Why Obama is going to get 4 more years.

[88GT]

Which of the 50 States do I believe could make a successful go of it?

Alaska is one.
Texas is one.
Washington is one.
Oregon is one.
Louisiana is one
Mississippi is one.

If several States opted to secede as a group and form a new republic the current list would be capped at about 49.

Okay, why. Why those? Why not others?

I don't recall where I stated secession was the end of trade. In fact, it may well open new trade.

You didn't. But it will. At least for the seceding nation.

But let me lay it out for ya the way it would really go down: Landlocked states would have absolutely no means of distributing their resources/products outbound, and no means of importing those of other nations inbound. They have no access to ports. And will be denied the use of U.S. airspace. Unless they can beam their goods to the final destination, they will be choked into submission. (Possible exception might be those states bordering Canada and Mexico assuming those two nations can be bought for a higher price than the U.S. is currently paying.)

Those states seceding with access to ports may find trading partners are hard to come by when the political clout of the U.S. makes the benefit of trading with the little ol' nation of _________ less appealing.

And all of this is predicated on the ridiculous notion that any state successfully secedes. Which I find about as likely as finding a teat on a boar.

Doesn't have to be. Certainly, that was not the view of Jefferson and other Founding Fathers.

No, it doesn't have to be. But we're not talking about possibilities; we're talking about probabilities. And the probability of a state of this union successfully seceding are pretty damn small.

Jefferson's opinion of secession THEN has little bearing on the reality secession NOW. Moreover, unless you plan to raise him from the dead or have the ability to communicate with his ghost, I find it difficult to understand how you can speak for the man today.

Will none defend Liberty against tyranny?

And the Emmy goes to.....

Would you?

Wrong question.

Indeed... but where we are today hardly negates the validity of the original plan.

What plan? A plan to secede? Where was that written?

 

[Lex Concord]

Which of the 50 States do I believe could make a successful go of it?

Alaska is one.
Texas is one.
Washington is one.
Oregon is one.
Louisiana is one
Mississippi is one.

If several States opted to secede as a group and form a new republic the current list would be capped at about 49.

Based strictly on resources and ability to produce and trade...maybe...however, much of the West is owned by.....you guessed it...Uncle Sugar.

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/map-owns_the_west.jpg

69.1% of Alaska is federal land. Mindblowing...Texas, at 1.9%, would have a much-less-hotly-contested divorce.

Texas has the Gulf, an international land border, petroleum, refining, other mineral wealth, highly developed high-tech industry...TX would have a minor stumble (barring a barrage of bombs), and probably outpace the GDP of the rest of the remaining Western states in short order.

Texas' GDP already ranks 14th in the WORLD, and it is still expanding.

While "Don't Mess with Texas" was an anti-litter campaign, it would take on quite a different meaning in the context of secession.

Of course, Uncle Sugar would never let 10% of GDP just walk out the door peacefully.

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/map-owns_the_west.jpg

 

[Fletch]

Don't you remember back in 1972? Both parties were heavy on the rhetoric of "It doesn't matter who you vote for because we're mostly just the same."

I was 2 years old in 1972. I do have a vivid memory from somewhere around that time, but it has nothing to do with the election.

 

[Fletch]

And all of this is predicated on the ridiculous notion that any state successfully secedes. Which I find about as likely as finding a teat on a boar.

No, it doesn't have to be. But we're not talking about possibilities; we're talking about probabilities. And the probability of a state of this union successfully seceding are pretty damn small.

I agree with your assessment on the likelihood of secession. That said, I'm still in favor of it.

 

[J_Wales]

Okay, why. Why those? Why not others?

Why not those?

You didn't. But it will. At least for the seceding nation.

But let me lay it out for ya the way it would really go down: Landlocked states would have absolutely no means of distributing their resources/products outbound, and no means of importing those of other nations inbound. They have no access to ports. And will be denied the use of U.S. airspace. Unless they can beam their goods to the final destination, they will be choked into submission. (Possible exception might be those states bordering Canada and Mexico assuming those two nations can be bought for a higher price than the U.S. is currently paying.)

Those states seceding with access to ports may find trading partners are hard to come by when the political clout of the U.S. makes the benefit of trading with the little ol' nation of _________ less appealing.

And all of this is predicated on the ridiculous notion that any state successfully secedes. Which I find about as likely as finding a teat on a boar.?

Who said anything about landlocked States? There are a good number of States that are not landlocked. There are even more if States were to secede together with others adjoining waterways.

There are several strategic opportunities for developing trade as well as a number of partners very interested in trade. Perhaps you are blinded by your paradigm.

No, it doesn't have to be. But we're not talking about possibilities; we're talking about probabilities. And the probability of a state of this union successfully seceding are pretty damn small.

Jefferson's opinion of secession THEN has little bearing on the reality secession NOW. Moreover, unless you plan to raise him from the dead or have the ability to communicate with his ghost, I find it difficult to understand how you can speak for the man today.


And the Emmy goes to.....


Wrong question.



What plan? A plan to secede? Where was that written?

Not sure I understand why it is the “wrong question”. Let me rephrase.

Will none defend Liberty against tyranny?

I will defend Liberty. Will you?


What plan? Where is it written? Seriously?

There is no need speak for Jefferson… Jefferson spoke for himself.

Perhaps you should read his works at some point.

Jefferson wrote of it in the Declaration of Independence. Many focus on the opening paragraphs of the Declaration and never get to the closing paragraph:

“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other things which independent states may of right do”

Jefferson also wrote in his first inaugural address "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."

Jefferson wrote in a letter to Priestly, “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation [i.e., secession] at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.”

In an August 12, 1803 letter to John C. Breckinridge Jefferson addressed the same issue, in light of the New England Federalists' secession movement in response to his Louisiana Purchase. If there were a "separation" into two confederacies, he wrote, "God bless them both, & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."

See also the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions drafted by Jefferson and Madison.

One can learn much from reading the actual texts.

I encourage you to do so at some point.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I was 2 years old in 1972. I do have a vivid memory from somewhere around that time, but it has nothing to do with the election.

Me too, it was about mom I think

 

[.45 Dave]

Do you think the states could do all of that without the feds renditioning all the key actors to a prison that doesn't exist in an undisclosed country?

I am assuming that if states seceded that their governors and those in power would not just be showing up in Washington or walking down the street like nothing happened. There would be security. Plus if they were able to pull this off without major protests or riots in their home states then they would also have their borders largely secured.

None of it will work unless they have a lot of clout to back it up. So they would also need to have some major international support or something else that they could either threaten the former US with or hold over their heads.

You're right in that they would, no doubt, be denounced as traitors so there would have to be something powerful to deter force from the former US.

This is why it is so hard to discuss this--so many different things would have to be considered. We can make up whatever scenario you like but who knows how or if it would work. For example, we could say that they take over the military bases somehow and then have air power. Or we could say that those who know the launch codes of the nukes (providing one or more of those states seceded) has decided out of state loyalty to turn them over to the new government.
Heck, we could say some multi-billionaire decides to spend his fortune setting up the new government. Whatever. It's all theory at this point so choose whatever scenario you want.

 

[churchmouse]

You would first have to ween the malcontents and low life's from the federal teets.
The gimme, gimme, gimme crowd would not like the checks to stop. Internal issues that would be very hard to handle. There would be those on disability that deserve it, what of them. Also to consider, currency. Would we adopt the EURO??? Valid questions for open debate.

 

[J_Wales]

You would first have to ween the malcontents and low life's from the federal teets.
The gimme, gimme, gimme crowd would not like the checks to stop. Internal issues that would be very hard to handle. There would be those on disability that deserve it, what of them. Also to consider, currency. Would we adopt the EURO??? Valid questions for open debate.

Removing the sucklings from the teat may be painful, but it is coming one way or another.

Have you ever seen an adult deer sucking from a doe's teat? I haven't. I think that is because at some point early on every fawn that tried to suck that teat too long ended up with a hoof kick to the face and figured out they had best go find another way to eat.

Regarding currency, the seceding States could borrow from communists countries and then print notes with pictures of dead mortals on them, pass it off as something of value, and then manipulate the value of those notes.

Of course, those seceding may want to come up with something a bit better than what the central state does today.

 

[sun]

People vote Democrat and Republican for a reason. By and large the vast majority of citizens are centrists and not extremists who would vote for secession. They go to work each day on well paved roads with food in their bellies, gasoline in their tanks, heat and hot water in their homes, and if they're lucky they have some money in the bank, investments in the stock market and a pension fund. Now why would the great majority of the citizens of the greatest nation on earth want to risk all of that?
Why would they abandon all hope for their future, for their family and for their children?
Because some folks are so greedy that they don't want to pay taxes to support the decade of war against their terrorist enemies, while they were benefiting from tax breaks the whole time?
That's folly and that's not how real people feel in real life.
People don't just give up their whole ball of wax when they are on top of the heap and have among the highest standard of living in the world.

 

[Kutnupe14]

On the topic of secession I will say that it is going to take time to reverse all the brainwashing that's happened in the last 147 years that has made the idea of secession seem untenable. J_Wales is right in that it might open new trade to these states. There are many countries (And I don't necessarily mean rabid enemies of America) that don't like US policy very much and might see the break off states as a potential new trade partner. A mutually beneficial deal with them could create international recognition as a new country and an opportunity.

Like I said, we have a lot to unlearn before we get there though.

I'd challenge you to name one that is less socialist than the US.
I'd also be interested in what nations would actually benefit from trading strictly with a single state, rather the rest of the collective US.
Simply put, any nation that would seek to trade with a "rouge" state, would undoubtedly find itself on the outs with the rest of the US. That's a very frightening thing to the rest of the world. We have overthrown govts for far less. If your familiar with the Monroe Doctrine, I have no doubt that it would be applied in such an instance.

 

[churchmouse]

Removing the sucklings from the teat may be painful, but it is coming one way or another.

Have you ever seen an adult deer sucking from a doe's teat? I haven't. I think that is because at some point early on every fawn that tried to suck that teat too long ended up with a hoof kick to the face and figured out they had best go find another way to eat.

Regarding currency, the seceding States could borrow from communists countries and then print notes with pictures of dead mortals on them, pass it off as something of value, and then manipulate the value of those notes.

Of course, those seceding may want to come up with something a bit better than what the central state does today.

Knowing this is just a discussion and not a reality at this point I was just curious if any thought had been given to those parts of the infrastructure that so many are accustomed to and would not care to be without.
My kids all got the hoof in the head but they still raid my fridge and show up whenever they know I am off to the range.................

 

[Stschil]

People vote Democrat and Republican for a reason. By and large the vast majority of citizens are centrists and not extremists who would vote for secession. They go to work each day on well paved roads with food in their bellies, gasoline in their tanks, heat and hot water in their homes, and if they're lucky they have some money in the bank, investments in the stock market and a pension fund. Now why would the great majority of the citizens of the greatest nation on earth want to risk all of that?
Why would they abandon all hope for their future, for their family and for their children?
Because some folks are so greedy that they don't want to pay taxes to support the decade of war against their terrorist enemies, while they were benefiting from tax breaks the whole time?
That's folly and that's not how real people feel in real life.
People don't just give up their whole ball of wax when they are on top of the heap and have among the highest standard of living in the world.

Is it an extremist view to expect those who have been elected to be the voice of the People to actually represent Us instead of their own interests?

Extremist to condemn graft and cooruption in our Governemnt?

Is it greedy to expect an honest days work for an honest days pay?

Greedy to decry the fact that politicians pander to the poor for votes by allowing them to live off the hard work and sacrifice of others?

I guess I'm just a greedy no good extremist then.

Change is in order. We extremists must be the ones to help educate and make that change. I would prefer it come as a restoring of our system to its intended purpose.

 

[J_Wales]

People vote Democrat and Republican for a reason. By and large the vast majority of citizens are centrists and not extremists who would vote for secession. They go to work each day on well paved roads with food in their bellies, gasoline in their tanks, heat and hot water in their homes, and if they're lucky they have some money in the bank, investments in the stock market and a pension fund. Now why would the great majority of the citizens of the greatest nation on earth want to risk all of that?
Why would they abandon all hope for their future, for their family and for their children?
Because some folks are so greedy that they don't want to pay taxes to support the decade of war against their terrorist enemies, while they were benefiting from tax breaks the whole time?
That's folly and that's not how real people feel in real life.
People don't just give up their whole ball of wax when they are on top of the heap and have among the highest standard of living in the world.

Who are these "greedy" people of which you speak?

Are they that 5% of the population that fund 70% of the federal income tax revenue?

Are they that 51% that pay all of the federal income taxes?

Or are they that nearly 50% that pay absolutely nothing in federal income taxes?

If it is the future of your children that concerns you, consider that the unfunded obligations under Social Security and Medicare along exceed $340,000 for every man, woman and child in the nation. Consider also that our national debt is over $16,000,000,000.

Consider this is the legacy we are leaving our children and grandchildren:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general_political_discussion/187489-time_to_money.html

Frankly, I have had my fill of my children and grandchildren being plundered by statist pigs of the day.

But you are correct. Many citizens are more than happy to leave such a future to their children and grandchildren as long as they can be comforted and entertained today.

panem et circenses!

 

[J_Wales]

Knowing this is just a discussion and not a reality at this point I was just curious if any thought had been given to those parts of the infrastructure that so many are accustomed to and would not care to be without.
My kids all got the hoof in the head but they still raid my fridge and show up whenever they know I am off to the range.................

LOL! Yes... they always find their way to the fridge!

Regarding infrustructure and resources, I would recommend reading Thomas Paine's "Common Sense".

 

[sun]

Are they that 5% of the population that fund 70% of the federal income tax revenue?

Are they that 51% that pay all of the federal income taxes?

Or are they that nearly 50% that pay absolutely nothing in federal income taxes?

There are a lot more Federal taxes than just income taxes.
Everyone in the population buys goods from companies that pay corporate taxes to the Federal government on their profits.
Not one citizen gets away without paying taxes through corporations.
The government doesn't necessary need to collect all of there revenue through a personal income tax.
How much in corporate taxes do the oil companies pay?
All the while the average person is contributing to their record profits.

 

[sun]

Greedy to decry the fact that politicians pander to the poor for votes by allowing them to live off the hard work and sacrifice of others?

It's the educated and middle class people that vote in much higher percentages than the poor and uneducated that often don't vote at all and who are apathetic.
So why try to blame the poor for the results of legitimate elections of which the basic structure of our Representative Democracy remains relatively unchanged for over 200 years?
Because a minority of people are unhappy we're all suppose to want to throw out our whole system and tear our Union apart?
Our national problems are temporary and largely stem from a war on terror and the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the deficit spending and tax breaks ever since. Remember it's a new world order due to the fall of the iron and bamboo curtains and the rise of OPEC.
When Clinton was President our budget was in the black, and then with Bush and the new GOP majority it went into the red.
So now the power of the POTUS went to the Democrats.
Unhappy? Well that's tough.
Get out and vote for whoever floats your boat. That's the way that domestic political wars have been fought since the founding of the Republic through our well established system of Representative Democracy.
Each state has two Senators and a number of Congressman that's based on the population of each state as counted by the U.S. Census.
What's the complaint? Because some citizens are now in the minority who were formerly in power.
Wait a while and it will change if the change is deserved.
People who vote are largely not stupid and they're not sheeple.
They know who and what they're voting for.
The system of how people vote and elect their representatives isn't going to change.
What's there in the election structure to change?

 

[J_Wales]

Our national problems are temporary

Our problems are far from temporary, my friend.

You may want to review the link to the "Time as Money" thread I provided.

We are passing onto our children debts that they will be paying for their lifetime and the lifetimes of children and grandchildren.

 

[sun]

It's the educated and middle class people that vote in much higher percentages than the poor and uneducated that often don't vote at all and who are apathetic.
So why try to blame the poor for the results of legitimate elections of which the basic structure of our Representative Democracy remains relatively unchanged for over 200 years?
Because a minority of people are unhappy we're all suppose to throw out our whole system and tear our Union apart?
Our national problems are temporary and largely stem from a war on terror and terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the deficit spending and tax breaks ever since. Remember it's a new world order due to the fall of the iron and bamboo curtains and the rise of OPEC.
When Clinton was President our budget was in the black, and then with Bush and the new GOP majority it went into the red.
So then the power of the POTUS went to the Democrats.
Unhappy? Well that's tough.
Get out and vote for whoever floats your boat. That's the way that domestic political wars have been fought since the founding of the Republic through our well established system of Representative Democracy.
Each state has two Senators and a number of Congressman that's based on the population of each state as counted by the U.S. Census.
What's the complaint? Because some citizens are now in the minority who were formerly in power?
Wait a while and it will change if the change is deserved.
People who vote are largely not stupid and they're not sheeple.
They know who and what they're voting for.
The system of how people vote and elect their representatives isn't going to change.
What is there in the election structure to change?

 

[J_Wales]

Hey, I just realized you are from Connecticut.

That explains much!