[News] People from 30 states threaten secession from the United States

[Mr. X]

Originally Posted by Livewire

You must be joking. This wouldn't be an issue if Romney were the President. That's laughable to suggest.

Yeah.

While we have had some butthurt Democrat states in the past, I don't think that any of them, in modern times, have threatened succession because a Republican was elected President.

Anyway, the number is up to 30 now.

[icomeanon6]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

While we have had some butthurt Democrat states in the past, I don't think that any of them have threatened succession because a Republican was elected President.

Uh, that's the plot of the Civil War. Lincoln was actually the first Republican president. Back then the Democratic party was basically the party of the south. Since then, the Democratic party has changed dramatically, while the Republican party has changed much less, hence an emphasis on traditional values and (comparatively) limited government. In general, Republicans have been intensely patriotic for a long time, and the vast majority of rank-and-file members are much less secessionist than a lot of people think. A lot of republicans I know (mostly ones with more northern heritages) are vehemently anti-secession.

Remember, everyone: we're talking about a few tens of thousands of people on the internet signing provocative petitions after a very emotionally charged election. This isn't a big deal, and there is ZERO chance that any state legislatures are going to consider secession for a long time to come. Let's all chill a bit.

EDIT:

I'm sure someone's going to say that sometime around the Civil Rights movement the parties basically traded names, but the reality was much more complicated.

[AdrianD]

Originally Posted by Livewire

Source

lol


Discuss the most recent attempt by the states to secede from the union!

fat chance of this happening EVEN if all of the states' residences signed the petition.

[Zet]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

I'll continue to call him unelected until the issues of voting machines converting Romney votes into Obama votes, why workers for an Obama-supporting union were the ones who were hired to service the shady voting machines, how counties in key swing states that Obama carried had more votes cast than there are registered voters, etc. are addressed.

You can call my accusations outrageous if you'd like. They're no more outrageous than Live's unfounded accusations of racism, though.

I think you got that news backwards. It was Obama votes becoming Romney votes, there was even a youtube video showing it.



If we're discussing whether or not Obama is legitimately won, I'd say this is what would happen if Romney won:



Mods, if people complain about the video, feel free to remove it.



Also voting machines are not meant to exist at all, since the companies that make them can be bribed by anyone running for President to get more votes. We are not ready for them, and I don't think we ever will be ready for them any time soon.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

Yeah.

While we have had some butthurt Democrat states in the past, I don't think that any of them have threatened succession because a Republican was elected President.

Anyway, the number is up to 30 now.

But it's not the States proper threatening succession. Just people. And in the grand scheme of things, not a heck of a lot of people.

[Mr. X]

Originally Posted by icomeanon6

Uh, that's the plot of the Civil War. Lincoln was actually the first Republican president. Back then the Democratic party was basically the party of the south. Since then, the Democratic party has changed dramatically, while the Republican party has changed much less, hence an emphasis on traditional values and (comparatively) limited government. In general, Republicans have been intensely patriotic for a long time, and the vast majority of rank-and-file members are much less secessionist than a lot of people think. A lot of republicans I know (mostly ones with more northern heritages) are vehemently anti-secession.

Remember, everyone: we're talking about a few tens of thousands of people on the internet signing provocative petitions after a very emotionally charged election. This isn't a big deal, and there is ZERO chance that any state legislatures are going to consider secession for a long time to come. Let's all chill a bit.

EDIT:

I'm sure someone's going to say that sometime around the Civil Rights movement the parties basically traded names, but the reality was much more complicated.

I left out a few words, in modern times. And, also, they didn't threaten to succeed. They actually did.

[Aeon]

I don't see a single state obtaining secession as the United States stands right now at least. If this is due to the election results, I doubt Colorado would do it with the 4.7% spread of results (don't quote me on it though.)

[Rococo]

Due to the coldness towards those of us who have looked further than fox news and cnn when it comes to information regarding a multitude of the debated subjects in this thread I will go against one of my principals and throw pearls.

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/ar...-wants/249315/
http://townhall.com/columnists/rache...aud/page/full/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...kground-check/
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...otes-For-Obama

Here is but a few links for some of the information that you so vehemently revoke.

Livewire I would like to bring you attention towards the tonallity of your posts,it could easily be said that you are making unsavoury accusations.

[Livewire]

Originally Posted by Rococo

Due to the coldness towards those of us who have looked further than fox news and cnn when it comes to information regarding a multitude of the debated subjects in this thread I will go against one of my principals and throw pearls.

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/ar...-wants/249315/
http://townhall.com/columnists/rache...aud/page/full/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...kground-check/
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...otes-For-Obama

Here is but a few links for some of the information that you so vehemently revoke.

Livewire I would like to bring you attention towards the tonallity of your posts,it could easily be said that you are making unsavoury accusations.

I find it funny that you think you can order me what to do. The only unsavory accusations here are ones being made by you and a few others.

On top of that, I don't see anything relevant to the Secession discussion in those links. Just more baseless Obama hate from pundits like Breitbart.

[Khawill]

Politics suck, it makes people so mean and unhappy. We should have an anarchy, that way people have nothing to be angry about, (and maybe see how evil humans can be)

[von Weltschmerz]

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.

[Mario The World Champion]

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]

Originally Posted by Mario The World Champion

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]

Originally Posted by Livewire

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]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

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]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

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.

[Toujours]

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]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

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

At first, yes. But your forgetting the recent elections where they, overall, suffered losses. Losing two figureheads, Allen West and Joe Walsh, was a major blow to them.

http://www.washingtonguardian.com/bitter-cup-tea

[Khawill]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

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]

Originally Posted by Khawill

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]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

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]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

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]

Originally Posted by Khawill

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]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

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]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

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)