Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
See Black Nationalism
and Black Separatism
. Not quite the same thing.
Right. Some things are too important to be decided by a simple majority vote. See again: Hungary.
edited 28th Jun '16 1:11:39 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That's the thing, isn't it? The USA, Canada, they were born of secession. Doesn't seem sensible that it always needs to be bloody. Difficult, yes. Like, requiring over three quarters of the eligible voters to vote for it. Or a combination of all three powers agreeing to it to a unanymous degree. Something that would take a lot of persuasion, compromise, and need. But there should be a way.
The best way to get someone to stop whining about not being able to do something is to make it attainable but difficult. If they go for it still, it means it's vital to them.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.![]()
It's secession for all practical purposes. Or would you be okay with calling an arrangement where, say, Texas, was practically independent but nominally had allegiance to the Union a non-secession?
edited 28th Jun '16 1:21:05 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.![]()
![]()
No way in hell the Dallas Cowboys can claim to be America's Team any further. And the Americans Are Cowboys trope would need to be reworked.
More seriously, it'd been my impression that a good deal of national level politics was to make arrangements where secession was the inferior choice on a cost-benefit analysis.
edited 28th Jun '16 1:31:13 PM by megarockman
The damned queen and the relentless knight.- Texas would lose a lot of its ability to wag the dog with respect to education, due to no longer being able to exercise mass purchasing power over school textbooks.
- Texas could build its own damn border wall if it wants to keep out immigrants.
- Texas would no longer be able to receive federal subsidies for its health care, welfare, retirement security, education, and similar social systems.
- Unless Texas created its own currency, it would still be bound to the Federal Reserve to backstop the dollar, but would lose its claim on federal stabilizers, so it would become subject to asymmetric debt-deflation crises, much as the Eurozone members are.
- If Texas did create its own currency, one would wish it luck getting any American state to honor it in trade. Its markets would therefore have to continue trading in dollars, creating the same effect as if the dollar were its currency anyway.
- Texas would no longer be able to leverage migration from the rest of the United States due to its cheap housing market to keep its labor pool supplied with fresh blood. In fact, a secession by Texas would drive a wave of emigration that could destabilize it before it even got started.
- Texas would be home to a lot of military bases housing personnel and equipment that it could no longer afford to maintain without a lot of taxes that its newly liberated citizenry might not like that much. That or the U.S. would withdraw all military from Texas, leaving it to sink or swim on its own.
Lots of other things; these are just the start.
edited 28th Jun '16 1:37:34 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The reason why Canada became independent is because the British Empire basically fell apart. The United Kingdom just decided one day to say "Cheerio, Canada! You are an independent nation now!" and Canada was like "Eh?!"
Wizard Needs Food Badly
More like The British Empire was proving too expensive to run — one of the major reasons Canada became a Dominion was to transfer the costs of Defence away from Westminster.
Yeah... If you can't afford to run an Empire, your Empire basically falls apart naturally.
edited 28th Jun '16 1:38:27 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food Badly
...and that is why The British Empire was run on a comparatively tiny budget. More then that, most of the Empire never made a profit.
In a situation where Texas was granted independence, I can't see the US military just handing over all their various assets that happen to be based in Texas. Part of the secession deal would involve either the US military pulling out of Texas entirely, remaining in place but with the understanding that they're still US military assets on US military property (much how US military bases overseas work), or — most likely — some combination of the two.
Regarding currency, I can't see Texas not issuing their own currency if they became independent, as a politically independent Texas still economically shackled to the dollar would virtually be a puppet state. I have no idea how the creation of such a currency works, though. Would Independent Texas and the US agree on some sort of exchange rate, at least to begin with? Or would the markets be allowed to take the reins right from the start? (Which would certainly result in an interesting Independent Texas economy until things settled themselves.) That question may be better answered in the economics thread than the politics one, though.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I mean, the problem with the military is that a very good chunk of soldiers come from Texas. Presumably, they would become part of the Texas Republic's military.
Leviticus 19:34![]()
Put simply, in deference to not being in the General Economics thread, Texas would issue ... Texasbucks... and exchange them with its citizens for dollars at a fixed rate. However, If the split were sufficiently acrimonious, U.S. markets might well refuse to accept them, forcing Texans to trade in dollars for anything outside their republic. This would chain Texas to the dollar every bit as effectively as remaining on it.
![]()
Yeah, but they by no means comprise the majority of the military and whatever military Texas could form simply wouldn't have the same numbers. Or the supplies, even if they claimed all current military installations within Texas borders. Not sure what problem you're talking about there, since it wouldn't be much of a problem at all for the US.
Even if Texas has soldiers and M4A1s and RPGs (no, not the Final Fantasy games). They still sorely lack navy, air force, and logistics. Their position on the map is a strategic nightmare and the U.S. can simply blockade them for a few years, if not a few months.
Non Indicative Username![]()
I believe in our hypothetical scenario, Texas would secede under peaceful conditions?

edited 28th Jun '16 1:08:05 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food Badly