Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
42% of Texans voted for Obama meaning they approve of the way things are right now.
That means all you need is 8% of Republicans and independents to vote against Texas breaking off to make it a non starter. I would bet the farm that well over half of that last group would never be in favor of Texas breaking off.
It's never going to happen. Not even worth talking about.
Texas would last about 3 days without adult supervision.
And then Texas would be sleeping under a highway bridge. A prior Federal Funded highway bridge.
we can only hope the people that need assistance will move to CA...
You are one of two posters in this thread demeaning people who disagree with you on this subject and that pretty childish. The other poster is in high school so that expected of him/her!
I view people that advocate SECESSION as traitors and much more than I will go into. And most of the people that scream SECESSION can't even spell the damn word, boy I wonder what the uneducated country of Texas will look like.
Will it hang a sign at the border that says no n*gros?
If you don't like OUR COUNTRIES decision, then I am sure "Socialist" Canada or Cartel ridden Mexico would love to have you.
Texas would last about 3 days without adult supervision.
And then Texas would be sleeping under a highway bridge. A prior Federal Funded highway bridge.
Guess why Texas and other red states in the South receive so much welfare money? Compare the demographic data for a state like Texas or Mississippi to Vermont and you'll have your answer.
Back on topic, this secession business won't go anywhere for the time being. The only way I could see it getting serious is if the Federal government starts bailing out failed states like CA or IL.
Why are we giving this any thought? Its not going to happen.
It's an interesting question because I think, at this point, the United States is united in name only. We are not united in political or cultural values by any means. The country can't even agree on what it's fundamental values are anymore, which is a very dangerous situation in my opinion.
We are basically two or more countries being held together by a federal government. Depending on which faction wins the election, both sides try to force their views and values on the other side. I personally don't think this is a healthy long-term political environment and there doesn't appear to be anything or anyone who could remedy this.
It's an interesting question because I think, at this point, the United States is united in name only. We are not united in political or cultural values by any means. The country can't even agree on what it's fundamental values are anymore, which is a very dangerous situation in my opinion.
We are basically two or more countries being held together by a federal government. Depending on which faction wins the election, both sides try to force their views and values on the other side. I personally don't think this is a healthy long-term political environment and there doesn't appear to be anything or anyone who could remedy this.
I dont disagree, but still the reality of a state going its own way is pretty slim. I would bet any amount of money, that the majority of Texas would never support it. Given that 42% of Texans voted for Obama, it wouldnt be hard to dig up another 8% of Republicans and Independents that would not support leaving the Union. I know lots of Republicans, not one would support this.
If one looks at the demographic breakdown of voting on a map, one would see that over 95% of the counties are red. There are two areas where counties were blue:
1. Where the largest urban centers are located.
2. Border towns along the Tex-Mex border.
I would like to see statistics (I can't find them online) to see what percentage of Austin, Dallas, and Houston are on some sort of government assistance. Would it be coincidence if the largest liberal cities had the largest percentage of government assistance recipents? Would it turn out that the statistics show that's not close to truth?
I don't know. But more than bailing out states (which is already done with federal tax dollars - it's called government assistance), I think if Obama tried to sign international documentation (through the U.N. or any other organization(s)) to prohibit what's guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment you would see a bigger uprising.
42% didn't vote for Obama because he's a great guy who's policies have proven effective, has shown himself to be an effective leader, and has paved the way for our country to prosperity. They voted for him to keep giving them free money. Be interesting to see how many of those 42 percent admit they receive government subsidies. Probably won't find that information - and it's really not important why they voted for him... but it is disenguous to pretend it's for the reasons above (that are far from proven by any means).
"When people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Ben Franklin
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.