Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9s7mn5 wrote

I don't think this is even remotely close to how it would go irrelevant of leanings.

Whoever secedes gets nothing. They become enemy number 1 to the US government. There's no "keep this or that because it was in my former state". It's "the US military strolled up in an M1A1 Super Abraham's and told you there taking their stuff back. Those states, or whatever they'd like to call themselves at that point, would be a pariah to America. And easy pickings for another nation to influence and trade with, to manipulate.

Maybe there would be trade deals but I wouldn't count on it.

And once Texas realizes they'll be financially carrying all those people, they'll just secede from those seditionists.

119

gizamo t1_j9u3r9s wrote

Also, if a red state seceded, many/most of its Democrat voters would flee east or west, and probably not make it all the way to the coasts. So, states like UT, CO, AZ, NM, and all of Rust Belt would go blue quickly.

Edit: just imagine the exodus from Austin. That alone would easily flip AZ, NM, and probably GA.

12

ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9u4g06 wrote

I hope you're right. It's not like the military power would allow no territorial bridges from one side of the coast to another.

6

tosser1579 t1_j9v4uwq wrote

GA already flipped.

3

Irishknife t1_j9vu28j wrote

considering they voted for a lot of republicans in 2020 and warnock barely won over an exnfl player, i wouldnt hold my breath on that

2

gizamo t1_j9v5rjs wrote

I think so, I too. But, it's possible that was only because Trump was such a terrible candidate in 2020. I'm excited to see if that holds up in 2024.

When states flip, I generally consider them purple for a few presidential elections.

1

rushmc1 t1_j9vrkpj wrote

Best case scenario. Let's make it happen!

1

Raleda t1_j9uhpd8 wrote

I could see a Red Dawn scenario playing out, only the secessionist states would invite Russia in.

1

ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9uiel5 wrote

Yea I'd thought if that too. But honestly I don't see how this goes in any other direction aside from sedition and then eventually being attacked by the seditionists :/

1

PompiPompi t1_j9ushl0 wrote

Like in Afghanistan? The might US military?

−2

AdAcrobatic7236 t1_j9utuy9 wrote

🔥Upon secession, I somehow don’t quite envision those former states simply acquiescing to a forcible inventory retrieval. This is the point of no return and they will need to be exterminated right down to the last smoldering Chicken Waffle House …

−2

rushmc1 t1_j9vrnxm wrote

You seem like the Germans, who have special toilets because they have such a hard time letting go of their shit...

2

The8thHammer t1_j9sbwce wrote

The Saudi's already own most of Texas' assets so it'll be mostly under their control. They'd break off completely as an arab owned state and the rest of the south would fend for themselves completely.

−9

ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9sdglp wrote

Oh thats a good point. I wonder how much military hardware would be parked along that border then.

−2

Eric1491625 t1_j9sdmnw wrote

Except how would you explain the breakup of the USSR? Why didn't the USSR slaughter their way to unity?

The USSR did not collapse like the Ottomans or Germany - due to fighting total war, exhausting their military and losing. They had their military intact.

The Soviet military was near peak strength, with 40,000 nuclear warheads containing some 500,000 Hiroshima bombs worth of explosive yield. Half a million Hiroshimas. And tens of thousands of tanks. Yet they did not use force. The Russian tanks didn't roll in.

It's funny that Americans consider Soviets and Russians to be brutal, rights-abusing, atrocity-committing evil guys - compared to "civilised" Americans - yet expect the US soldiers to murderously suppress seccessionists in a way even the "more brutal" Soviet soldiers did not.

Just food for thought.

−11

ltlawdy t1_j9uvm8f wrote

They didn’t slaughter their way to unity because: 1). Change in leadership, 2). No money, 3). Shake up of natural/governmental order

Why would they use nuclear weapons, pissing off the wider world, while habit very little to no effective military capacity?

Those satellite states were offered referendums to leave. Should Russia have changed government, went back on their word and start taking over the land? Again, pissing off everyone?

Nothing you’ve said proves anything, it’s just silly talk points that have no basis in reality. The USSR collapsed. Russia didn’t have the capabilities to pursue any world doctrine.

1

ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9se8u0 wrote

Didn't Russia lose land and people from the perimeter of its nation leaving a fairly intact centralized nation? Our case isn't as simple as north and south anymore.

And I'm resigned with blood being spilt over this. MTG was right about one thing: this is an abusive relationship. And the abusers would be leaving. We're not gonna have peace when one side has built their entire tribal identity on war with the other side. So they can leave.

It's better than dealing with their domestic terror I'm and whittling away at specific peoples rights just because they don't like them.

It is brutal. But don't for one fucking second blame the left. This would be literally what they're clamoring for now.

0

RagingHeretic t1_j9s900t wrote

I support the idea of dissolving the U.S. But the GOP's inference to a smaller federal government and blue states still paying the bills for the red ones is a non-starter. We're not doing that. Dissolution of the U.S. is fine as long as us Californians are absolved from having to support parasite states like Texas and Ohio. They want independence, they can figure out how to fund themselves, but the best thing that can happen is a breakup of the country into smaller sovereigns free to govern themselves. No more federalism is something everyone should aim for.

−20

Insight42 t1_j9sdc0k wrote

Same goes for NY.

You want to leave the US? We're keeping all the money. No more funding ungrateful assholes sounds great!

11

absolute_yote t1_j9v0p52 wrote

New York is number 1 payer for the us. They take the least federal funding relative to what they take. So wtf are you talking about???

3

Insight42 t1_j9v4scr wrote

As a New Yorker my wallet is painfully aware of that.

As I said, any state that wants to leave, go right ahead - we're not paying for them anymore.

3

Torker t1_j9v9gon wrote

This math never works as simply as most assume. If you paid taxes in NY for 30 years and retire to FL, then why would you lose Medicare and Social Security benefits? If so, those retired would not be paying mutual fund managers in NY. The whole system would collapse for both NY and FL.

1

ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9s9yvv wrote

My concern here is Russia and China manipulating those smaller states/unions and slowly taking over the former states of America one by one. But you're dam right about finding them. I'm also in a liberal net positive state and not interested in funding them.

2

DeepJob3439 t1_j9seckw wrote

I personally think each state should go it’s own way, but hold a defensive aid pact. Should any one of them get attacked, the other states must come to their aid. After that’s, states can form their own unions at their leisure. This will deter states trying to forcefully gobble other states or China and Russia interfering.

0

ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9skzxn wrote

I think this would work until a state started to get gobbled up and enough states don't want to render aid :/

3

RagingHeretic t1_j9sadab wrote

Russia and China can't even negotiate their own wars of expansion against neighbors. There's no chance they will manage to do it here. "New America" will become a Russian ally on the North American continent...but they have no industry, no education, no public services...just guns. Pacifica, New Canada, and New England all either join Canada proper or join NATO.

−7

ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9scj5w wrote

I hadn't considered them joining NATO. Seems unlikely to me though :/

4

RagingHeretic t1_j9scv9f wrote

Joining Canada would instantly give us NATO membership. No approval Turkey and Hungary necessary.

4

ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9sdq8h wrote

I'm sorry I thought you meant the seditious states joining NATO. I would have thought america would retain membership since were the bulk of its resources to begin with, no?

But we keep the name America, not new america, or anything else. The seditionists can find a new name.

4

Jumpshot1370 t1_j9silwq wrote

The "parasite state" (as you describe) Texas produces a whole lot of oil, agriculture, and has multiple tech companies. It ranks 15th out of 50 in GDP per capita and has a high net migration rate.

2

RagingHeretic t1_j9siy8l wrote

Texas produces almost no crops. It's soil is mostly clay. Everything you buy in the produce section is either from CA or MX. And tech company HQs...for the tax giveaways. TX has no human capital. Tesla's moving its engineering HQ back to CA from TX already. Lol

15

Torker t1_j9v9toh wrote

If Texas has no human capital, why does it have a low unemployment rate and millions of workers? Someone is paying $2000 a month in rent in Austin and they probably have a job. They are probably not all republicans either, so this whole divorce would be mess for sure.

1

RagingHeretic t1_j9vi73b wrote

The divorce would be easier than you think. You put a deadline on citizens in every region to get their affairs in order and move or accept their new passport for the country that it will become. Say, 10 years. Everyone gets 10 years to decide whether they are staying or going before the walls go up. Would there be some chaos? Sure, a little. And it would take some time for the dust to settle internationally, but life will go on. No biggie.

2

guano_guapo t1_j9srbmn wrote

This is just an ignorant statement. Texas is the 9th largest economy in the world, and Ohio is 21st, just ahead of Argentina. You’re looking at the other red states that are parasites. But Republicans are busy running Ohio and Texas into the ground.

−1

RagingHeretic t1_j9u99c1 wrote

I assure you Texas would not be able to support itself. It's culture doesn't allow it and it lacks the human capital and resources. It's got oil and gas. That's it. It's soil is unfarmable, it's mostly arid steppe. TX only has the 2nd biggest GDP in the U.S. because other states absorb a lot of the load TX would need to make up for as an independent country. Without Washington's support, TX is not the powerhouse you think it is.

3

ZombiePlaya t1_j9scy8x wrote

California couldn't even pay itself, and I looked up Texas, which has a massive surplus in state funds.

I don't live in either, but Texas does look cheaper.

−9

RagingHeretic t1_j9sdxkp wrote

Texas has some of the highest taxes in the U.S., particularly if you are middle class. Nonstate is more expensive to live in than Florida. It's weird how people think no income taxes means cheaper.

8

ZombiePlaya t1_j9sfyec wrote

It has lower state tax, looks like property is cheaper besides the property tax and, price for gas is way cheaper.

Can't really see a no income tax hurting middle class.

−4

RagingHeretic t1_j9sg8ok wrote

Their property taxes are insane...and they assess personal property taxes. You'll pay upwards of $13,000 a year on house where in CA your property taxes cannot exceed 1%. If you're RICH TX is super cheap for you.

8

ZombiePlaya t1_j9sihr0 wrote

Just looked it up and it appears to be a local county property tax the varies a lot it seems.

1

RagingHeretic t1_j9siugw wrote

Effective rate of 0.75%. You're incorrect. We tax the income high earners a lot, though, which is the correct way to do it.

4

KindlyQuasar t1_j9tnij5 wrote

I'm a Texan homeowner. I have a modest 1600 sqft home built in the 80s. I pay about $6300/year in property taxes. My effective property tax rate is 2.47%, which is considered low.

Sources online will tell you that the state average is between 1.6-1.8%, but that is because the "agricultural exemption" is used by very wealthy landowners to reduce their tax burden.

Those over 65 can "lock" their tax rate (and qualify for additional exemptions), so even if the property value doubles they don't pay one extra cent in tax --- shifting that tax burden to the younger generation, of course.

Californians pay less in taxes than Texans -- unless you're in the top 1% of wage earners, then you pay a LOT less in Texas. Source: link

1

ZombiePlaya t1_j9ttqbo wrote

From what it looks like, California and Texas have similar tax rates. It's just that Texas splits it to make up for the no income tax, and California takes it at once.

Pay now or pay later I guess, both have really close class revenues I see as well.

All I can say is that I wouldn't live in either, especially when both I hear have energy problems.

−1