• Mr_D_Umbguy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is no best case scenario. It’s not a feasible plan. I don’t understand why this even gets discussed as anything other than a fantasy or a thought exercise.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Many states are in a much better position than many existing countries. Just because you refuse to consider it doesn’t make it non feasible.

      You get to have your go at a thought experiment but others you disagree with don’t get to do the same?

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just looking at GDP/capita you can see that there are many red States that are above many European countries. The most popular example obviously is Texas at a secessionist movement has existed there for a very very long time… They have access to the ocean, a border with Mexico, resources… If they left it would probably lead to a movement where other states would want to join them to create the “United Republics of America” (to keep with the Republican theme)…

          • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just don’t have an extreme weather event or have any of their people with healthcare, who do you think pays to pick up the pieces? GDP/capita is not the final answer.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you go by that logic then the USA in general can’t work as a country when compared with most other first world nations because all bad events always ends up being worse there than elsewhere. Guess the US should just reintegrate the British Empire then 🤷

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Extreme weather no matter where in the USA is a shit show because the various levels of government are fighting each other.

                  Healthcare in the USA in general is a shit show compared to all other first world countries and even some developing countries.

                  If that’s good enough to argue that Texas couldn’t make it as a country then the same argument can be applied to the USA in general, can’t it?

                  • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You do realize that after a major weather or natural disaster event, the federal government comes in and does most of the help with money and resources. That’s the rest of the country helping. If Texas is the top one to do that, because they’re the only ones to have money, good luck to you. I say, go for it and bless your heart.

          • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Texas is going purple, though. The many, many people there that live there and are Democrats, are they going to be cool with turning it into a totally shithole country?

          • ShoeboxKiller@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Texas’ GDP is what it is because it’s part of the United States.

            You’re so simple you think Texas could secede from the United States and the companies and industries that promote that GDP would stay there? If clueless was a person it’s be you.

              • ShoeboxKiller@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You truly redefine dumb don’t you?

                Here’s the summary for you so you don’t have to struggle through all of the points made:

                Bottom line is that, yes, Texas today is a financial powerhouse. But most of that is because Texas is part of the USA with a bunch of laws that let businesses get away with things they can’t get away with elsewhere. And in part, sure, like California, they have a lifestyle that attracts those with regional mobility, like engineers. But that’s still dependent on being part of the USA.

                Going independent, Texas can’t use the rest of the USA to pay, one way or another, for their “pro-business” policies. They can’t fund half the cost of state government with Federal money. They can’t make a profit on the military — they have to figure out how to pay for one. And pretty much, just as other third world countries only get the low-end of production, there’s no way an Independent Texas with economic problems, rampant unemployment, crazies in office, etc. gets much interest from investors or big business in the USA or anywhere else.

                There’s also a very large potential for domination by organized crime. The Mexican drug cartels would have little trouble moving into Texas and setting up shop. The USA as a whole can pool a very large amount of money to protect the southern border, because the northern border with Canada, our Western border on the Pacific, and our eastern border on the Atlantic (yeah, that’s me waving!) need relatively little protective effort. But the Republic of Texas would be a small country with some need to be concerned about every border, but particularly their border with Mexico.

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Quora…

                  That’s your source? Why not link to a comment thread on 4chan while you’re at it?

                  And I’m the one redefining dumb somehow?

                  • ShoeboxKiller@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    With how long it would take you to sound out each word I know you didn’t read it just goes to show how incredibly naive you are.

                    Time to go back to the kiddie table little child, you’re clearly out of your depth.

      • Mr_D_Umbguy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why are you confrontational? You’re more emotionally invested in this than I am I guess.

        I don’t care about thought exercises, anybody can hypothesize whatever scenario they want but there is no best case scenario because it’s not feasible.

        From a purely practical perspective there is no way this could happen and giving credence to it only benefits these extremist types.

        You might not be American but you sure act like one. Pretending to be an authority on a country that isn’t yours is a distinctly American behavior on the internet.

          • Mr_D_Umbguy@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not mine, I’m not the commenter you originally replied to.

            Let’s do a quick thought experiment and say there was an actual legal framework for states to leave the union.

            That’s what the original commenter said. What I’m saying is it’s not feasible, in part because there is no legal framework for this.

            This is one heck of a dog whistle if it’s reaching all the way outside the US.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Ain’t that the whole point of common law? There’s no legal framework -> go to court -> set the precedent -> there’s your framework

              Separatists have to support each others, my nation’s separatist movement is older than anyone alive today. If some US states feel like they would be better off outside the union then good on them, the super nation experiment has run its course, it’s the same as empires of ages past and I don’t see anyone here defending the British Empire and being against Canada’s Confederation or saying that Haiti should still be a French colony… Weird how hard it is to apply equal standards to everyone 🤷

              • Mr_D_Umbguy@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Precedent like Texas v. White? Or when Antonin Scalia wrote, “The answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, ‘one Nation, indivisible.’)”?

                Are you sure you’re not American?

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  In Texas v. White’s ruling: There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

                  Scalia’s opinion on the subject was shared as an answer to a letter so it has no legal precedence.

                  • Mr_D_Umbguy@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    How about all of the information?

                    The decision in Texas v. White (1868) held that the U.S. Constitution does not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, while adding, “except through revolution or through consent of the States.” The ruling held null all ordinances of secession and all acts of the state legislatures aimed at secession.

                    So states could revolt, although that’s not legal. They could try and get consent of the States, if that were actually feasible. They cannot unilaterally secede which is why this is a dog whistle.

                    It’s really telling that you haven’t mentioned the separatist movements of the native tribes in the US, or the movements in Puerto Rico, or the recent calls for it in Hawaii. Groups that arguably have really solid arguments, but instead focus on groups who are upset because they can’t subjugate and control those around them that don’t conform to their ideals.

                    Maybe you should emigrate to the US, you certainly have the arrogance and false bravado that Americans often exhibit when talking about matters in countries other than theirs.