Ok sorry if this is a stupid question, but why not let them?
It seems like the biggest concern is a humanitarian one - that sane people who remain in Texas will be worse off - but it significantly improves that same problem for everyone else in the union. And a war would possibly be even worse for sane Texans. It would be cheaper to subsidize relocation costs.
I just don’t get why we’d fight to keep them, or pretty much any state these days. They don’t have slavery, and there’s nothing huge that we were right about to change.
There would be significant economic disruption for all parties. People seem to think that’s no big deal, but it is.
Are you willing to lose your job because someone gets a hard-on when they see a picture of the Alamo? People that are brave on the internet will say that they’re fine with that, but in real life they don’t actually want that.
Yes, if there were a hypothetical US military base, hypothetically called Fort Sumter, where there’s US military stationed in a state that hypothetically seceded, how would that play out, hypothetically speaking? :P
Also they breezed over the humanitarian reason, but well over 50% of Texas would never dream of seceding and would be worse off for it, it’s not like worrying about there being a few good eggs in the bunch.
As a Native Texan leftist, please don’t devolve in to tribalism “them” includes a huge diversity of people who don’t agree with the insanity some fellow Texans spout.
They partner with an enemy of the US who now gets a presence in mainland North America at the US’s doorstep making infiltration to the US, etc. even easier.
The only other good reason to fight to keep them, is to prevent their government from going fully insane and doing horrible things. But that’s the sort of thing that would need intervention if and when it happens.
Maintaining the union is important. Without solidifying that every state is in it together, the federal government loses it’s power, then states start to push the limits, not paying taxes here, disobeying federal law there.
If we wanted to let states secede, we would have formed a Confederacy, or not a country at all. As it stands now, the US government will always fight for a United States, as to not do so puts everything in jeopardy. Maybe you don’t think that’s the best action overall, but until the US government is reformed under a heavily modified constitution that probably won’t happen.
Worth noting the US government needs indevidual US citize s to fight for that United States.
The % of citizens who feel the constitution is likely due for some change. While not near the 66% in 50 states needed to change it, is likely enough to seriously effect the resources forcing other to follow it.
Even congress and the senate are far from 100% in agreement. Or ever likely to be on such things. The further from the head of the snake you go. The more likely the US military is to question orders to attack domestic targets.
A d lets face it. Any attempt by the military to force orders in a situation like that, where the enemy is considered to be a part of your own team by a significant % of the people pulling tigers and dropping the actual bombs. Will harm rather then rebuild that unity.
Ok sorry if this is a stupid question, but why not let them?
It seems like the biggest concern is a humanitarian one - that sane people who remain in Texas will be worse off - but it significantly improves that same problem for everyone else in the union. And a war would possibly be even worse for sane Texans. It would be cheaper to subsidize relocation costs.
I just don’t get why we’d fight to keep them, or pretty much any state these days. They don’t have slavery, and there’s nothing huge that we were right about to change.
There would be significant economic disruption for all parties. People seem to think that’s no big deal, but it is.
Are you willing to lose your job because someone gets a hard-on when they see a picture of the Alamo? People that are brave on the internet will say that they’re fine with that, but in real life they don’t actually want that.
Already lost my job by being pushed out by racist hicks. At Intel no less.
Legal Eagle did a video on this and brought up some interesting points I dont see very often.
What happens to all the Federally-Owed land and military bases in Texas?
What happens to Shared assets like the gold on Fort Knox?
What happens with the National Debt?
Yes, if there were a hypothetical US military base, hypothetically called Fort Sumter, where there’s US military stationed in a state that hypothetically seceded, how would that play out, hypothetically speaking? :P
My job security would improve tremendously if we fought a war to keep them, so I’m trying to keep that from biasing me.
Because you lose some major shipping ports and oil refineries, and you’d have to share a border with a hostile neighbor.
Texas contributes more to the US economy than you’d think.
The precedent it might set.
Also they breezed over the humanitarian reason, but well over 50% of Texas would never dream of seceding and would be worse off for it, it’s not like worrying about there being a few good eggs in the bunch.
Because they would inevitably start a war again.
I mean, they’re already our enemies. Might as well fight 'em.
As a Native Texan leftist, please don’t devolve in to tribalism “them” includes a huge diversity of people who don’t agree with the insanity some fellow Texans spout.
They partner with an enemy of the US who now gets a presence in mainland North America at the US’s doorstep making infiltration to the US, etc. even easier.
Russia has entered the chat
The only other good reason to fight to keep them, is to prevent their government from going fully insane and doing horrible things. But that’s the sort of thing that would need intervention if and when it happens.
Maintaining the union is important. Without solidifying that every state is in it together, the federal government loses it’s power, then states start to push the limits, not paying taxes here, disobeying federal law there.
If we wanted to let states secede, we would have formed a Confederacy, or not a country at all. As it stands now, the US government will always fight for a United States, as to not do so puts everything in jeopardy. Maybe you don’t think that’s the best action overall, but until the US government is reformed under a heavily modified constitution that probably won’t happen.
Worth noting the US government needs indevidual US citize s to fight for that United States.
The % of citizens who feel the constitution is likely due for some change. While not near the 66% in 50 states needed to change it, is likely enough to seriously effect the resources forcing other to follow it.
Even congress and the senate are far from 100% in agreement. Or ever likely to be on such things. The further from the head of the snake you go. The more likely the US military is to question orders to attack domestic targets.
A d lets face it. Any attempt by the military to force orders in a situation like that, where the enemy is considered to be a part of your own team by a significant % of the people pulling tigers and dropping the actual bombs. Will harm rather then rebuild that unity.
It seems that you’re forgetting about Roe v. Wade.
I’m not. That’s one of the humanitarian issues the might worsen for the rest of the union if they stay.