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
![]()
The fact that even a newly independent Texas could probably kick the ass of Mexico's sub par Military. Fun fact, Mexico's solution to maintaining,relative, non alignment in the Cold War was to keep it's Military as shitty as possible. So shity that the US would never press them to send troops for any of it's wars.
edited 28th Jun '16 2:46:18 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.Canada was given its independence by Britain. We didn't choose to leave; they pretty much forced us out, with the intent of creating an allied nation-state on the US border. We're a product of British imperial policy, meant to act as a buffer against American expansionism, and to give then British territories like Rupert's Land, BC, and the NW Territories someone to join instead of the USA.
I'm frankly not sure how we got dragged into this debate seeing as Canada legally permits secessionist parties to exist and even sit in the Federal government much to my eternal disgust.
Basically just confusion of Canada's origin getting them lumped into the "nations that ought to be sympathetic to the idea of breakaway countries" thing.
Frankly though, the idea of any serious secession movement gaining traction outside the fringe would require many more things to go seriously wrong. The more I hear about Brittan, they have enough of "stuff gone wrong" for their economy and political system to have tipped Leave over the edge.
edited 28th Jun '16 3:19:42 PM by Elle
It's rather telling that the Articles of Confederation required unanimous approval of the states - but the Constitution did not. And there was serious discussion about what to do with Rhode Island, which kinda went "eeeeh, no thanks, we'll be over here" - including the option of simply annexing RI by force.
Even at the beginning, the Constitution wasn't just something you could opt out of.
It's probably the most solidly blue congressional district in the country, and believe it or not, I've only been eligible to vote in one other congressional election. The democrats didn't even hold a primary as far as I'm aware since the incumbent was (obviously) running unopposed.
edited 28th Jun '16 5:01:36 PM by CaptainCapsase
All the more reason. There should be a choice, a competition. Otherwise you get low turnouts, loyal incompetents placed in sure win positions, constituencies being taken for granted, and the complacent accumulation of tensions and grievances until something gives.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Well, the issue with a lot of these positions is that there's frequently not actually more than one person in either party who wants them. Not every race is high stakes. You can say the electorate deserves a choice all you want, but that requires someone to make the choice to run for a particular office. Last I checked, that's not really something you can make someone do.
![]()
I recall an anecdote from the former Soviet Union to that effect. With only one political party, and only one Party-approved candidate per office, voter turnout was very low (understandably.) So they gave out free vodka at the polls.
Here in the US, it's the opposite: on Election Day, all bars are closed by law, so that a candidate can't sway voters by buying everybody a huge round of drinks right before the polls open.
edited 28th Jun '16 5:26:53 PM by pwiegle
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch
?
I actually remember hearing (TV documentary?) that Election Day used to be celebrated like a holiday and the bribe was not booze but cake
.
One thing I'm rather curious about since there is no precedent. If a hypothetical Texit ever happened, what would happen to Texans living in other parts of the US or to people living in Texas who were born in other parts of the US. Do they get grandfathered in and automatically becomes citizens of the new countries? Do they go thru an immigration process? Get deported?
One of the funnier things during Canada's Quebec referendum was that our PM at that time was Jean Chretien who was born in Quebec. We sorta wondered if our country's leader would suddenly become a foreign national.
Well, there's going to be precedent soon given Brexit. After all, there are a number of British Nationals all over the European Union.
Much like the Brexit, the Quebec 95 referendum was a poorly thought out idea with no real thought on how they'd actually pull it off from a logistical and legal point of view. Unlike the Brexit, the question was also worded in pure gibberishnote . Kinda glad each time I see the idea's losing ground in my home province and it's becoming a political suicide for parties to embrace.
edited 28th Jun '16 6:58:04 PM by Ghilz

Well first of all, Mexico doesn't actually have the interest or the resources to do that, so I'm pretty sure no one would actually worry about it. Second, in a scenario where Texas secedes peacefully why would the US be interested in re-annexing the place by force, after the fact?