510
Marjorie Taylor Greene Says States Should 'Consider Seceding From the Union'
(www.rollingstone.com)
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
510 points (92.5% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2539 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Let's do a quick thought experiment and say there was an actual legal framework for states to leave the union. How do Republicans think that would go? Under no circumstances would any major city in the south go along with leaving. Republicans states are far more purple than elections would suggest due to voter suppression, election fraud, and gerrymandering. So in reality the confederate areas would just be poor rural areas. Add in the fact that the US holds the keys to all the military equipment and weapons, the confederate areas would turn into a lawless hell scape over night. And without nuclear weapons and no international agreements for defense, I'm sure Mexico and Cuba would love to reclaim some of their lost territory.
I can go on. But the main reason these idiots keep bringing this up is to suggest violence into getting their way. It's not even a viable option to even consider for them. The situation I made is a best case scenario for them to. If they tried to violently leave the union it would be couple million good old boys in trucks up against jets and tanks.
I feel like logistically it would make Brexit look like the Velvet Revolution breakup of Czechoslovakia. Clusterfuck doesn't even begin to describe it. We are sort of stuck with each other like a crabby old married couple that hates each other but they just don't really have any options so they stick together barely speaking except saying fuck you to each other when they pass in the hallway.
Would love to see the Ultimate Epic Battle Simulator between a couple million good old boys in trucks vs like 50 jets and 50 tanks.
All them good ol boys riding Walmart mobility scooters due to spending all their points into Diabeetus.
I just wanna see them fly when the Trebuchet rock hits em.
Make it so, comrade
You wouldn't even need the tanks. The power of long range jets is unimaginable.
Would love to see your face when you consider the US military, which hasn't won a real war in nearly 80 years, trying to occupy an area 10 times the size of Afghanistan. Please just ignore the 100 million gun-toting good old boys in trucks. I am sure they have no idea what guerilla warfare is and won't protect their homes at all. Also, I'm sure none of that military will defect to protect their families.
Those 50 jets and 50 tanks will definitely end the conflict in the first hour.
Um what? Sorry but you are wrong on so many levels it's concerning.
The Afghanistan forces we fought weren't just a military force scratched together from random people off the street. They were at the time battle hardened men in their 30s and 40s, who's leadership was trained and initially train by US advisors to fight off the USSR. They were a strong force fighting in home territory. (the same goes for the VietCong, and Once North Korea was supported by Standing army of China. The Korean War was lost.) so in reality the "good old boys" don't have that advantage.
Secondly, those wars were lost in part due to Logistics. Fighting a war on the other side of the world is vastly different than one in your own back yard. Our opponents knew they just needed to wait us out. That would not happen in the south.
Next, the politics behind this wars was odious from the beginning. The vast majority of Americans didn't support the wars over seas. A war against the south would be very popular in the north and mostly popular in urban areas in the south. Remember, the south wouldn't be trying to leave to create another American Democracy. It would be for a Christian Nationalist Oligarchy. Their goal would be to reinstate slavery, women suffrage, and the genocide of LGBTQ+ people.
And finally, the military is politically "conservative" but in the economic way and not in the I think my small town with two black people is getting too ethnic way. There would be some military people that would defect, but far fewer than it would take to weaken the US military. Individuals with strong racist beliefs wash out very quickly and definitely are not in leadership! There's a reason the military makes sure units are made up of people from all walks of life. Bigotry of any kind doesn't make an effective fighting force.
Also remember that most red states are welfare states that need federal funding to just exist and on their own they would be broke and unable to provide basic needs like water and electricity .
Most of those states would collapse at the next hurricane that hits them. Florida had to declare a natural disaster just from 1 hurricane. Hurricane Katrina would leave Louisiana a third world country if not for federal government funds.
It's also like they can't even conceive the notion that most of the left and even a good few liberals are armed and train regularly and also live out in podunk.
Based on international law the states would maintain their current borders, that means the urban areas would come along for the ride (IF under an actual referendum the majority was to vote in favor of separation vs the non democratic exercise that is US elections)
The movement would probably see the creation of a new Union instead of just having a bunch of small new countries, so it would be rich enough to equip itself and create an army (and those voting in favor would probably jump on the occasion to defend their new country).
Separation doesn't happen overnight, you go and fetch support from other countries so you're not left without any allies or international recognition if the vote is in favor (France was ready to recognize Quebec if any of the two referendums had been in favor of independence).
You didn't create a "best case scenario", you just created a scenario that fits your opinion on the subject.
Disclaimer: Am not from the USA, would gladly see it getting split in multiple countries just like I would gladly see Canada split in multiple countries as I think in both cases it would stop some parts of the country from slowing down progress in other parts. Ex.: If Mississippi and its citizens want to live in a third world country so much then so be it, let the rest of the US move forward.
Sorry, but wrong on many points. If the conservative states were ever going to leave the Union it would have to be a quick transition as a longer process ensures that it won't happen.
One: The US as a whole is far more homogeneous than European democracies. It's not like in Europe where you can drive a few hours and find a whole different language and culture. Those asking for a separation are a extreme minority even within their states. Even with them being in power, the moment they actually move towards separation they literally will be murdered in a few days.
Two: during the slow negotiation for separation, red states would be responsible for their debts. States like Mississippi and Kentucky would have to back out of the separation because they'd become Haiti (economically) once the separation was complete.
Three: even if they peacefully negotiated with blue states, violence would break out in urban areas because red states wouldn't be leaving to create their own American style for of democracy. It would be a Christan Nationalist oligarchy. They want this separation to reinstate slavery, women's suffrage, and genicide of all LGBTQ+ individuals. This one is inevitable regardless how the separation goes. But a slow separation just gives those urban areas time to prepare for war.
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?
Edit: Have yet to see someone explain why, for example, Iceland can be an independent country but it's impossible to imagine Texas or the Carolinas being independent countries except for "People who don't agree would revolt and the US would bomb the place!" Is it so hard to imagine a future where both sides agree that the union experiment didn't work and it's better to just split the country in chunks than continue with the status quo? Even for a thought experiment? Use that wonderful thing we call "imagination".
Which of the states that would secede are in a good place to do that?
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)...
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.
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 🤷
That doesn't even make sense.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Right, because companies don't exist outside the USA.
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?
Dude, you're using Quora as a source and you're calling me out of my depth? Are you serious?
I don’t care about thought exercisesUnless it's yours 🤷
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 🤷
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.
Sorry if I gave an example of a state that already has agreed borders and that actually compares to rich nations like I was asked 🤷
https://lemmy.world/comment/3366019
You’re a dumbass. Neither of the people in this thread you’re replying to asked you and your reply to the person who did is stupid. 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.
Can't wait to see the petrochemical industry pack their things and start extracting Texas' resources from outside Texas!
Hey everyone, this idiot I’m replying to can’t even read. Literally from the link:
Clearly
Other nations sell their petrol exploited by private businesses in USD, other nations are rich from that exploitation.
Texas doing the same thing though? Nah mate, impossible!
And no, "texbux" isn't an issue as anyone who knows even a tiny bit about economy and politics would tell you, no country can prevent another from using their currency as theirs. That's why eleven nations other than the USA have USD as their money and the number is even higher when counting countries that peg their currency to the USD's value.
Same for the Euro which is legal tender in some places outside Europe.
Maybe you should go check if someone talked about that somewhere on Quora.
K bye! 😘
Just reinforcing that you can’t read, huh? Literally in the same link already provided: