• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

People from 30 states threaten secession from the United States

von Weltschmerz

the first born unicorn
135
Posts
11
Years
  • Seen Feb 18, 2013
This is a laughable joke at secession. Signing a petition will not do anything. The only routes to secession are: 1.) Through the state legislature and 2.) Through armed conflagration.

1.) This will not happen. At least not for a very long time. The States have much more to consider than a few ornery people who mean truly nothing in the long run. Secession will not happen because we hardly the sectionalized states of the Civil War era. Sure, we have our political ideas that are relatively related to our geography, but most Americans are tied to the idea of a strong Union. Most Americans, I'd say, don't even fully comprehend the idea of "sovereign" states. That even if they were to secede, they wouldn't know what to do with themselves. They would fall into disarray and walk back into the Union with their tail between their legs, begging for its support.

Not to mention, a petition will do little. You can appeal to the people all you want, but that will get you nowhere. You would have to convince the legislature--a body of people who have much more to consider than the average person. And it is that step that would certainly not be easy. You would have to convince them that if they did not secede from the Union that they would become the lesser of their other states. And you could not so easily fabricate a lie of such proportions. That is to say... there actually needs to be some grievances to call the federal government out on. As it is now... there is none. The ENTIRE NATION IS IN TROUBLE RIGHT NOW. Not just a few select states. Thus any grievances that could be brought to light could be the same grievances that the whole nation brings upon itself. And what are we going to do.. have all the states secede from the union into another one? That'd just be plain silly.

TL;DR: The states have no reason to secede.

2.) This idea is even more laughable than the first. Good luck gathering a force strong enough to face the U.S. military. A force of it's own citizens, no doubt. And not the war-faring ones either... The ones who preferred to remain in the home country instead of battling. The ones with little to no experience of being a soldier. Then, of course.. if you even managed to amount such numbers... you'd need to supply them. Weapons, food, shelter... That would all be terribly expensive and difficult to acquire. In order to compete... you would need technologies not so readily available to the publicNot to mention that a few red flags would be raised by the feds for the gathering of such munitions required for war and the congregating of the people supposed to make up the fighting force. It would then be at that point that you look down the barrel of a federal gun, muster the courage to give them a big "**** YOU" and pray to whatever you believe in that they just don't blast you right then and there.

TL;DR The U.S. military would be able to crush any pathetic excuse for an army that anyone could throw together at this point.
 
3,299
Posts
19
Years
Let's say the states actually do (secede?) break away from the rest of the country and begin inciting violence. Will the Military have to intervene and kill their own people, like what is going on in Syria? If that does come to that, I bet you the rest of the world, who already don't think very well of us, will see that we are just a bunch of hypocrites.

If you're a solider who was deployed to a state that rebelled and you are ordered shoot to kill. Would you shoot and kill your countrymen or disobey orders and face a court martial?
 

von Weltschmerz

the first born unicorn
135
Posts
11
Years
  • Seen Feb 18, 2013
Let's say the states actually do (secede?) break away from the rest of the country and begin inciting violence. Will the Military have to intervene and kill their own people, like what is going on in Syria? If that does come to that, I bet you the rest of the world, who already don't think very well of us, will see that we are just a bunch of hypocrites.

If you're a solider who was deployed to a state that rebelled and you are ordered shoot to kill. Would you shoot and kill your countrymen or disobey orders and face a court martial?

They began the violence. They are thoroughly the ones to blame. People will not support the violent rebels of what is purported to be the best country ever. They will see them the same as American leaders do: crude and violent... people who hit the ground running without anywhere to actually go... Supporting such an infantile nation would be disastrous to foreign nations. As it would be... there is no such guarantee that the rebels would even have a chance at actually accomplishing victory. Anyone who assisted them would directly be challenging the United States, and not many are brave enough to do that. When the U.S. claimed victory, it would mark such foreign entities up as enemies and traitors... They would close of American markets to them and halt the friendly interacting between the countries. A break that would certainly affect the other country more than the U.S. So it wouldn't be logical at this point to assist such rebels.

Now... if they legitimately passed secession acts for a peaceful withdrawal from the Union and THEN the U.S. sent in it's military your claim would stand much stronger. Then nations might jump in on the claim that America has grown vile and rank. The support they lend would be that of spirit, primarily. They still would not, at this point, want to anger the lion that the U.S. is. The same thing would happen as above if the U.S. were to claim victory over it's rebels. They might send in some supplies here and there, but even that would pushing the limits a little.

If the rebels had a legitimate claim and had developed enough into an actual functioning body... then they might appeal to foreign aid. It is only when foreign nations would acquire something tangible that they would help. They wouldn't help simply to liberate people... No... that's Americas job. ;]] They would help only to have their hand in the forge of a new nation.
 

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot
3,498
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen Aug 29, 2018
You must be joking. This wouldn't be an issue if Romney were the President. That's laughable to suggest.

And no, I was speaking about the states from the old Confederacy, specifically Texas, seeing as I mentioned Reconstruction.

There would indeed be a secession moevement if Romney won would because this about fighting federal tyranny, not a particular political party.

The global elite bankers may have suceeded in re-selecting their President, but they haven't silenced We the People!
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
There would indeed be a secession moevement if Romney won would because this about fighting federal tyranny, not a particular political party.

The global elite bankers may have suceeded in re-selecting their President, but they haven't silenced We the People!

They haven't silenced them, but they have pulled their teeth.

It's all talk, empty threats, from The People. Basically, just like the OWS movement, its a bunch of people *****ing, complaining, and moaning, in the hopes that the 'rulers' decide to toss them some scraps to get them to shut up.

They want real change? Rebellions. Uprisings. War. If they want change, they will have to do the same things that led to the creation of this nation in the first place. The system is broke, corrupt, and really, a complete farce. They can't change it with words, they need to change it, no, force it to change with action. Something that none of the cowardly 'People' have the guts to do.
 

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot
3,498
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen Aug 29, 2018
They haven't silenced them, but they have pulled their teeth.

It's all talk, empty threats, from The People. Basically, just like the OWS movement, its a bunch of people *****ing, complaining, and moaning, in the hopes that the 'rulers' decide to toss them some scraps to get them to shut up.

Or it could be like the TEA Party movement, which succeeded in electing many of its people to public offices across nation.
 

Oryx

CoquettishCat
13,184
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Jan 30, 2015
If "We the People" involves childishly threatening to secede from the United States because of a lost election, I don't want any part of it.

Good thing it doesn't.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years

Khawill

<3
1,567
Posts
11
Years
There would indeed be a secession moevement if Romney won would because this about fighting federal tyranny, not a particular political party.

The global elite bankers may have suceeded in re-selecting their President, but they haven't silenced We the People!


Uh I don't get the global elite bankers... Are you saying Obama won because of other countries? If so (excluding China, those fixed dollar rate cheapskates) why is that a bad thing? I hate the idea of countries to be honest, and I don't think it (the world) should be separated anymore. Considering countries are a concept that arose thousands of years ago, when it was only possible to rule a certain amount of area it was fine, but right now in this era we have the communication, transportation, and mentality to be a united world.

Also I don't get why you hate Obama, you barely state facts (with reputable sources) yet you make him look like some kind of fiend. The whole one track mindset helps nobody in this country because both parties have it wrong, your precious Romney wants to run this country like a business (dumbest idea ever by the way) and your hated Obama wants to do good but doesn't have time to (and with both parties pretty much canceling each other out every other election, what is the point.)

Back to what I was saying before though. The fact these states wants to separate annoys me, (if) they succeeded, then that means more countries in this freakin world which will hinder any progress to unite it in the future. Not only this but it isn't symbolic to do this, it is a waste of time. What is the message they are sending, "Hey we are angry because our party didn't win!" (Democrats don't say anything, you tried the same thing in 2004). That is what this is about, not some nonsense about a tyranicle government (seriously, look in a history book and find a government that is better than ours, no hypotheticle ones like Marx's Communisim). I don't even get the tyranicle government thing, our country is bad because of terribly corrupt buisnesses and people who flood into our country with better education because their country sucks (btw this wouldn't happen if the world operated like a single country)
 

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot
3,498
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen Aug 29, 2018
Uh I don't get the global elite bankers... Are you saying Obama won because of other countries? If so (excluding China, those fixed dollar rate cheapskates) why is that a bad thing? I hate the idea of countries to be honest, and I don't think it (the world) should be separated anymore. Considering countries are a concept that arose thousands of years ago, when it was only possible to rule a certain amount of area it was fine, but right now in this era we have the communication, transportation, and mentality to be a united world.

Also I don't get why you hate Obama, you barely state facts (with reputable sources) yet you make him look like some kind of fiend. The whole one track mindset helps nobody in this country because both parties have it wrong, your precious Romney wants to run this country like a business (dumbest idea ever by the way) and your hated Obama wants to do good but doesn't have time to (and with both parties pretty much canceling each other out every other election, what is the point.)

Back to what I was saying before though. The fact these states wants to separate annoys me, (if) they succeeded, then that means more countries in this freakin world which will hinder any progress to unite it in the future. Not only this but it isn't symbolic to do this, it is a waste of time. What is the message they are sending, "Hey we are angry because our party didn't win!" (Democrats don't say anything, you tried the same thing in 2004). That is what this is about, not some nonsense about a tyranicle government (seriously, look in a history book and find a government that is better than ours, no hypotheticle ones like Marx's Communisim). I don't even get the tyranicle government thing, our country is bad because of terribly corrupt buisnesses and people who flood into our country with better education because their country sucks (btw this wouldn't happen if the world operated like a single country)

Obama is a bag boy for Wall Street and the Rothschild global elite banking cartel that is destroying our Republic! They promote Agenda 21 globalism, which threatens America's sovereignty!

Logical fallacy protip: Don't ever assume facts. I never said that Romney was precious to me, or even that I supported him.

America is rapidly devolving into a tyrannical third-world country due to the constant expansion of government at the expense of individual liberty!
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
Obama is a bag boy for Wall Street and the Rothschild global elite banking cartel that is destroying our Republic! They promote Agenda 21 globalism, which threatens America's sovereignty!

Logical fallacy protip: Don't ever assume facts. I never said that Romney was precious to me, or even that I supported him.

America is rapidly devolving into a tyrannical third-world country due to the constant expansion of government at the expense of individual liberty!

I highly doubt that we are going to turn into a clone of Africa. Anyway, name what 3rd world country we are turning into.

A global government, although not needed at this point in time, will one day be vital to our continued survival and expansion. Eventually, we will all have to unite or die. And surprise surprise, it might not be the US leading everything in the future. Another country could just as easy take our place.
 

Khawill

<3
1,567
Posts
11
Years
Obama is a bag boy for Wall Street and the Rothschild global elite banking cartel that is destroying our Republic! They promote Agenda 21 globalism, which threatens America's sovereignty!

Logical fallacy protip: Don't ever assume facts. I never said that Romney was precious to me, or even that I supported him.

America is rapidly devolving into a tyrannical third-world country due to the constant expansion of government at the expense of individual liberty!

Regardless of whether you love him or not, that is not my argument, again you are stating things with no souce or evidence. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your opinion of Romney, but that doesn't detract from my post (which I think you skimmed over).

America isn't even close to a third world country, that is the most idiotic thing I've read. Our freedoms are not being taken away, as a matter of fact we have more than before (well I as a black man does). In the past 30-40 years America has changed for the better. A lot of areas are no longer bias, homophobic, or completely ignorant. Let's exclude the radical white trash that is the minority that speaks too loud. Name one thing this government does that is "tyranicle" If you can detail it enough to where it sounds logical or at least legitimate than I'd accept your argument as informed and thought out. Otherwise please stop insulting Obama (who actually is a pretty good good man.)

(I won't accept news reports because they tend to be biased one way or another, and the "neutral" ones are pretty rare.)
 

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot
3,498
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen Aug 29, 2018
Regardless of whether you love him or not, that is not my argument, again you are stating things with no souce or evidence. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your opinion of Romney, but that doesn't detract from my post (which I think you skimmed over).

America isn't even close to a third world country, that is the most idiotic thing I've read. Our freedoms are not being taken away, as a matter of fact we have more than before (well I as a black man does). In the past 30-40 years America has changed for the better. A lot of areas are no longer bias, homophobic, or completely ignorant. Let's exclude the radical white trash that is the minority that speaks too loud. Name one thing this government does that is "tyranicle" If you can detail it enough to where it sounds logical or at least legitimate than I'd accept your argument as informed and thought out. Otherwise please stop insulting Obama (who actually is a pretty good good man.)

(I won't accept news reports because they tend to be biased one way or another, and the "neutral" ones are pretty rare.)

Your racist remarks are offensive, but I'll leave that topic alone for the time being.

There are a lot of things tyrannical that the government has done, but since you challenged me name one, I'll name the worst of the worst. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which Obama signed, allows the President to use the military to arrest and detain American citizens on American soil indefinitely, and without due process of law.
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
Your racist remarks are offensive, but I'll leave that topic alone for the time being.

There are a lot of things tyrannical that the government has done, but since you challenged me name one, I'll name the worst of the worst. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which Obama signed, allows the President to use the military to arrest and detain American citizens on American soil indefinitely, and without due process of law.
Didn't they already change that in the 2013 version? (I think? Maybe mistaken)
 

Khawill

<3
1,567
Posts
11
Years
Your racist remarks are offensive, but I'll leave that topic alone for the time being.

There are a lot of things tyrannical that the government has done, but since you challenged me name one, I'll name the worst of the worst. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which Obama signed, allows the President to use the military to arrest and detain American citizens on American soil indefinitely, and without due process of law.
Please do enlighten me to the racist remarks in a PM.

I know that is incorrect because it directly violates the 5th, 6th, 10th and if taken from their home the 4th amendment. In which case this isn't Obama's fault but combined congress AND the Judicial Branch's fault for or recognizing this (which is impossible because even your party is involved in this).

You also misunderstand the act. It applies to those suspected of terrorisim, which admittedly vague doesn't mean they can arrest anyone they want. Also it doesn't affect you unless you are related, suspected, or direct involved with terrorist acts. The government would waste its time trying to detain its own citizens, that is idiotic, furthermore our CIA is very good at its job, like as good as the FDA is at quarantining a disease before it spreads good.

Edit* @Link, That bill has yet to be signed. And will not reverse the law of the previous bill, rather change it so that it gives a trial by the military, (a very high federal trial)
 

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot
3,498
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen Aug 29, 2018
Please do enlighten me to the racist remarks in a PM.

I know that is incorrect because it directly violates the 5th, 6th, 10th and if taken from their home the 4th amendment. In which case this isn't Obama's fault but combined congress AND the Judicial Branch's fault for or recognizing this (which is impossible because even your party is involved in this).

You also misunderstand the act. It applies to those suspected of terrorisim, which admittedly vague doesn't mean they can arrest anyone they want. Also it doesn't affect you unless you are related, suspected, or direct involved with terrorist acts. The government would waste its time trying to detain its own citizens, that is idiotic, furthermore our CIA is very good at its job, like as good as the FDA is at quarantining a disease before it spreads good.

Edit* @Link, That bill has yet to be signed. And will not reverse the law of the previous bill, rather change it so that it gives a trial by the military, (a very high federal trial)

How you say that it only applies to those who are suspected of terrorism, yet the government is not required to give suspects their day in court to present the evidence that they have of their alleged terrorist acticity? That's where the danger lies.

Also, the Patriot Act, which allows the government to spy on us without a warrant, is another example of government tyranny.
 

Khawill

<3
1,567
Posts
11
Years
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Direct quote of amendment 5, apperantly they do have the right to do this (by the way if you can't read it "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;" is the part I highlighted)

The patriot act again is not made to see what you talk about with your friends. They don't even monitor you for illegal activities, they monitor people for terrorist activities. The whole "the government is watching me" paranoia is rather dim. What purpose do they have to wire tap your house, or waste money watching you sleep? Do you store bombs, guns, or yell death to America? If you are not suspicious, you are not guilty unless proven.

Additionally even if you were caught, say selling drugs over the phone and they heard you, and brought you to court. Unless your lawyer is an idiot, then they don't have anything on you. They can not get a warrant because they are Federal agents, they can't use the phone call in question (which would actually be void as evidence and ignored, or risk ending the trial) and they can't search your house without infringing upon the Fourth Ammendment.

Tl: Dr it is a waste of effort for the government to monitor those who are not legitimately suspected to be terrorists, thus even though they can spy on you, they won't.
 
Last edited:

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
your precious Romney wants to run this country like a business (dumbest idea ever by the way)
What's wrong with government being managed in an efficient, effective, and responsible manner? What's wrong with having balanced budgets? I don't think that should necessarily be a right- or left-wing thing. It should just be a common sense thing. And in recent memory, the right is more talk than walk and the "left" (loosely. The Democrats are still centre-right) has done a better job at being a responsible government.

That's not to say that all government is bad or that all businesses are good. Business go bankrupt all the time. Government programs are important. The idea is just about ensuring best managerial and administrative practices are followed. When you have money, you can invest in social programs and other things for the public good.

Which is also not to say that when you have debt or a deficit you should just stop spending outright. Businesses spend through debt to develop and offer some product or service that people will buy, so that they can make more money. For government, stuff like investing in science and technology achieves that same goal (as would social programs that have user fees if that means the government is operating it at a loss).

If during economic turmoil, whatever your spending money on doesn't directly contribute to economic growth then you need to tone it down and trim. And it is really easy to make an argument for almost anything contributing to positive economic growth in the long-run. So, not cutting programs, but making them work better for the money. Maybe you don't need five people doing the same thing. Maybe you can have people do the work of two positions. Bring in an auditor and see what isn't working properly. Stuff like that. It's not evil.

Edit* @Link, That bill has yet to be signed. And will not reverse the law of the previous bill, rather change it so that it gives a trial by the military, (a very high federal trial)
Oh, okay. (And... did you call me Link? XD)
 
Last edited:

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot
3,498
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen Aug 29, 2018
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Direct quote of amendment 5, apperantly they do have the right to do this (by the way if you can't read it "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;" is the part I highlighted)

The patriot act again is not made to see what you talk about with your friends. They don't even monitor you for illegal activities, they monitor people for terrorist activities. The whole "the government is watching me" paranoia is rather dim. What purpose do they have to wire tap your house, or waste money watching you sleep? Do you store bombs, guns, or yell death to America? If you are not suspicious, you are not guilty unless proven.

Additionally even if you were caught, say selling drugs over the phone and they heard you, and brought you to court. Unless your lawyer is an idiot, then they don't have anything on you. They can not get a warrant because they are Federal agents, they can't use the phone call in question (which would actually be void as evidence and ignored, or risk ending the trial) and they can't search your house without infringing upon the Fourth Ammendment.

Tl: Dr it is a waste of effort for the government to monitor those who are not legitimately suspected to be terrorists, thus even though they can spy on you, they won't.

The section that you highlighted establishes a separate court system for members of the military. Civilians are not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of military courts.

You also seem to be misunderstanding the rules of criminal procedure. Evidence is excluded because it was obtained illegally. The Patriot Act makes it legal to spy on citizens without a warrant, meaning that all of that evidence is admissible in court, unless the judge has the cajones to rule that the Patriot Act itself is unconstitutional.

Even if you believe that the ends justify the means with these laws, you cannot honestly say that they do not take away our freedoms. Our Founding Fathers told us that we should never sacrifice liberty for security, because we'll just end up losing both. Indeed, the biggest domestic terrorists work on Capitol Hill.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
Your ignoring one thing though, the greater majority of American's don't care.

The fact that these laws are still valid is proof enough that the majority of Americans support them.

And even then, if these laws are 'supposedly' against the basics of the Constitution then it is the peoples responsibility to rise up and overthrow the corrupt Government that has put them in place.

Guess what, The People have not done this. And they never will, because The People no longer feel obligated to the ideals of a time long since past.

Edit - The NDAA had those provisions in place at the behest of Republicans. They knew that this bill was something that the Democrats and Obama would have no choice but to pass, so a group of Republicans decided to make a powergrab to increase the reach of the Government.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top