Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: August 31, 2025, 5:16 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Soft secession?
#1
Soft secession?
States seceding from the Union has become a popular talking point in recent years. Republicans speak of a "National Divorce" in which the red states secede and become Republican rule. It has been noted that blue states are net positive in that they pay in more to the federal government than they receive in services from the federal government, whereas red states are often net negative. The idea of a soft secession in which the blue states simply stop paying to the federal government, since they have the money to replace the services provided by the federal government. Pakman talks about some of the complications, but what do you think? Is this doable? If it's doable, is it advisable?



[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#2
RE: Soft secession?
Perhaps the United States can be reinvented in the style of the European Union. This means that states interested in joining and remaining members must meet and maintain certain standards. Standards for education, the environment, healthcare, gun ownership, and similar.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
Reply
#3
RE: Soft secession?
Nope, 100%
Cetero censeo religionem delendam esse
Reply
#4
RE: Soft secession?
(Yesterday at 10:27 am)Angrboda Wrote: States seceding from the Union has become a popular talking point in recent years.  Republicans speak of a "National Divorce" in which the red states secede and become Republican rule.  It has been noted that blue states are net positive in that they pay in more to the federal government than they receive in services from the federal government, whereas red states are often net negative.  The idea of a soft secession in which the blue states simply stop paying to the federal government, since they have the money to replace the services provided by the federal government.  Pakman talks about some of the complications, but what do you think?  Is this doable?  If it's doable, is it advisable?




It’s illegal, which kind of makes ‘doable’ and ‘advisable’ moot.

Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Reply
#5
RE: Soft secession?
This country isn't drawing the line at illegal with regard to Trump. Why should that be a red line?
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#6
RE: Soft secession?
(Yesterday at 12:42 pm)Angrboda Wrote: This country isn't drawing the line at illegal with regard to Trump.  Why should that be a red line?

Fair point, but think the chief objection (outside legality) is that Trump isn’t likely to let those blue state dollars get away. He likes to play soldier, so he’s probably not above taking them by force.

Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Reply
#7
RE: Soft secession?
(Yesterday at 12:58 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:
(Yesterday at 12:42 pm)Angrboda Wrote: This country isn't drawing the line at illegal with regard to Trump.  Why should that be a red line?

Fair point, but think the chief objection (outside legality) is that Trump isn’t likely to let those blue state dollars get away. He likes to play soldier, so he’s probably not above taking them by force.

Boru





He would reap as he sows.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
Reply
#8
RE: Soft secession?
(Yesterday at 1:08 pm)Ravenshire Wrote:
(Yesterday at 12:58 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Fair point, but think the chief objection (outside legality) is that Trump isn’t likely to let those blue state dollars get away. He likes to play soldier, so he’s probably not above taking them by force.

Boru





He would reap as he sows.

Why? He never has before.

Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Reply
#9
RE: Soft secession?
(Yesterday at 12:38 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:
(Yesterday at 10:27 am)Angrboda Wrote: States seceding from the Union has become a popular talking point in recent years.  Republicans speak of a "National Divorce" in which the red states secede and become Republican rule.  It has been noted that blue states are net positive in that they pay in more to the federal government than they receive in services from the federal government, whereas red states are often net negative.  The idea of a soft secession in which the blue states simply stop paying to the federal government, since they have the money to replace the services provided by the federal government.  Pakman talks about some of the complications, but what do you think?  Is this doable?  If it's doable, is it advisable?




It’s illegal, which kind of makes ‘doable’ and ‘advisable’ moot.

Boru

It would require a constitutional amendment. There's no reason that couldn't happen if there was enough support for it amongst the states.

Though I don't Balkanization is much of an answer. What's to prevent further Balkanization of smaller political subdivisions? What do the red hats in California do when they find themselves living in (in their view) the glorious Soviet workers paradise of Californiastan?
Reply
#10
RE: Soft secession?
(Yesterday at 2:28 pm)Jackalope Wrote:
(Yesterday at 12:38 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: It’s illegal, which kind of makes ‘doable’ and ‘advisable’ moot.

Boru

It would require a constitutional amendment.  There's no reason that couldn't happen if there was enough support for it amongst the states.

Though I don't Balkanization is much of an answer.  What's to prevent further Balkanization of smaller political subdivisions?  What do the red hats in California do when they find themselves living in (in their view) the glorious Soviet workers paradise of Californiastan?

(Bold mine)

If they’re caught sneaking across the border into Oregon, they could be sent to Beaver Buchenwald.

Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)