Elusive Trope's picture

    Memo to Texas: Please Oh Please Secede

    All I can say to you Texas, please take your 38 electoral college votes and go away.  This will guarantee the Dems will hold the WH for the next decade or so.  And since we have lost the Berlin Wall globally, we will now have at the Austin Wall. 





    I'll say it again, for many reasons go ahead and let Texas go, cheaper and easier to build a wall around them than the Tex-Mex borders.  No more social security, medicaid/medicare or any other 'US' benefits for them. 

    Accept Puerto Rica as replacement and yeah, no need to have flags changed, et al.

    (Of course, our new immigration problem will be those damn Texans climbing over, burrowing under or blowing up part of fence to 'sneak back in', but still......)

    And absolutely no 'foreign' aid to them, ever!

    Seriously, would we be better or worse off?  cheeky

    Yeah but, no more defense contracts to the Republic of Texas and no aid whatsoever to the Republic of Texas.

    Now if some residents desire help in re-location...well we are open to that!

    I was wondering about going the other direction and offering statehood to Mexico.



    Well, they'd have to clean up their drug problems first and get rid of all the dealers, etc.- hmmmm.  Also need to review their holdings (assets),but might be on to something..........................(But, Texas still has to at least be put on probation and pay heavy fines for their skullduggery.)

    Uh, Mexico called, said they're not interested - seems their economy's booming just fine without us, and they're kinda vibing on this independence thing. But they're happy to send us a few million more low-paid workers if we need to feel we're still wanted.

    Hell yeah! Oil, mariachis, and beautiful women. What's not to like?


    And yes, your energy bill would go up significantly from Gulf & Texas wells & refineries and natural gas, plus foreign resources controlled by Texans.

    And Texas is a net contributor to the government system, not a "leecher".

    As for Puerto Rico, half the per capita income of Mississippi, and 


    The Economist magazine calculated that from 1990 to 2009, the U.S. government spent $182 billion more in Puerto Rico than it received from the territory in taxes. Eleven other states had a higher deficit, but Puerto Rico's deficit was the highest when evaluated as a percentage of its annual economic output, Gross Domestic Product. Puerto Rico's deficit was 290 percent of GDP. Comparable measurements indicated that the closest states were New Mexico, Mississippi and West Virginia. The conclusion? Puerto Rico benefits more from federal expenditures than any of the poorest U.S. states.


    Wow, what a trade.

    It's hard to put everything into a single blog. "Better Off Without 'Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession" by Chuck Thompson gives more detail. If low wage Southern workers steal auto industry jobs from Northerners who demand a higher wage, aren't the Southern workers a drain on the North anyway? Would there be a big loss if the Southerners were treated as foreign competitors. Thompson covers many topics with humor but also makes thought provoking points.

    The north would still have to deal with it's own adoption of "Southern" ideas like bashing labor unions and control of women's vaginas.

    the truth is that the changing demographics of the United States along with the intransigence of the GOP will change the political dynamics much faster than secession. In addition we won"t trap Liberals, Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Asians and many women trapped across the secession line.

    There be 85K Texans who want to secede, but even crazy Rick Perry doesn't really want to leave the Union. 

    The best solution might be to ship the folks who want to leave off some Un occupied island off the US coast or we could put them in the 9th ward in NOLA and build a wall to seal them off.

    Texas still ain't the South.

    Between blacks (12%) and Hispanics (38%), Texas is already a minority majority, and by 2030 Hispanics will be a majority (they're already the majority in public schools). White non-Hispanics are currently < 45%. Asian-Americans are ~4-5%.

    Nevertheless, that may not lead to common expected conclusions:


    In California, 37 percent of Hispanics call themselves conservative, 30 percent say they’re moderate and 33 percent embrace the liberal label.

    In Texas, 46 percent of Hispanics say they are conservative, 36 percent are moderate and 18 percent say they are liberal, Baselice said

    Another poll reads defines things in more detail:


    The poll found that only 18 percent of Texas Hispanics say they're liberal or progressive, while 54 percent say they're conservative, moderate conservative or religiously conservative.

    But Camarillo said many Hispanics who identify themselves as conservative aren't talking about "less taxes, less government," the way white conservatives would.

    60% of Texas Latinos have been voting for Democrats in recent years

    I'll try to track down the 2012 results, but I doubt the Republicans will be happy with the results.

    Regarding the red and blue give/take on taxes, does Texas offset all the red states on the take side of the equation?



    Texas is marginally positive.

    Great data, but I'm willing to lose Texas regardless. 

    Always been curious how much of the 'welfare' is defense spending.  Agricultural subsidies?  Any idea?

    Didn't Google that deeply for data, but I imagine a fair amount for space, military, intelligence/homeland security, education, ag supports, etc. Depends on the state of course.

    But the services could be marginally useful, say all the drones they started handing out to states to figure out what to do with.

    A couple of other things occurred to me as well:  NM has a couple of national labs and and MS had hurricane, tornado and oil spill clean ups during that time.  

    With only one year's data and no spending details, it is really difficult to know who the beneficiaries of the 'welfare' are.  I would guess Idaho gets a lot of agricultural subsidies but we all benefit to varying degrees from the crops.

    Georgia with its 1 cent in 'welfare' gets agricultural subsides.  It also has some major military installations, a port that is being expanded, a national forest, and at least one significant defense contractor (see F-22).  That's all I can think of off the top of my head.


    Your energy bill would go up significantly from Gulf & Texas wells & refineries and natural gas, plus foreign resources controlled by Texans.

    That is until Operation Armadillo, and Obama oversees the installation of a provisional government and the giving of the remaining American oil companies rights to the natural resources.

    Worked so well in Iraq, Afghanistan and Benghazi, why not Texas?

    Rick Perry says no.

    Meanwhile, end of that linked article lists all the petitions on the White House website:

    Here’s a list of states where residents have filed secession petitions in recent days:



    MontanaNebraskaNew JerseyNew YorkNevadaNorth Carolina

    North Dakota,OhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaSouth Carolina

    South DakotaTennessee,TexasUtahWest Virginia, and Wyoming.

    It will be interesting to see what the White House PR people do with this once some of those hit the site's designated signature quota for a response.

    Have to get 25k signatures for WH review. 

    According to what I've read the standard response to petitions like this is to explain and post of list of web sites explaining why its impossible or illegal.

    Anyway, who cares and why? This is just more stupid from wing nuts. Some of the states voted overwhelmingly for Obama. I'm sure that even in the states that voted for Romney we wouldn't see anywhere near a majority voting to secede. You could always find a fringe group of idiots signing petitions to secede no matter who was president.

     If some reporter asks the WH they will find a polite respectful way to say this is just a fringe group bunch of stupid wing nuts while extolling the virtues of the union and trying not to lol.

    Personally, I think its hilarious. Each day brings a new giggle from the wing nut fringe of the republican party.

    Requesting permission to secede? What wimps!

    You need to fix the spelling in your title from Succeed to Secede; as it is might send a quite different message (or make it: please succeed in seceding?)

    You can cross Florida off that list.  All the secessionist will lose interest because hunting season is soon to start.  They have tree stands to build and sit in. 


    If Texas goes, we can finally bring the textbook industry back to within the borders of the U.S. and go back to printing facts instead of fantasies.  No politician will want to admit they are outsourcing the printing of schoolbooks for American kids to some radical foreign country like Texas.

    While Rick Perry has rejected such nonsense, he wasn't above suggesting it as far back as 2009.  And where did he get that confrontational attitude from? Right wing media that is where, it's toxic and killing the country.

    But I think this last election demonstrated to the vast majority of people here and around the world, the real majority in the US isn't the conservative whackos. And while they have stacked the deck for now via redistricting this isn't going to last forever. Conservative whack-jobs who consistently vote against the best interest of this country are on their way out (Hey Joe Walsh). So the talk of secession is clownish indeed, but I am sure it is great fodder for late night comedians.

    The real wake-up call should be for Fox, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Levin et al, because they have just found out their toxic anger and consistent lying about everything and their inability to accept reality and simple facts (i.e the earth is warming, women do die as a result of no having access to abortions, and people do want infrastructure) isn't playing well with the majority of sentient beings.  Their time is coming and their power is diminishing. Their ability to stoke hatred and fear amongst the population is quickly dissipating, so they'd better save their cash, because just like Lindsey Lohan theirs stars are slowing losing their shine.  Soon we will only know their names when falafel and oxy-codone are mentioned. Can you imagine to their shock they couldn't buy this last election, they really though they could, but they couldn't match the ground game of the community organizers little operation. People want to hear positive things about their nation. They do, all this fighting and calls for secession is just grating on regular people who have real issues and problems to solve.

    Just a little note, I think folks like O'Reilly understand their 15 minutes are expiring. Certainly these people have a large and powerful platform, but those who are swayed by their battling rhetoric as a base is shrinking.  And that means their control over our political discourse will continue to shrink. Yay for America.

    Here is a current map of the pissed off Republicans that are signing the petitions.  Keep checking back because they keep updating it.  Sometime a picture is worth a thousand words.


    Fascinating.  For those interested in a fifty state strategy, as well as the future of the swing states, I would point out that some of key areas of resistance are seen in states like Colorado, Michigan, Oregon, PA and Ohio.  As a proportion of the overall electorate they are probably not hugely significant, but it also probably an insight into understanding why the Republicans still hold the House.

    Huh?  Far and away, the petition with the most signers is Texas at just over 100,000.  It is so far ahead of the others that I would bet many of its signers are progressives who jokingly(?) want Texas and other southern states to leave.  Then there is the petition from Austin requesting to secede from Texas.  The whole thing is a joke that is bordering on going viral.  Completely meaningless as an electoral indicator.


    Update:  Now someone from Atlanta is petitioning to leave Georgia.



    I wouldn't claim that it would be some indicator as to how the electoral votes goes - Obama won in many of the states where they are petitions, just as a large enthusiastic rally for Palin didn't indicate McCain/Palin would win the state in 2008.  But sometimes it is easy for people to see a blue state like Oregon and think the entire state is blue.  The I-5 corridor from Portland to Eugene is definitely blue, and population wise swamps the rest of the state when it comes to presidential elections.  But a large portion of the state is more aligned with Wyoming than Vermont. 

    Ultimately it is a joke, but there is always some truth to be gleaned in every joke. 

    When I lived in Washington State, the eastern portion of the state was always talking about leaving the western half and join up with Idaho because the urban folks on the west side didn't care about the farmers on the east side.  These secede sentiments are nothing new, it is just that the internet now allows for them to be more visible (and the opportunity for them to go viral, and turned into something of an entertainment vehicle).

    I think it's refreshing - why shouldn't people and states reorganize into more fitting combinations? Isn't that Democracy? 

    The actual bureaucratic nightmare if state and other governmental borders were in constant flux is mind boggling. But ultimately a stable and robust union that embraces democracy, whatever the scale of that union (county, state, federal, etc), is in part built on the notion of that the minority will respect the decision of the majority.  Which is not to say the minority needs to give up their quest to change the majority's mind in the future.  Democracy isn't about being for elections only if one wins. 

    Of course, if a majority of people in one place want to leave for something else, that is, too, democracy at work.  But then there are those of the minority who wanted to stay, who now get to decide if they want to resist the decision of the majority. 

    There are ways countries split up - like Czech & Slovak peacefully, Catalonia or Scotland by devolving power, the USSR be breaking into constituent parts, Quebec as a roughly autonomous province, Swiss semi-autonomous cantons, etc. 

    There are practical costs to breaking away, whether losing pooled resources, printing new currency, forming a separate government. Why the US should be fixed forever (except for adding states) is a bit bizarre, especially since we never minded ripping territory from Spain, France, Mexico, England, Russia, Canada. But exceptionalism rulez.

    Of course there have been split ups, and they can be done peacefully and to some degree without much hardship.  And yes there are other countries that use a different model of power between the entities of their federations  I was just focusing on the specific example of where the state borders are drawn within the US.

    The borders of the countries in Africa for the most part were drawn by the colonial powers, and do not in anyway reflect the identities of the various communities - which is why there has been so much internal and cross border conflicts over the decades.  Yet in spite of this, life is better to claim the lines unchangable rather than opening up a can of worms with the notion they can shifted one way or another. 

    While I would say that eastern Washington should in the final analysis be able to join Idaho if they didn't like what was happening in the state capitol in Olympia, it just isn't a good idea. Parts of northwest Indiana peels off to join Illinois, the panhandle joins Georgia, while Atlanta then becomes the Berlin of the South, with most of the city joining the new Florida.  

    All of this will never happen, but the point here I think is that rather than just going to find someone new to hang out with when elections don't go our way, we should see a loss in the elections to become more engaged in the national marketplace of ideas and ideology.  

    So better to declare Yugoslavia inviolable, rather than let Slovenians form a viable independent state? Because Belgium made Congo into this huge uncontrolled multicultural state passing across ethnic boundaries, we have no recourse but to accept historical stupidity? The Belgians couldn't even form a national government for 18 months, and only managed to do it because of the seriousness of the Eurozone crisis - if Flemish-Walloon intransigence is so bad, isn't it better they just split before they hurt themselves?

    There are lots of reasons it's much easier for countries to stay together, but in a number of cases, union seems a mistake - why be so hard-core about national lines if people vote or otherwise express serious incompatibility?

    The US states have split and merged before - e.g. New Mexico got part of Texas, Massachussetts gave up western territory, West Virginia peeled off to stay a part of the north... it's not that big of a deal if Gary Indiana joins Illinois, is it? Danzig used to be a German city that turned into Gdansk - the world's survived, even if Prussia didn't.

    Alsace-Lorraine If you don't understand this point of reference, I refuse to go further in this debate.  Yes, in the case of say where you have two very distinct nations like the Czechs and the Slovaks, who wish to separate, yes it makes sense.  But comparing western Washingtonians and eastern Washingtonians who differ on taxation and the like to the Czechs and Slovaks who see themselves as separate nations is...well...ludicrious.

    People can do what the fuck they like.

    Originally Washington included Idaho and parts of Montana. There's nothing special about these borders.

    If people in the east feel they don't get what they need from Seattle/Olympia, they can dig in their pockets to support their own government and army and other items of statehood through secession or join Idaho or in some other way find a more comfortable political arrangement.

    What's wrong with the freedom of association and representation? That was the main principle behind the US Revolution. If British Colombia feels too far from Ottawa to be properly represented, why shouldn't they start their own country? It's funny that you find taxation unacceptable as reason to separate, since that was one of the main issues in 1776.

    Sure, there are disputed regions between territories, as in Oregon/Washington between US, Britain, at one point Russia, but as more and more political arrangements like the European Union make individual statehood and rights less an issue, then it's easier to incorporate a new state. And there's nothing that says a new state has to be a different culture, or that different cultures can't get along in one. 

     Likewise, new colonies were created for religious freedom - say to get away from the wingnuts, like William Penn did to allow religious freedom and local representation. Parts of Pennsylvania were once owned by Sweden, Holland and the British, plus included in New York claims, with various disputes along the way. And some of these settlers didn't like Penn's Quaker arrangement, even though being more tolerant than what we think of as Quaker today, so they split off into Delaware County. Why not? Then Delaware was incorporated into Maryland, but this didn't work out either, and it eventually became a separate state. Though Delaware could easily join with the other coast lands on the peninsula to start a state called Delmarva, which already has its own power company and other services.

    BTW, West Florida was at one time its own colony up to 1822, including land well up into current Alabama and Mississippi, while "Georgia" as we know it had some large gaps as seen below, depending on whose map.

    And note that the current House of Windsor is actually a German house, so diverse cultures do manage workable agreements, despite the altercations around Alsace-Lorraine. The Habsburg Empire stably integrated Austria, Hungary, Bohemia/Moravia and much of the Balkans and present-day Italy, for hundreds of years, longer than the US has been around.

    Dude. There is no change so small Trope cannot oppose it.

    Well, except for the Presidency. He's pretty wedded to Obama.

    But beyond that? Not an inch, not a dime, not a lungful of fresh air shall change places under the watchful eye of.... Trope.

    I also interested in knowing what is going on in that one section of western New Mexico.

    Latest Comments