re: Serious Question about a national divorce

They won’t allow common sense, they want TOTAL CONTROL.

Divide & Conquer & take it all like they are doing in front of our eyes and under our feet.

They will only understand brute force, and I won’t give more details on what needs to happen, but common sense, patriotic Americans need to take a stand sooner than later. The longer this prolongs, the more ground they will capture and what’s worse is the more time that goes by, societies morality crumbles and the indoctrination of our youth is something that eventually will do us in for good if we don’t stand up
against the Tyranny.

No National divorce will take place without major physical force.

the 10th amendment prevents all of this shite

Better holler loud there rambo. Got to make sure everyone hears you from mommy's basement.

“The problem is that the divide isn’t regional with north vs south or east vs west. The divide is urban vs rural. Even in blue states where Republicans have no shot at a statewide election, once you get outside the major cities, the rest of the state is usually pretty conservative. We think Oregon and Washington are batshit crazy loons, but the blue parts make up maybe 1/4 of the overall territory. Its just that Portland and Seattle have so much higher population density that the rest of the state doesn’t have enough numbers to out vote the urban crazies. There’s no easy way to just peacefully divorce “

Then we starve them out. Without rural folk those loony lefties wouldn’t be able to live in their concrete shitholes.

Careful what you ask for brah!

quote:

---

What would be the ultimate catalyst for said divorce?

---

We’re past that point.
There is only one thing that is required for TEXIT: A majority vote to do so by the people of Texas.

quote:

---

Czech Republic and Slovakia did it.

---

In a situation that is nothing like the current United States.

quote:

---

Serious Question about a national divorce

---

Not possible.

Possibilities:
1. Stay together for the kids
2. Murder that crazy schizo bitch and bury her in the back yard when she comes at you with a knife
3. Murder / suicide

We’ll have to pick soon.

quote:

---

It would be great if we could do this in a way that didn't end in a bloodbath.

But that's not how this will play out.

---

I always appreciate this issue being raised; it offers an opportunity for discussion.

The question--"Will the federal government use military force to stop TEXIT?"--is asked and answered at every TEXIT event and during every TEXIT-related media interview.

It seems appropriate to re-post the Texas Nationalist Movement's answer to that query here.

quote:

---

One cannot reasonably assume that the policy of the federal government from the mid-19th century would be the policy of the federal government two decades into the 21st. There is no current federal policy regarding a State leaving the Union. However, there is current federal policy regarding states and territories leaving currently established political and economic institutions. Those policies involve neutrality or the use of military action in support of self-determination.

Imagine the scenario. Fifteen million Texans have gone to the polls and voted in a free, fair, and open referendum, conducted under the laws of the State of Texas, and have chosen, by a majority vote, to leave the Union and assert Texas’ status as a free and independent self-governing nation-state. Historically, around the world, voter turnout for independence referenda is 85 to 90 percent. Taking the low end, that would mean that 12.75 million Texans would cast their vote in the referendum. Figuring the lowest possible threshold for an independence victory, approximately 6.4 million Texans would vote in favor of independence.

If the federal government opts for a military solution, how would it handle the 6.4 million Texans who voted in favor of independence? Prison? Extermination? What would the justification be for any actions taken against Texans whose sole crime was voting for self-determination in a fair, free, and open referendum? When exactly would this military intervention occur? Would they do it before a vote on Texit to prevent the people having their say? Would they wait until after the results of the vote were tallied and the results announced in favor of independence? Or would they wait until after Texas began the process of extracting itself from the federal system and began asserting its role as a nation among nations?

Under close scrutiny, it becomes apparent that the federal government will not move to stop Texit once it’s been decided by the people of Texas and they most certainly won’t use the military. It’s just too impractical.

First, there would be little to no public support for military action against Texans who voted to leave the Union. A 2011 IBOPE Zogby poll found that 43 percent of respondents believed that States had justification for leaving the Union. For those who consider themselves conservatives, that number jumps to 65 percent. Military action against Texas, in the absence of some morally reprehensible act, would require a strong consensus from the remaining States and the people in those States. The strong liberal States would likely fall on the side of letting Texas go. The strong conservative States would be split on the issue but would largely be supportive of the basic principle of self-government. With numbers like these, a consensus seems implausible.

The use of military force would bring a swift condemnation from the international community and would damage international relations for years to come. Some countries would likely impose economic sanctions on the United States until the civilian government of Texas was restored and the results of the independence vote respected. It would also cause a tectonic shift in international policy related to the support of democratic institutions, essentially delegitimizing any efforts made by the United States past, present, and future.

You would have to believe that troops would obey an order to fire on millions of Texas civilians and their leaders whose only crime was invoking their right of self-government. With approximately 170,000 Texans serving in the United States armed forces, it would be difficult to get compliance. The ultimate irony is that any Texan in the United States military who took up arms against the lawfully elected government of Texas or its citizens would be guilty of treason under Article 1 Section 22 of the Texas Constitution.

A 2009 poll from the aforementioned Zogby showed a large number of military personnel and their families believed that States had an absolute right to leave the Union. As published in Forbes, “42% of members of the armed forces and 41% of people who have a family member active in the armed forces agree secession is a right…” The fact that 42 percent view it as a right carries weight. It means they view it as a fundamental freedom, like the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion. Just as it is unlikely that the military would act against those rights when exercised by the civilian population, it is equally unlikely that they would act against Texit.

The most likely scenario, if an order of this nature was given, would be outright disobedience from the highest levels of the military all the way down to the enlisted ranks by at least 42 percent of the military, if not all. If some component of the military followed through on the order, it would likely trigger a domino effect where other States, outraged by the disregard for the political will of the people of Texas, would skip to the end of the process and unilaterally declare independence. Texas might be the first to leave but, if the federal government used the military to suppress the result, it certainly would not be the last.

---

quote:

---

First, there would be little to no public support for military action against Texans who voted to leave the Union.

---

A massive assumption.

quote:

---

What would the justification be for any actions taken against Texans whose sole crime was voting for self-determination in a fair, free, and open referendum?

---

Because according to the USG, unilateral secession isn't constitutional.

quote:

---

If the federal government opts for a military solution, how would it handle the 6.4 million Texans who voted in favor of independence?

---

In this scenario, they are imagining another 6 million Texans voting against leaving? This is the naivety I was referring to earlier. Before they consider what the USG will do, shouldn't they consider what they themselves should do in a situation where there are very slim margins? Because, again, they aren't considering the consequences of self-government.

quote:

---

The use of military force would bring a swift condemnation from the international community and would damage international relations for years to come. Some countries would likely impose economic sanctions on the United States until the civilian government of Texas was restored and the results of the independence vote respected. It would also cause a tectonic shift in international policy related to the support of democratic institutions, essentially delegitimizing any efforts made by the United States past, present, and future.

---

What nations could effectively sanction the USG? And the USG is powerful enough to avoid 'delegitimization' completely. In those terms, it barely suffered anything from the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

quote:

---

It means they view it as a fundamental freedom, like the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion.

---

Except those right enumerated directly in the Constitution. Is secession directly mentioned in the US Constitution?

quote:

---

The most likely scenario, if an order of this nature was given, would be outright disobedience from the highest levels of the military all the way down to the enlisted ranks by at least 42 percent of the military

---

Again, naivety.