2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence

[Joe Fan]

...They figure that if the states want to violate their own laws, that’s their prerogative.

Hopefully that is untrue -- because if so, we will never be able to clean Dem corruption out of our elections, outside of armed conflict

 

[Joe Fan]

Most Texans would if the federal government took their guns, prevented them from working and infringed upon other personal rights. That process has started and based upon the Democrat platform, it will get worse. Better to amicably secede than go to war.

There is some debate over that, involving our initial admission, our state Reconstruction Constitution and possibly even the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Are we allowed to leave peacefully whenever we want or are we only allowed to split into 5 separate states?

 

[Joe Fan]

Whatever it was, it's a damn good thing we lost.

Why do you care about arson, looting and violence across the pond?

 

[Joe Fan]

I can't see Joe doing this. He'll be a wanted man in Pennsylvania. Kamala is a different story.

He does seem to be backing away from some of those crazy fokkers, but he better be careful - the staggering amount of "accidental suicides" among their own people is statistically impossible

 

[Chop]

From what I’ve seen of Joe, his left leaning side is when it comes to unions and workers. He’s all for saving heavy poluting industry as long as they employ union labor.

This left side of Joe is also why Bernie is considered for the cabinet labor position. They would both probably like to nix right to work laws. They’re also likely to categorize independent contractors as employees, which is bad for small business as well as independents. Bernie could actually do a lot of damage from this position.

 

[Joe Fan]

From what I’ve seen of Joe, his left leaning side is when it comes to unions and workers. He’s all for saving heavy poluting industry as long as they employ union labor.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Why do you care about arson, looting and violence across the pond?

Why shouldn't I care about it?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Re secession: you guys realize most Texans would vote against it this time, right? Paraphrasing Rick Perry, with all its faults this Union is the best thing going and most of us know it.
Face it, Trump was a horrible messenger for conservatism, which he doesn’t really believe in anyway. He can now go back to playing golf with Bill Clinton and make big bucks promoting his own brand of tamper proof voting machines which red states will all buy.
Good riddance to bad rubbish. He is so bad that even a dumpster like Biden was preferable to millions more people

Honestly, I can see the case for secession. I just think the inability to save Trump's *** is a stupid reason to do it.

 

[humahuma]

I don’t think secession would be to save Trump’s ***. Personally for me I think Trump pulled the curtains back and it wasn’t pretty. I think there is enough policies differences and direction of country differences in justifying secession.

 

[mchammer]

Good riddance to bad rubbish. He is so bad that even a dumpster like Biden was preferable to millions more people

Actually I think it is the reverse. Biden administration is going to look like Ann Richards governorship with appointments like Lena Guerrero. People are going to regret the cluster **** that is coming. Laura Trump will be NC senator in 2022.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Honestly, I can see the case for secession. I just think the inability to save Trump's *** is a stupid reason to do it.

I appreciate that you think TX's inability to dictate to other states how to run their elections is not a good reason for secession.

What is the case for secession? To a non-Texan left leaning voter, all this talk of secession seems like a kid taking their ball and going home because the other kids wouldn't let them play QB.

 

[mchammer]

Hunter Biden subpoena seeks info on Burisma, other entities

 

[mchammer]

President Harris. Trump could beat her in 2024 without doing anything except putting his name on the ballot.

 

[huisache]

Poll Texans on how they think about secession. Wing nuts only make up 20 per cent if that. And amicable secession is not on the table now any more than it was in 1860. That was a lunatic move led by knuckledraggers and it set us back 50 years and thousands of dead. The Comanches liked it but sane people not so much

we were a bust at running our own country from 1836 to 1845 and would likely do no better now. Of course with great leaders like Abbott and Patrick and Paxton the Law Wizard I guess we would ace it. He smirked

 

[Phil Elliott]

President Harris. Trump could beat her in 2024 without doing anything except putting his name on the ballot.

Not if the Dems get away with all the shiite they pulled this time around.

 

[mchammer]

 

[Horn6721]

PE
IF we allow that chit again we deserve the country the DMC will foist upon us

 

[humahuma]

I don’t think secession, but Texas can spilt into 5 states if I remember correctly. Just need to have Houston San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas into one state.

 

[huisache]

I don’t think secession, but Texas can spilt into 5 states if I remember correctly. Just need to have Houston San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas into one state.

Better include the Permian basin and Eagle Ford shale area and all of the coast so the big state will still have all the oil. Let’s see, what is left to make up the other four states?

panhandle, Zapata County, El Paso and Texarkana I guess. yep, that will work.

 

[Monahorns]

Any state can secede. States entered the union. They can exit it. When the federal government was formed no law was written that states couldn't pull out.

 

[Joe Fan]

I don’t think secession, but Texas can spilt into 5 states if I remember correctly. Just need to have Houston San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas into one state.

I think my section of Houston is about he population of Rhode Island - we should have 2 Senators too

 

[Joe Fan]

Honestly, I can see the case for secession. I just think the inability to save Trump's *** is a stupid reason to do it.

 

[PecosBill]

Voluntary Secession has been tried in the past. It was not amicable.
I'm sure the precedent is set in this matter but it deserves to be explored for merit.
Send your money to Secede Now! For a 500% match today.
Would you start with a referendum at the State level for the voters to decide or just skip to Notification of Secession to the President?

 

[huisache]

Any state can secede. States entered the union. They can exit it. When the federal government was formed no law was written that states couldn't pull out.

This was tried once before

and few Texans would be on board

 

[Seattle Husker]

I've now accepted that Trump's legal challenges will never end as it's a strategy to keep from ever accepting that he lost and a springboard to future elections.

Trump = new Washington Generals.

 

[mchammer]

Man performs short skit on what TDS looks like to those who don’t have it. In order to get folks who have TDS to see how they are perceived without bias, the actor picks a neutral setting and does a phenomenal job. Take a look:

 

[theiioftx]

I appreciate that you think TX's inability to dictate to other states how to run their elections is not a good reason for secession.

What is the case for secession? To a non-Texan left leaning voter, all this talk of secession seems like a kid taking their ball and going home because the other kids wouldn't let them play QB.

I think Texas and other states want everyone to follow the constitution. Allowing a free for all as to how federal elections are governed is wrong and dangerous.

 

[PecosBill]

I think Texas and other states want everyone to follow the constitution. Allowing a free for all as to how federal elections are governed is wrong and dangerous.

I thought the Constitution assigned responsibility for elections to the 50 States.

or am I mistaken?

 

[PecosBill]

The top of ballot and all the down ballot races under the State laws.

The winner take all the States EC votes is particularly unique.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I appreciate that you think TX's inability to dictate to other states how to run their elections is not a good reason for secession.

And specifically doing it to save Donald Trump's *** is even less of a reason.

What is the case for secession? To a non-Texan left leaning voter, all this talk of secession seems like a kid taking their ball and going home because the other kids wouldn't let them play QB.

That's because you're looking at it through the lens of Texas seceding, and you're generally unsympathetic to their likely reasons to secede. If you take a broader look at it (meaning not specific to Texas), the case for secession is the same as the case for any people seeking independence and self-determination. People want the right to govern themselves (to make their own rules and to define their own culture), and the Constitution generally gives that to states with only a few very specific and very narrow exceptions. Every time that right gets diminished by out-of-state busybodies, by sore losers in that state enlisting the help of out-of-state busybodies, or by economic conditions enforced from above, it strengthens the case for secession.

Obviously, if a state wants to clearly violate the actual words of the Constitution, you can hold that up and say, "you made a deal by joining the union and have to follow it." However, and I recognize how radical this is and don't necessarily endorse it but think it's worth asking, is it entirely fair to hold a society to a compact (the US Constitution) that was agreed to by their ancestors many generations ago? A reasonable argument can be made that at some point, a generation should be allowed to chart its own course.

We look at secession from cultural angles that form the basis for some Texans' desire to secede and garner less sympathy from liberals who have sway over cultural institutions. However, what about economic angles? For example, some of the most progressive states (like California and Vermont) have at least considered adopting single payer healthcare systems only to have those plans stopped because of prohibitive costs.

Well, are those programs too expensive because healthcare simply can't be delivered more cheaply? No, they're too expensive, because they're trying to exist in the broader American economic model for healthcare. What if California was willing to fundamentally restructure its economy and reorder its healthcare system to force down costs like European countries have done? As a practical matter that would mean eliminating or at least severely undercutting private insurance and imposing very onerous restrictions on the private practice of medicine. They may even have to do enough of an economic reordering to warrant adopting their own currency to really take control. I could come up with all kinds of pretty explicit constitutional roadblocks to stop that. However, from a moral and self-determination standpoint, do I really have the right to say in perpetuity that they can never do this just because their ancestors joined the union in 1850? I think that's at least debatable.