Republican Presidential Debate

[Barothmuk]

I'm confused. Do Americans think Shariah-Law = communism?

[Hurlshort]

I'm confused. Do Americans think Shariah-Law = communism?

 

Only the ones that rely on Breitbart for their news.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'm confused. Do Americans think Shariah-Law = communism?

I haven't actually accepted Bruce's joke premise that Obola would declare Sharia in Texas. But you should read up on the new British Labor leader Hurlshot. Edited September 26, 2015 by Wrath of Dagon

[Namutree]

 

I don't think the military would fight against Texas for a commie government. Most of people in the military are either Texans or Southerners. 

You grossly underestimate military discipline. They would do as their commanded. Heck, even now they are being incrementally replaced by machines. Not that the US military are all that different from robots.

 

 

Scotland was allowed to leave, how's that different from Texas?

I'm not all that well informed on the Scottland situation. I know enough about the federal government though to know that no state is leaving the Union, ever. Count on it.

 

 

 Even the republics of the Soviet Union were allowed to leave, are you saying our government is worst than the communists? 

Worse than the communists would be a bold label over a single issue. On this single issue: Yes.

 

 

 Edit: In reality, there'd be a civil war in Texas between those wanting to leave and those who don't, that's the real obstacle.

 

I doubt it.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Namutree

[Calax]

 

 

 

Can you imagine Obama going to  congress and saying " in the interests of unity and a progressive future for the USA Sharia law will now be rolled out ...starting in Texas "  

 

I wonder what  WOD would say about this  ...mmmmm  

I'd love that, we'd finally stop being a flock of sheep and secede. Edit: Btw, style point, "Sharia law" is redundant.

 

You do realize that seceding would mean facing the full power of the US military which in the case of preserving the Union would not hesitate to resort to total war if it needed to. The Texans would be forced to stay, or if that became impossible they'd all be killed, by nuclear strikes if needed. No state leaves the union; much less with it's people alive.

 

I don't think the military would fight against Texas for a commie government. Most of people in the military are either Texans or Southerners. Scotland was allowed to leave, how's that different from Texas? Even the republics of the Soviet Union were allowed to leave, are you saying our government is worst than the communists? Edit: In reality, there'd be a civil war in Texas between those wanting to leave and those who don't, that's the real obstacle.

 

 

 

First Inaugural Address March 4, 1861

I hold that, in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the union of these States is perpetual....It follows....that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I, therefore, consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken.

First Inaugural Address March 4, 1861

We find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

Message to Congress in Special Session July 4, 1861

The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this they can only do so against law and by revolution.

 

The Great Emancipator has declared that you are WRONG sir.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Calax

[Volourn]

ie. He was a  murderous nazi who loved murdering anyone with differing opinions than him.

[Guard Dog]

Whether or not a State is able to secede comes down to one thing an one thing only: The lengths the Federal Government and the people of the remaining States are willing to go to keep them. To say that it is simply illegal to do so is pointless because by the very act of leaving they are abrogating the agreement made that lends the law any weight.

 

So it comes down to this if Texas were to secede just as an example is the government willing to invade, subjugate, and kill tens of thousands of their former countrymen while the world watches? To say nothing of the effect it might have on other states who might be teetering on the edge of joining Texas. Before the Civil War Virginia seceded when the War Department demanded Virginia based military units be used to invade North Carolina. We Americans are stubborn and not afraid to fight over a wrong, real or perceived. Even against long odds.

 

Another point is that in 1861 almost a million people were being held as slaves in the seceding states. A moral injustice is also something worth fighting for especially when it happens on your doorstep. Once again using Texas as an example is they were to leave over a suspension or violation of the Constitution (which is what it would take I think) would the remaining citizens be willing to fight over a philosophical contention without the moral injustice? I really don't think they would.

 

One last thing, the Civil War was followed by 40 years or Reconstruction during which the southern states were a drain on the treasury without adding revenue to it. Would the remaining states be willing to incur the cost of rebuilding what they had just destroyed in a state where the people are now angry and brutalized?

 

I think if a state or even group of states were willing to walk away over politics the choices are really to do what is required to keep them peacefully or let them go.

[Hurlshort]

I agree with GD that the Federal government would likely let a state go rather than go to war at this stage.  We live in a very different time, we also won't see a draft anytime in the future, or a World War, so those are all positives.  

 

But realistically, I doubt you are ever going to get enough Texans to go along with a plan to secede.  I tried to see what data I could find on it, and this is what I found:

 

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/09/a-third-of-texans-support-seceding-from-the-union.html/

 

So I mean a third is a pretty good number, but that's just a poll, and it is much easier to say you want to secede than it is to follow through.  Would there really be enough pros to outweigh the cons?  Would it really even make much of a difference? 

[Guard Dog]

It would take a serious act on the part of the Federal Government to push us to that point. Although I do think it is altogether capable of that magnitude of tyranny I don't think it will happen anytime soon. I hope it never happens but you would have to be blind to not see the US is becoming more and more divided. The only thing that keeps a country together is an agreement between the people to stay together.

[Calax]

Whether or not a State is able to secede comes down to one thing an one thing only: The lengths the Federal Government and the people of the remaining States are willing to go to keep them. To say that it is simply illegal to do so is pointless because by the very act of leaving they are abrogating the agreement made that lends the law any weight.

 

So it comes down to this if Texas were to secede just as an example is the government willing to invade, subjugate, and kill tens of thousands of their former countrymen while the world watches? To say nothing of the effect it might have on other states who might be teetering on the edge of joining Texas. Before the Civil War Virginia seceded when the War Department demanded Virginia based military units be used to invade North Carolina. We Americans are stubborn and not afraid to fight over a wrong, real or perceived. Even against long odds.

 

Another point is that in 1861 almost a million people were being held as slaves in the seceding states. A moral injustice is also something worth fighting for especially when it happens on your doorstep. Once again using Texas as an example is they were to leave over a suspension or violation of the Constitution (which is what it would take I think) would the remaining citizens be willing to fight over a philosophical contention without the moral injustice? I really don't think they would.

 

One last thing, the Civil War was followed by 40 years or Reconstruction during which the southern states were a drain on the treasury without adding revenue to it. Would the remaining states be willing to incur the cost of rebuilding what they had just destroyed in a state where the people are now angry and brutalized?

 

I think if a state or even group of states were willing to walk away over politics the choices are really to do what is required to keep them peacefully or let them go.

My point was more to WoD's mention that "There's nothing to STOP texas from departing the union" sentiment. The entire point that Lincoln had to make was that by it's very nature, an act of secession would be against the law because the seceding territory wouldn't be governed by any law and wouldn't have permission from the Federal Government to become it's own government. And that's the historical precedent that we have t operate on, which for lack of a better guideline would shape all foreign and domestic policy.

 

Besides I think Guam and Puerto Rico would have a better chance at secession over Texas. After all, those two are technically not even US states (American Saomoa too) and therefor aren't bound as tightly to the rest of the US (consider, if Texas left, it'd be locked with two trading partners and very little economic base) as any of the actual states.

[Guard Dog]

Actually Texas would have the 14th largest economy in the world right off the bat with three cities with deep water ports. Puerto Rico just had a referendum about this a few years ago incidentally. The choices were to apply for Statehood, become an independent country or stay a territory, IIRC the vote wasn't close.

 

There is an interesting process going on in Spain right now with Catalonia looking to break away.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Guard Dog

[Hurlshort]

California and Texas are probably the two states that could feasibly break away and establish an independent government.  

 

According to this, Alaska and Hawaii are the states that would struggle the most: http://business.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/20/13283087-hawaii-alaska-and-the-states-that-get-the-most-federal-money

 

Pretty interesting read.  

[pmp10]

The whole secession debate seems strange to me.

The only reason it happened in 1861 was the heavy investment southern elites had in slavery.

What economic gain could Texas hope to achieve with secession?

[Varana]

Because Obola is bringing the communism!!!

And the Civil War only was about states' rights. Slavery had absolutely nothing to do with it, really!!!

[Namutree]

I agree with GD that the Federal government would likely let a state go rather than go to war at this stage. 

You guys are all delusional. We go to war over nothing and you think we wouldn't go to war over something?

[BruceVC]

 

I agree with GD that the Federal government would likely let a state go rather than go to war at this stage. 

You guys are all delusional. We go to war over nothing and you think we wouldn't go to war over something?

 

Nah, the USA going to war over misinformation and a hidden political agenda, like Iraq, is not the same as the USA going to war over nothing 

[ShadySands]

War somewhere "over there" doesn't have any impact on the daily lives of the vast majority of people

 

War in the states would affect pretty much everyone

[Wrath of Dagon]

The whole secession debate seems strange to me.

The only reason it happened in 1861 was the heavy investment southern elites had in slavery.

What economic gain could Texas hope to achieve with secession?

We'd be the only conservative country in the world, and therefore the most economically successful and freest country in the world. And really, don't Conservatives deserve their own homeland? Btw, efforts to secede haven't led to war anywhere in the Western world, and one might remember that the feds backed off when confronted with an armed population in that dispute with the Nevada rancher.

[Rostere]

 

The whole secession debate seems strange to me.

The only reason it happened in 1861 was the heavy investment southern elites had in slavery.

What economic gain could Texas hope to achieve with secession?

We'd be the only conservative country in the world, and therefore the most economically successful and freest country in the world. And really, don't Conservatives deserve their own homeland? Btw, efforts to secede haven't led to war anywhere in the Western world, and one might remember that the feds backed off when confronted with an armed population in that dispute with the Nevada rancher.

 

Saudi Arabia is p. conservative, yet I would not call them free or economically successful...

[Wrath of Dagon]

Saudi Arabia is Islamic fundamentalist, pretty much the opposite of what we call "Conservatism" in America, which is sometimes referred to as "Classic Liberalism" or may be "Neoliberalism", I'm a little confused. Words have different meaning in different contexts you know.

Edited September 27, 2015 by Wrath of Dagon

[Guard Dog]

The whole secession debate seems strange to me.

The only reason it happened in 1861 was the heavy investment southern elites had in slavery.

What economic gain could Texas hope to achieve with secession?

If something like that were to ever happen it would not be an economic decision. There is no economic upside to that at least in the short term. It would be a reaction to an overt and illegal act by the federal government. Although the fact that it's getting so much discussion these days is a little telling on the dissatisfaction with what is going on in Washington but it isn't lurking around the corner either.

[Elerond]

 

 

The whole secession debate seems strange to me.

The only reason it happened in 1861 was the heavy investment southern elites had in slavery.

What economic gain could Texas hope to achieve with secession?

We'd be the only conservative country in the world, and therefore the most economically successful and freest country in the world. And really, don't Conservatives deserve their own homeland? Btw, efforts to secede haven't led to war anywhere in the Western world, and one might remember that the feds backed off when confronted with an armed population in that dispute with the Nevada rancher.

 

Saudi Arabia is p. conservative, yet I would not call them free or economically successful...

 

 

Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".

 

Which conservatives we speak (in context of USA), those who want current state of affairs to change or those who want to return something(s) from the past when things were better? 

[Zoraptor]

Reactionaries aren't really the same as conservatives, since they do want change just in the opposite direction from those wanted by progressives/ liberals. Conservative/ reactionary/ liberal/ progressive have always been both moving goal posts over time and relative to each other within a particular area (country, usually).

 

Much of the problem with discussion of such issues is that the various terms are pretty indistinct and relative, so a liberal in KSA is likely to be far more conservative than a conservative in Sweden but a conservative from Sweden in the early 19th century would be majorly different from the 21st century Swedish conservative; and you have a distinction between the 'old' liberalism which was largely related to economics and 'social' liberalism which is more related to what we'd now call social justice and the like. So you end up with confusing things like the Australian Liberal Party and British Conservative Party actually being very similar despite their names with both being (broadly) socially conservative but economically liberal. It really needs better nomenclature, much like the rather silly left wing/ right wing stuff which is most often used both terribly and inconsistently and has shifted pretty randomly from its roots in 18thC France.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'm talking about the ones who want to preserve Jeffersonian democracy, capitalism, Federalism and Constitutional law where no one is either above or below the law. I guess some of those things are already gone so may be trying to restore them would be reactionary?

[Meshugger]

While you guys are trying to figure out the etymology of 'conservative', there are some funnies to be had: