USC Professor: We're seeing a second civil war

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, that's the thing about voting; people can use it for things that you dislike such as "giving the finger to the rest of America" and you still need to honor the results. There would not be another civil war if another seccession vote happened and whether you consider it short sighted or not doesn't matter.

What part of the Constitution or the law allows for such a vote?

After the secession, what's next? Ethnic cleansing? or just re-education camps?

 

[mizzou]

https://soundcloud.com/so-that-happened-1/is-donald-trump-a-fascist (listen starting at 24 mins in)



Do you agree with this?

I hope it doesn't get as crazy like civil war crazy.. I'd much rather let them go and form their own country than have a second war.

Civil War crazy? When you boil it down, Trump isn't even that far off from Hillary. The boiling differences between slave ownership and indentured servitude are like solar systems away from each other.....but then again, maybe not. Slaving away to an unlivable wage in unlivable conditions really wasn't much better then conditions presented to slaves.

How someone could view another human as "property" is just ungodly foreign to me. I just don't see how you could do that and support it.

Trump assuredly has a hot mouth, but other then wanting to restrict illegal aliens, I'm having a hard time seeing how he is so much different then Hillary it would warrant a civil war.

 

[OverVolt]

The tension is between rural vs cities, going by feel.

The idea of a civil war is completely ridiculous though.

I think existing geographic cultural lines are going to become more solidified, more isolated, etc. The blue collar neighborhoods will start looking out after their own eschewing outsiders, the rich neighborhoods will want gated entry, etc.

 

[glenn1]

What part of the Constitution or the law allows for such a vote?

After the secession, what's next? Ethnic cleansing? or just re-education camps?

So should this hypothetical come to pass then you'd urge politicians to use military force to keep people who just voted to get the fuck away from you?

 

[Jhhnn]

So should this hypothetical come to pass then you'd urge politicians to use military force to keep people who just voted to get the fuck away from you?

You didn't answer the first question. The second question and your own are immaterial if such a vote is not legal. I don't think it is legal, but you're welcome to cite chapter & verse of the Constitution & the law to support your argument. I'll just cite the outcome of the Civil War.

At least the secessionists back in 1860 had a rational if immoral economic reason for it, slavery. You offer none at all.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

https://soundcloud.com/so-that-happened-1/is-donald-trump-a-fascist (listen starting at 24 mins in)



Do you agree with this?

I hope it doesn't get as crazy like civil war crazy.. I'd much rather let them go and form their own country than have a second war.

It always intrigues me just how vitriol, discriminatory, and divisive some people on the left can be, while also claiming to fight against those very things.

That quote is very disturbing...

White southerners are not white devils. They are just average Americans that have been screwed over most of their life, and they are angry. Rightfully so, I might add! The issue is that their anger is misdirected. Some of this misplaced anger is due to culture and history, but to a larger degree, it's due to mass misinformation from the GOP and/or media.

I saw an interesting study a few years back that I think is relevant. In turns out people actually tend to admire the people that beat them, while holding disdain for the people they beat. In this context, a poor low middle class American might look at the low class Americans as the problem, while believing the 1% are great pillars of society.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

What part of the Constitution or the law allows for such a vote?

After the secession, what's next? Ethnic cleansing? or just re-education camps?

In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the States could lead to a successful secession.

Thus Madison affirms an extraconstitutional right to revolt against conditions of "intolerable oppression"; but if the case cannot be made (that such conditions exist), then he rejects secession—as a violation of the Constitution.


The second question seems a bit ridiculous. Though, I have not read all the comments in this thread, so I am not sure what you are talking about really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

 

[swamplizard]

Greetings,

In the unlikely event of one or more states seceding, the US military, including National Guard and Reserves would be mobilized, not unlike we saw during the Civil Rights movement in the South.

best regards,
swampy

 

[glenn1]

You didn't answer the first question. The second question and your own are immaterial if such a vote is not legal. I don't think it is legal, but you're welcome to cite chapter & verse of the Constitution & the law to support your argument. I'll just cite the outcome of the Civil War.

At least the secessionists back in 1860 had a rational if immoral economic reason for it, slavery. You offer none at all.

Cite the constitutional basis for abortion then. There won't be a constitutional basis for seccession if it happens, any more than there was for the American Revolution. And there's already ample precedent for the U.S. government recognizing the right of people to vote for independence/seccession whatever you want to call for it, most recently in the case of South Sudan.

So I'll ask you again, if this hypothetical came to pass then you'd completely disregard the democratically expressed will of a group of people and force them into compliance with the force of military arms? You cited the outcome of the Civil War, would you conduct a second one to keep a state in the Union? How many Texans or whatever would you be willing to kill to impose your will upon them? Hundreds of dead? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

 

[fskimospy]

Cite the constitutional basis for abortion then. There won't be a constitutional basis for seccession if it happens, any more than there was for the American Revolution. And there's already ample precedent for the U.S. government recognizing the right of people to vote for independence/seccession whatever you want to call for it, most recently in the case of South Sudan.

Constitutional basis is available in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Therefore, abortion rights are protected by the Constitution, end of story. Secession has been explicitly ruled unconstitutional in Texas v. White.

So I'll ask you again, if this hypothetical came to pass then you'd completely disregard the democratically expressed will of a group of people and force them into compliance with the force of military arms? You cited the outcome of the Civil War, would you conduct a second one to keep a state in the Union? How many Texans or whatever would you be willing to kill to impose your will upon them? Hundreds of dead? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

I personally would be perfectly fine if Texas and/or other states wanted to secede from the US. I see no particular reason to force the south and some midwestern states to stay with the US if they don't want to, although I imagine in the future they would be very sorry that they made that decision from an economic standpoint.

EDIT: To be clear though, if they attempted to secede in a violent manner then that would absolutely need to be put down. Accommodation of people's political desires is one thing, but giving in to what amounts to hostile takeover of US territory is another. If Texas ever wants to secede they better do so carefully or they will risk a repeat of what happened in the 1860's.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Cite the constitutional basis for abortion then. There won't be a constitutional basis for seccession if it happens, any more than there was for the American Revolution. And there's already ample precedent for the U.S. government recognizing the right of people to vote for independence/seccession whatever you want to call for it, most recently in the case of South Sudan.

So I'll ask you again, if this hypothetical came to pass then you'd completely disregard the democratically expressed will of a group of people and force them into compliance with the force of military arms? You cited the outcome of the Civil War, would you conduct a second one to keep a state in the Union? How many Texans or whatever would you be willing to kill to impose your will upon them? Hundreds of dead? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

What about the people that didn't want to secede?

 

[Jhhnn]

Cite the constitutional basis for abortion then. There won't be a constitutional basis for seccession if it happens, any more than there was for the American Revolution. And there's already ample precedent for the U.S. government recognizing the right of people to vote for independence/seccession whatever you want to call for it, most recently in the case of South Sudan.

So I'll ask you again, if this hypothetical came to pass then you'd completely disregard the democratically expressed will of a group of people and force them into compliance with the force of military arms? You cited the outcome of the Civil War, would you conduct a second one to keep a state in the Union? How many Texans or whatever would you be willing to kill to impose your will upon them? Hundreds of dead? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

Unlawful acts are a police matter as we've seen recently wrt the Bundy militia. What you advocate is more of the same at a statewide level. You should realize that you'll actually have to start shooting to secede just like 1860.

South Sudan? Please. They had a plebiscite as part of a peace agreement to end a civil war, something that hasn't existed in this country for 150 years.

You've already acknowledged that your desires are irrational & that you haven't thought it through any further than the end of your up in the air nose so you should figure that the rest of us won't see it any differently.

The new Civil War of secession will only commence as soon as y'all start shooting. It's a fool's move that I strongly discourage.

 

[PlanetJosh]

I hope it doesn't get as crazy like civil war crazy.. I'd much rather let them go and form their own country than have a second war.

If the latter could happen at least just a little I'd be ok with it.

 

[SP33Demon]

Unlawful acts are a police matter as we've seen recently wrt the Bundy militia. What you advocate is more of the same at a statewide level. You should realize that you'll actually have to start shooting to secede just like 1860.

South Sudan? Please. They had a plebiscite as part of a peace agreement to end a civil war, something that hasn't existed in this country for 150 years.

You've already acknowledged that your desires are irrational & that you haven't thought it through any further than the end of your up in the air nose so you should figure that the rest of us won't see it any differently.

The new Civil War of secession will only commence as soon as y'all start shooting. It's a fool's move that I strongly discourage.

And what if Texas is backed with nukes by China and Russia when they want to secede?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/vladimir-putin-texas-secession-119288

You know not what you speak of, no shooting will be necessary - only state legislation to leave. No president is going to physically force a state from leaving if they have a majority who wants to leave. Hell we couldn't stop Russia from annexing Crimea so if Russia backed Texas, we would definitely have to back down because Russia could easily obliterate our major cities. It's not worth starting a world war because your wife wants to leave you. Just let her go peacefully and hope that she's happy in her new life.

 

[Jhhnn]

And what if Texas is backed with nukes by China and Russia when they want to secede?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/vladimir-putin-texas-secession-119288

You know not what you speak of, no shooting will be necessary - only state legislation to leave. No president is going to physically force a state from leaving if they have a majority who wants to leave. Hell we couldn't stop Russia from annexing Crimea so if Russia backed Texas, we would definitely have to back down because Russia could easily obliterate our major cities. It's not worth starting a world war because your wife wants to leave you. Just let her go peacefully and hope that she's happy in her new life.

Believers in the noble lost cause of the Civil War are delusional, yes. You illustrate the point perfectly.

 

[Indus]

Good riddance and don't ask for federal aid when the next flood or hurricane hits. Tired of people from the south who want federal aid for everything but couldn't be less selfish when Hurricane Sandy hit the North East.

Ask your buddy Putin for help next time.

And the electoral map looks a lot better without Red Texas's 38 electoral votes. Liberals will rejoice the day Texas leaves.

 

[motsm]

“What you have is the kind of pre-emptive anger of a certain part of the white population that understands within the next decade or two, Anglo-WASP America — white Anglo-Saxon America — is going to be a minority in this country,”

If you poured out a bag of Jelly Beans and counted 49 strawberry, 19 apple, 17 cherry and 15 lemon, strawberry would still be the majority in my book. If I were to participate in their partisan math however, strawberry would be a plurality, not a minority.

 

[Zor Prime]

Liberals will rejoice the day Texas leaves.

This is assuming liberals aren't too bright.

Texas is more valuable than even California ...

There's no way the Feds would be like, "eh, OK, cya Texas," without an ensuing shit-storm.

There's a lot of valuable companies HQ'd in Texas. I would imagine they would see what sort of tax breaks they would get out of the breakaway state to see whether they want to remain there or not.

With so much space and even closer than Mexico the USA could then begin sending their jobs and work to ... Texas. It could work out in their favor.

 

[Screech]

This is assuming liberals aren't too bright.

Texas is more valuable than even California ...

yeah, its a bit different when you aren't looking at GSP per capita haha

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP

I mean, really, you looked at a list that said washington DC, delaware, and alaska have the highest GSP of any state and thought that made sense? haha

but that said, Texas is economically powerful and would not be let walk out the door.

 

[Zaap]

Yeah sure.
Is this '2nd Civil War' available for Playstation, Xbox, iOS and Android, alongside that "2nd Revolution"?