Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick question for Republicans and Libertarians. I know your type really looks up to the Founding Fathers and puts them on a high pedestal. And that's fine, they were great men. But, they were unhappy under British rule, they didn't like the laws they were under, so they rebelled, and broke away.
Would you support a state doing that? Seriously, lets say the GOP wins in 2016. Lets say the GOP wins the House and Senate next year, then the White House in 2016.
But, a state like Florida, or lets say, New Hampshire, wants to break off from the union. Lets use Florida.
Florida puts it to a statewide vote, and 95% vote to break away from the United States. The state says they don't like federal laws, and they want their right to be FREE.....just like the Founding Fathers.
If they did that, and declared independence, and started printing their own money, and put up walls on the Florida/GA/AL border, and armed it with a state military that they formed.....would you in power order the Federal government to crack down on that state? Or, allow them to break off and gain the freedom they want?
Your answer matters a lot, as it shows a macro version of your thoughts towards a people's right to freedom.
What would be the argument on why a state should not be allowed to secede
-Geaux
What would be the argument on why a state should not be allowed to secede
-Geaux
It could destabilize the Union. It would show huge instability and scare the world away from our markets. That's one reason.
Its called governing. No matter how big or small the issue, there are several sides to it, and they wont all fit on a Ted Cruz bumper sticker.
Quick question for Republicans and Libertarians. I know your type really looks up to the Founding Fathers and puts them on a high pedestal. And that's fine, they were great men. But, they were unhappy under British rule, they didn't like the laws they were under, so they rebelled, and broke away.
Would you support a state doing that? Seriously, lets say the GOP wins in 2016. Lets say the GOP wins the House and Senate next year, then the White House in 2016.
But, a state like Florida, or lets say, New Hampshire, wants to break off from the union. Lets use Florida.
Florida puts it to a statewide vote, and 95% vote to break away from the United States. The state says they don't like federal laws, and they want their right to be FREE.....just like the Founding Fathers.
If they did that, and declared independence, and started printing their own money, and put up walls on the Florida/GA/AL border, and armed it with a state military that they formed.....would you in power order the Federal government to crack down on that state? Or, allow them to break off and gain the freedom they want?
Your answer matters a lot, as it shows a macro version of your thoughts towards a people's right to freedom.
Uhhhh...
Why are you predisposed to asking such farfetched questions? Nobody wants this country to dissolve. We would much rather have freedom as a whole than freedom in part. What good is being American if you secede? What good is living the Founding Fathers dream if you destroy what they fought and died for to create? The entire idea is preposterous. Your post is stereotypical and offensive.
What would be the argument on why a state should not be allowed to secede
-Geaux
It could destabilize the Union. It would show huge instability and scare the world away from our markets. That's one reason.
Its called governing. No matter how big or small the issue, there are several sides to it, and they wont all fit on a Ted Cruz bumper sticker.
If you want to pretend your doing some grand experiment in how Republicans would govern in your extreme hypothetical situation knock yourself out but don't waste my time with it this is nothing more than a very obvious ploy to dam someone no matter which way they answer. If you really want to play this to it's illogical partisan end then lets go the whole nine yards and include the Democrats as well so left wingers what would do if you were in power in the OP scenario? Remember according to the OP if can't answer your not fit to govern.The thread and question is nothing more than a set up if you do nothing you would be labeled a radical extremist who is allowing the country to be destroyed if you crack down you would be a radical extremist trampling on people's freedoms this along with the fact this same scenario was not applied to the Democrats and their possible response says it all.
ITs also a scenario lots of governments in this world have faced. I picked a HUGE, history altering scenario to ask right wingers to say HOW THEY WOULD GOVERN.
A few months ago, I asked the polar opposite. An extremely MINOR one. Speed bumps, vs total freedom, vs more cops to enforce speed, on any given road. RW'ers again said it was a dumb scenario.
Point is....right wingers often refuse to say how they would govern if elected. WHy vote for them if they have NO PLAN other than....."Errrr low taxes, more guns and Jesus!!!"
If people voted FOR something, and you were in power, would you allow it, or obstruct it?
Right wingers are not fit to govern if they cant answer very big, or very small, issues that governments must answer.
If you want to pretend your doing some grand experiment in how Republicans would govern in your extreme hypothetical situation knock yourself out but don't waste my time with it this is nothing more than a very obvious ploy to dam someone no matter which way they answer. If you really want to play this to it's illogical partisan end then lets go the whole nine yards and include the Democrats as well so left wingers what would do if you were in power in the OP scenario? Remember according to the OP if can't answer your not fit to govern.The thread and question is nothing more than a set up if you do nothing you would be labeled a radical extremist who is allowing the country to be destroyed if you crack down you would be a radical extremist trampling on people's freedoms this along with the fact this same scenario was not applied to the Democrats and their possible response says it all.
ITs also a scenario lots of governments in this world have faced. I picked a HUGE, history altering scenario to ask right wingers to say HOW THEY WOULD GOVERN.
A few months ago, I asked the polar opposite. An extremely MINOR one. Speed bumps, vs total freedom, vs more cops to enforce speed, on any given road. RW'ers again said it was a dumb scenario.
Point is....right wingers often refuse to say how they would govern if elected. WHy vote for them if they have NO PLAN other than....."Errrr low taxes, more guns and Jesus!!!"
If people voted FOR something, and you were in power, would you allow it, or obstruct it?
Right wingers are not fit to govern if they cant answer very big, or very small, issues that governments must answer.
If you want to pretend your doing some grand experiment in how Republicans would govern in your extreme hypothetical situation knock yourself out but don't waste my time with it this is nothing more than a very obvious ploy to dam someone no matter which way they answer. If you really want to play this to it's illogical partisan end then lets go the whole nine yards and include the Democrats as well so left wingers what would do if you were in power in the OP scenario? Remember according to the OP if can't answer your not fit to govern.ITs also a scenario lots of governments in this world have faced. I picked a HUGE, history altering scenario to ask right wingers to say HOW THEY WOULD GOVERN.
A few months ago, I asked the polar opposite. An extremely MINOR one. Speed bumps, vs total freedom, vs more cops to enforce speed, on any given road. RW'ers again said it was a dumb scenario.
Point is....right wingers often refuse to say how they would govern if elected. WHy vote for them if they have NO PLAN other than....."Errrr low taxes, more guns and Jesus!!!"
If people voted FOR something, and you were in power, would you allow it, or obstruct it?
Right wingers are not fit to govern if they cant answer very big, or very small, issues that governments must answer.
Ok. Easy. I wouldn't allow it. Putting up a wall, like my example said, would violate interstate commerce. If it came to it, sending in the military to take down the wall would happen. Residents of Florida the other 47 mainland states would not be cut off.
Their new money would not be recognized by the US. They'd do no business in the US with that money.
They are part of the union. And even though they may have voted within their state to leave, the other 49 state would vote otherwise, and with all the states being so interconnected in our society and economy now, it would be too destabilizing to allow.
I would vote not to allow it. And take whatever measures it took to stop it.
Quick question for Republicans and Libertarians. I know your type really looks up to the Founding Fathers and puts them on a high pedestal. And that's fine, they were great men. But, they were unhappy under British rule, they didn't like the laws they were under, so they rebelled, and broke away.
Would you support a state doing that? Seriously, lets say the GOP wins in 2016. Lets say the GOP wins the House and Senate next year, then the White House in 2016.
But, a state like Florida, or lets say, New Hampshire, wants to break off from the union. Lets use Florida.
Florida puts it to a statewide vote, and 95% vote to break away from the United States. The state says they don't like federal laws, and they want their right to be FREE.....just like the Founding Fathers.
If they did that, and declared independence, and started printing their own money, and put up walls on the Florida/GA/AL border, and armed it with a state military that they formed.....would you in power order the Federal government to crack down on that state? Or, allow them to break off and gain the freedom they want?
Your answer matters a lot, as it shows a macro version of your thoughts towards a people's right to freedom.
The rest of the states would have to agree with them seceding. If they did, then fine. If not, then no. When the agreed to honor, sustain and obey the Constitution it created a social covenant between us all. Social covenants can only be dissolved when all agree to it or through violence.
The rest of the states would have to agree with them seceding. If they did, then fine. If not, then no. When the agreed to honor, sustain and obey the Constitution it created a social covenant between us all. Social covenants can only be dissolved when all agree to it or through violence.
California would have my blessing if the majority of their citizens wanted to allow Mexico to take control of it and split from the rest of us. It would suck, but times have changed and many places aren't happy to be part of the good ole USA. Some prefer socialism and they don't want to move to the existing socialist countries, so I suppose they have a right to create their own. I wouldn't hesitate to move to a state willing to secede from the union if this country turned socialist or communist. Bad enough we have idiot commies who live to bitch about the free market, but I would never live under their rule.
