. Prior to this most recent Presidential election there were numerous stories of Liberals planning to run to Canada if Romney won. And once again the Black Panthers were out intimidating people at the poles.

When push comes to shove, "these" people are you, me and all our neighbors. There is no moral high ground in this equation. The political landscape is as flat as Kansas.

Oh, and presently there are petitions for sucession from all 50 states.

[Nabterayl]

Not singling out scad here, because this "put up with" viewpoint is pretty prevelant in the US. And I think it's part of our problem. "Putting up with" a candidate for however many years just doesn't seem like the best way for our entire country to be represented. I dont know what the solution is, but I'm always so put off by these "put up with" statements.
My two cents, the country needs more buy-in to the idea that, whatever one's individual politics and individual votes, an elected official is elected by the entire body politic. When people think that the president is elected by Those People Over There instead of We the People, I think the entire nation is bound to suffer.

[Chronowraith]

I think what Templarboy is driving at is there is a GREAT population of this country that feels marginalized because of the way the elections work and the fact that the urban centers receive all the attention. I'm from Ohio, so I saw a great deal of it this year. Here's some food for thought: if Ohio split its electoral votes like Maine or Nebraska, Romney wins the State 12-6 in terms of those votes. Now, I realize that based on population density it makes "sense" for urban centers to have weighted electors, but having all the electoral votes go to one side regardless of how many congressional districts they won doesn't seem to make sense. If we're going to do this, why do we even have congressmen outside those urban centers? Because the whole of the state needs to have their voices heard.

I will quickly concede the point that the electoral college system is not the ideal system. I would much rather move to a popular vote mechanism but I realize that has it's own problems as well. While I understand the historical reasons for the electoral college, I've always seen it as a divisive mechanism. Instead of voting as a country, we vote by state. I am an American first and foremost.. state loyalty is further down the line, especially in a day and age where people move further distances more frequently in their lives.


The fact that we have two states that do split their electoral votes based on congressional district and others don't just gums things up more. And listen, I agree population is important, but in states like Ohio and Wisconsin, where 2-3 cities change the outcome of the entire state, it seems like 'everyone else' that doesn't live in those congressional district is marginalized. I'm sure a lot of voters in Florida ALSO feel the same way.

Many states have this issue. On same side as your argument, look at Illinois. the northern 1/5 of the state votes Democratic as do the few counties bordering St. Louis, MO. Most of the rest of the state votes Republican, Libertarian, or Independent. Missouri is a flip-side to Ohio. Kansas City and St. Louis vote heavily democratic but the state the past decade has always voted republican on the national level elections.

My point is this... when the election is so incredibly close (as this one was separated by only 2-3% of the popular vote) there will always be a significant part of the population who feels they were listened to.

I personally don't buy the argument that people are being marginalized. I didn't buy it in the '00's with Bush and I don't buy it now with Obama. What we really need is for our elected representatives to stop campaigning and actually lead the country. We need campaign reform (and I don't just speak of financial reform) so that our leaders can lead instead of scheming about how best to keep their jobs.


And FWIW, I don't consider Ohio a central state at all.

Any professional geographer and/or cartographer will argue this point with you. I do NOT consider Ohio a "midwestern" state, but it is an interior state by pure geographical definition.

[wittdooley]

My point is this... when the election is so incredibly close (as this one was separated by only 2-3% of the popular vote) there will always be a significant part of the population who feels they were listened to.



Yeah, I just dont know what the answer is. It seems to make the most sense to simply go by popular vote. I'd be fine with that. But I just find myself being more and more disgusted by the whole system. Completely agree on the need for Campaign reform, especially after an election where so much bilious propoganda was spewed that, despite being called out as untrue, can't be unheard by those that are swayed by commercials.



I personally don't buy the argument that people are being marginalized. I didn't buy it in the '00's with Bush and I don't buy it now with Obama. What we really need is for our elected representatives to stop campaigning and actually lead the country.

I can't speak personally, because I don't feel that way, but I can't help but wonder if the folks in rural counties in ohio, wisconsin, and other midwest states do because their votes truly do not matter. Again, no idea what the solution is.



Any professional geographer and/or cartographer will argue this point with you. I do NOT consider Ohio a "midwestern" state, but it is an interior state by pure geographical definition.

Hey now. We have a lake. And a river ;) I do always think it's funny when we're considered the Midwest; it's like we're still using the definition we used prior to the California gold rush. But I certainly don't consider my self eastern :D

[DarkLink]

Runoff elections would be probably like 90% of the solution for everything except how super PACs can manipulate the media. Runoff elections avoid the pitfalls of the current system that effectively locks us into only two candidates and marginalizes the votes of people in geographically uncontested locations.

[Mr Mystery]

I don't really understand how the college vote system is fair and representative. I get that the college votes are kind of proportional representation, and it is right that the higher the population the greater the representation. But when they're awarded on an 'all or nothing' basis (much like Britain's terrible first past the post system..) it thoroughly confuses me.

To those of greater knowledge, what sort of impact would it have if the college votes were dished out according to the percentage of the vote you hold in each state? Is this idea practical, or even desirable for the electorate?

[Nabterayl]

I don't really understand how the college vote system is fair and representative. I get that the college votes are kind of proportional representation, and it is right that the higher the population the greater the representation. But when they're awarded on an 'all or nothing' basis (much like Britain's terrible first past the post system..) it thoroughly confuses me.

To those of greater knowledge, what sort of impact would it have if the college votes were dished out according to the percentage of the vote you hold in each state? Is this idea practical, or even desirable for the electorate?
It isn't representative; it isn't supposed to be. The framers of our current constitution were, as a body, of the opinion that the national body politic would not be good at understanding national issues. For this reason, the system was designed so that the body politic would elect a small body of men who, in turn, would elect the president - in utter defiance of the wishes of the people, if they felt that would be for the good of the nation.

The notion that the choice of president ought to reflect the wishes of the body politic at large simply is not a constitutional one. (I would peg its origin, roughly, at the rise of democratic politics circa the 1830s.) The current all-or-nothing system is actually the a democratizing end-run around the original constitutional system. Electors were expected to use their own judgment in electing the president, but are not constitutionally required to do so - so the work-around is for states to mandate that their electors vote in accordance with the wishes of the state.

The same logic that makes that work-around legal would also work for a more nuanced division of a state's electors, of course, so it would certainly be practical to divide a state's electors by the breakdown of the popular vote in that state. As already mentioned, two states already do this. As for whether it would be desirable ... I think that depends on your theory of republicanism. The truth is that it wouldn't change who won very often. The current all-or-nothing system has only resulted in a president being elected by the college who lost the popular vote 3 times out of the 54 presidential elections we've had (or is it 53?). The all-or-nothing system often results in a candidate winning the election by more than they won the popular vote, but very rarely results in a candidate winning the election who wasn't chosen by a majority of the popular vote anyway. If our political goal is for the president to be the person who won the most popular votes, then the all-or-nothing system does that pretty reliably already.

Sometimes people argue that it would result in candidates focusing less on swing states, which might be true, but I'm not persuaded. For instance, California is the most populous state in America by a significant margin, and currently receives comparatively little attention from presidential candidates. California dependably votes pretty overwhelmingly Democratic - Democrats don't have to waste time here to drum up support, and Republicans don't waste time in a hostile environment (simplifying). If electors were aportioned according to popular vote, would that change? I doubt it. California still wouldn't have that many swing voters. Ohio still would. Candidates will be incentivized to spend most of their time trying to persuade voters who are the most open to being persuaded, which is pretty much what their incentive is now.

[Chris Copeland]

Hey, you guys need to back off. Nit-picking my statements does not make your point. I never said I agreed with any of the secessionist garbage. Although I can see where you might draw that conclusion. I was just trying to give a broad view of what is going on.

Oh and Chris-Read the Texas constitution. It's in there just like I said it is. The part about Texas only being subject to the US Constitution and the part where it says the people may throw off the government anytime they choose. Whether it could legally happen is another story entirely. The boldface and all CAPS stuff was a nice touch though.

Templarboy, I'm not trying to be agressive here. I apologize if it came off that way. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm just trying to get a point across accurately. I am also a resident of Texas and I know that Texas has that bit in our state constitution. I'm just pointing out that it's a null and void part of our constitution. That is what the White decision (directly post Civil War) determined. Please don't take offense to "NOT" being in caps. I'm just trying to be emphatic. I used boldface to point out the relevant point (about the the bit in our state constitution not having any weight of law). So, Brother Texan, I'm not here to fight. I agree we have a bit in our state constitution that says we have the right to secede. I'm adding to that that the US Supreme court ruled well over a century ago that that part of the state constitution isn't worth the ink it's written in.

Good gaming to ya! Cheers! Cope

[scadugenga]

Not singling out scad here, because this "put up with" viewpoint is pretty prevelant in the US. And I think it's part of our problem. "Putting up with" a candidate for however many years just doesn't seem like the best way for our entire country to be represented. I dont know what the solution is, but I'm always so put off by these "put up with" statements.

The "Put up with" viewpoint is prevalent--wherever you have a very polarized crowd. Ultimately, what it boils down to is...suck it up.

Your (not necessarily you, Witt--I'm being general here) guy lost whatever round (Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, McCain in 2008, and now Romney) you wanted him in. Life will move on. The country will not turn balls up and disintegrate. We will move on, and there's always next election.

If you're so stymied and hyper because of an election that the sky is falling, either learn to chill, or move to Canada. I hear there's always room up there somewhere. ;)

I wasn't a fan of Bush. But it didn't mean I was out there castigating him at every turn either. Life moves on.

If you feel "marginalized" by your vote--move to where your vote will have more impact. Or campaign to increase your side's presence in your area.

And while you may hate the electoral system---only three elections in the history of the US had the electoral college vote counter to the popular decision.

And all three were Republicans. (Dubya being the last in 2000. He lost the popular vote, but won the electoral college.)

Personally--I think there are several issues that exist to make our system falter:

1) Two dominant parties. It polarizes the populace, and unfortunately does not allow some candidates, who might be more apt for a run at the job, any chance in hell of winning a major election.

2) Politician as a "career path." A lot of the problems we have, are with politicians who are more interested in keeping their cushy job than in doing what they should be doing--making this a better country for us to live in.

3)Super PACs. There is zero need for this, and all it does is make people even more polarized (with the rampant mud-slinging, etc) than they would be elsewise.

Our leaders, (heh) whatever their political bent, should be more focused on doing their bedamned job in making this a better country, than creating division (I'm not singling out Republicans here--just FYI) and furthering their own personal gain.

Ideally I'd like to see a MUCH more informed populace (and lets not kid ourselves here, the vast majority of voters are pretty ignorant about the issues at hand) have the ability to call a vote of "no confidence" and oust any whackamole in office who clusterfudges up. Be it misuse of funds, committing felonies, or just being so inept at the job a janitor could probably do it better.

However, until you have an enlightened aware, and above all, not lemming-like voting populace--that is not going to be a viable option.

[wittdooley]

However, until you have an enlightened aware, and above all, not lemming-like voting populace--that is not going to be a viable option.

Which is to say, never :-).

The thing that shocks me the most is how being a successful businessman has suddenly become a negative facet of any candidates campaign. Amazing.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

The thing that shocks me the most is how being a successful businessman has suddenly become a negative facet of any candidates campaign. Amazing.

Amen.

Btw. If Texas goes Arkansas will not be far behind. Our secession petition is up to 18,000 as of yesterday. And we had an Arkansan in the White House a mere 12 years ago. I imagine Missouri and Mississippi are going up quickly too.

[DarkLink]

Didn't you hear? Capitalism is evil. Successful businessmen are evil. Inherently so, because obviously they basically stole that money from poor orphaned babies (that's totally how capitalism works).

[Mr Mystery]

Welcome to the age of austerity! When you're just making ends meet, and others then set about buggering up the global economy, it's extremely hard to take some millionaire making life that much tougher, and telling you it's for your own good, regardless of their place in the political spectrum.

Me, I'm kind of chilled. Ever one to buck trends, I'm now doing significantly better than I was in 2008!

[Caitsidhe]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20301477

A little related to the other thread asking is sore losers are damaging the party....

Does this damage the good normal folk who make up the other 99.9% of the population of the fair state of Texas (i'm sure we have a few of the "normal" straight thinking Texans on here

I only single out Texas as its the biggest one so far according to the article. A lot of other people from other states are at fault.

EDIT - I suppose I should have called this "a vocal minority of Texas asks for permission to cecede" - but that didn't have the same ring to it

I live in Texas. I was born in Texas. I happen to be an Independent voter who votes split ticket, but favors Democratic and Green candidates. I happen to think the idea of Texas leaving the Union the most idiotic notion possible. That being said, I hope those that wish to form their own nation of Texas somehow get their way. Let's say for the sake of argument that somehow it happens without a Civil War. I immediately become a citizen of Texas with no lingering Student Loans or debts (these make up MOST of my debt). The home my wife and I share is now an exotic place in a country foreign to the U.S. near a major Texas city. We would sell it and immigrate back into the United States. :)

So while I think it is a crazy notion to think Texas could survive on its own in the modern world, I would certainly make the best of the fairy tale should it come to pass. My wife and I would be living in Maine in short order where everyone's vote counts regardless of party (no superstate rules). Being debt free would be a nice perk.

[Wildeybeast]

Could Texas do a swap with Puerto Rico (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20238272)? Then everyone would be happy.

[Nabterayl]

Welcome to the age of austerity! When you're just making ends meet, and others then set about buggering up the global economy, it's extremely hard to take some millionaire making life that much tougher, and telling you it's for your own good, regardless of their place in the political spectrum.
To be fair, I don't actually think most Americans feel this way. For instance, Romney was not excoriated for being a wealthy businessman. He was excoriated on being a wealthy private equity man. I think Americans are fine with millionaires so long as the millionaires made their wealth doing things they (Americans) understand. Most people don't even know what private equity is, let alone how it works. That by itself might have been surmountable - it only opens the door to Democrats saying, "Private equity is bad!" and Republicans saying, "Private equity is good!" Neither source is exactly unbiased, and for most people it comes down to who they trust. Romney was insufficiently trustworthy.

But consider this: how many Americans actually understand what Berkshire Hathaway does? Not many more than understand private equity, I'd wager. But if Warren Buffett had said, "My company is good!" and Democrats had said, "His company is bad!" who do you think most people would believe? My money is on Buffett.

Americans don't hate people being wealthy. They hate people getting wealthy doing things they don't understand. That which I do not understand must be bad, and nobody likes people getting wealthy doing things that are bad.

[wittdooley]

Americans don't hate people being wealthy. They hate people getting wealthy doing things they don't understand. That which I do not understand must be bad, and nobody likes people getting wealthy doing things that are bad.

Really interesting point. Saddens me that this sentiment perfectly explains why people are fine with multi-millionaire athletes and celebrities and are convinced that anyone in banking is evil. But then again, I had a conversation the other day with someone that believed schools are a primary economic driver because they send more people to college...

Sigh.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

But then again, I had a conversation the other day with someone that believed schools are a primary economic driver because they send more people to college...


Right. College is how millionaries like Joe Paterno are created.

[wittdooley]

Right. College is how millionaries like Joe Paterno are created.

She also believed fire houses were economic drives because they employed people with important jobs. I ended the conversation there.

[scadugenga]

She also believed fire houses were economic drives because they employed people with important jobs. I ended the conversation there.

Best to cut your losses quickly, before you do something you probably won't regret too much later. :)

[Uncle Nutsy]

well if they really want to secede, there's a good list of uninhabited islands where they can start their own country.

[Psychosplodge]

I don't understand how you can object if a state wants to secede.

[Wolfshade]

She also believed fire houses were economic drives because they employed people with important jobs. I ended the conversation there.

:eek: