- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
Ron Paul 2016
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 38,741 comments
- 1,663,217 views
- 86,257
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
The fact that states who voted both ways have racked up sufficient numbers in these petitions to merit a White House response should be taken either as an indicator that it wasn't just people who "lost" that are complaining, or that whomever won the entire USA lost.
They're doing what the Declaration suggests. Though I doubt the intention is to secede but to draw the last 20 years of administrations (both sides) ignoring the Bill of Rights into sharp attention. I can count five of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution - your inalienable rights - that have been broken by administrations in the last 20 years...
- 21,190
- United States
- nk4e
I don't think Ron Paul will run again. Probably for a Congressional position but not Presidential.
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
Sure let's break up the USA.
That way, we can have interstate-war.
I'll move for sure if all 50 break up. I dont want to be a Illinoisian.
Rand Paul 2016
That way, we can have interstate-war.
I'll move for sure if all 50 break up. I dont want to be a Illinoisian.
Rand Paul 2016
- 21,190
- United States
- nk4e
Connecticut hit 430 signatures. A current petition for all states wanting to separate from the union, must pay their debt before removing themselves from the union.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...-national-debt-they-can-secede-union/St0y9qBM
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...-national-debt-they-can-secede-union/St0y9qBM
Last edited:
- 86,257
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
You seem to have missed the second option there.
Incidentally, if all the states hit the required 25,000 signatures, you'd have 1.25m signatures. That's less than the difference between the two status quo candidates by some margin - and about the same as the third place candidate managed. Fun with numbers.
Apparently last Tuesday's election ended up retaining the status quo - you know, that thing where half of your fundamental citizen's rights under your own Constitution have been broken in the last 20 years (aren't you mad about this? At all?) - and would have done even if the other guys won. Apparently some folk have chosen not to sit back and say "Oh well", but to highlight this with another route - one open to them in the provisions of the Constitution and in fact expected of them by the document upon which the whole concept of your nation is based.
If that's not making to work things better, what is?
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
"Abridged list includes no more upkeep for highways, nor for interstates or bridges, no federally funded law enforcement or fire department, no public libraries, no phone lines, no cable television, no cell phone towers, no power grids, no water lines, no mail services, no paramedics, no hospitals which accept Medicare/Medicaid funding, no ATF, FBI, DOJ, SWAT, or Department of Homeland Security, no Border Guard, National Guard, Coast Guard, Corps of Engineers, or WITSEC."
None of the states can fund themselves for a long period of time.
None of the states can fund themselves for a long period of time.
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
I find that hard to believe. Canada has a smaller population than California and is massive in terms of land area. Individual states would be OK I reckon. Keep into mind that people would no longer be paying into the US federal government, and a lot of that tax revenue would go to the hypothetical independent state.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Some we can live without, some are only government funded to make up for government interference, and some receive the majority from local funds or individual citizens.
And some could be funded after citizens have between 15% and 35% of their salaries back in their pocket for states/locals to tax.
And many of those are only funded by federal dollars via unconstitutional means.
And some could be funded after citizens have between 15% and 35% of their salaries back in their pocket for states/locals to tax.
And many of those are only funded by federal dollars via unconstitutional means.
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
Hawaii could not support itself.
as a country.
The oil and grain states could, but for how long
as a country.
The oil and grain states could, but for how long
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Nope, never. It has been a state since Asians in canoes found it.
Shh, we just let the white people think it started in 1959.
And it has zero natural resources. None, nada, zilch. That is why there are no tropical island nations...anywhere.
Out of curiosity, how do you think places like Europe, where they have countries with less land mass and resources than many states do it?
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
It could support itself if it had nothing.
It has power grids to pay for, it would have to negotiate to get gas, etc.
How would they stop invaders from say, China, or Japan?
- 40,661
Which, again, it isn't as if Hawaii is the only tropical island in the world.
Pretty sure it's not 1941 anymore, so I'm pretty doubtful the people of Hawaii would have to worry about being invaded by the Japanese whether they were part of the U.S. or not.
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
Danoff
Premium
- 33,701
- Mile High City
Um.... that'd be California, Texas and New Mexico. Any one of them has enough military power to take Mexico rather than the other way around.
Russia could do that now and I think it would take us a few months to realize it.
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
Once again, Canada somehow manages to do all of these things with a population similar to Texas'. Take a look at this and tell me that the states themselves couldn't afford it.
As for China, do you honestly believe the rest of the USA is going to let the Chinese military march on Texas? Get real. As for Mexico, the state of Texas or California would be just fine.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Like before 1959? When do you think mass usage of electricity began?
It wouldn't happen anytime soon, and they could build their own military, like any small nation.
California has one of the top ten largest economies in the world. Mexico is has a large tourism market and tons of internal fighting. You think that could happen?
In fact, most US states have larger economies than many countries who don't have these issues you think would happen. I'd be more concerned about the states fighting each other over territorial boundaries and shared resources.
I'm still curious how you think countries in other parts of the world pull it off, being smaller in land mass and resources than many states.
- 8,420
- Rockay City
Tourism, trade, human resources/services, banking, friendly tax laws so large corporations want to have an office there and you can shave off some of their profits. Much like the Dutch have been doing for ages.
Why would they? But let's assume for the argument they have a reason, there's treaties. Many European countries have no military force of great power by themselves, but together...
- 4,543
- Bay Area, CA
- Zenith113
No secondary sources. Lots of claims and lots of "probably this because I said so." I'm not even sure if his basic facts are correct. He convinces me that he's trying to spin facts to garner support for his beliefs and agenda. I quickly dismissed his opinions as I do with the opinions of most reporters and journalists and took nothing from that video.
Perhaps if we wish to spend less on our military, we could start by using our military to bomb and shoot things less.
People act like the military is some outside agenda that hogs up money out of greed instead of necessity. We elected the people who approve of the budget. We elected the people who decide to send munitions across the globe. We voice our opinions that the latest violation of human rights (whether it be child soldiers in Uganda or military regimes in the Arab Spring) must be solved with the application of deadly force.
Edit: If the American people cared so much about spending less on the military, maybe they wouldn't have voted Barack Drone Strike Obama into office again. Of course this requires the American people to be aware of the actions taken by the administration... but they seem to be more interested in out of context quips than that...
Perhaps if we wish to spend less on our military, we could start by using our military to bomb and shoot things less.
People act like the military is some outside agenda that hogs up money out of greed instead of necessity. We elected the people who approve of the budget. We elected the people who decide to send munitions across the globe. We voice our opinions that the latest violation of human rights (whether it be child soldiers in Uganda or military regimes in the Arab Spring) must be solved with the application of deadly force.
Edit: If the American people cared so much about spending less on the military, maybe they wouldn't have voted Barack Drone Strike Obama into office again. Of course this requires the American people to be aware of the actions taken by the administration... but they seem to be more interested in out of context quips than that...
Last edited:
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Well, with the exception of the black box funds, it is all public record and easily checked.
But even the so-called black box fund can be checked:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/budget_bib_fy2011.pdf
Homeland Security's budget report. $43 billion in discretionary (they don't get told what to do with it) funds (PDF page 10, report numbered page 3). That is likely where he pulled that number from. DHS is over CIA, FBI, NSA, TSA etc.
And even Wiki shows between $1 trillion and $1.4 trillion requested for 2012 by the Department of Defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_breakdown_for_2012
And finally, the State Department does request $8.7 billion in "extraordinary, temporary costs for Iraq, Afghsnistan, and Pakistan,"as well as $47 billion for everything else, and they themselves describe aligning their spending with DoD in "frontline states."
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/156215.pdf
So, looking at these numbers, and remembering that he figured in a lot of "that will most likely go up, it always does" his $1.6 trillion of a $3 trillion budget isn't far off. His claim is that it is a bit over half of the budget, but even the publicly available official numbers come in to less than $0.2 trillion off what he said. And in a $3 trillion budget, I'm betting $200 billion can be lost track of pretty easily.
So, the short answer is: Those numbers are fairly close.
And that is the secret to the whole back and forth about and budgets and whatnot. Taxing the rich won't come close, cutting entitlements barely scratches the surface, and doing both only makes a dent. And neither side seriously wants to discuss cutting this war spending.
Everyone remembers the third debate onwho gets to bomb Iran foreign policy, right? They could have been singing a duet.
But even the so-called black box fund can be checked:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/budget_bib_fy2011.pdf
Homeland Security's budget report. $43 billion in discretionary (they don't get told what to do with it) funds (PDF page 10, report numbered page 3). That is likely where he pulled that number from. DHS is over CIA, FBI, NSA, TSA etc.
And even Wiki shows between $1 trillion and $1.4 trillion requested for 2012 by the Department of Defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_breakdown_for_2012
And finally, the State Department does request $8.7 billion in "extraordinary, temporary costs for Iraq, Afghsnistan, and Pakistan,"as well as $47 billion for everything else, and they themselves describe aligning their spending with DoD in "frontline states."
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/156215.pdf
So, looking at these numbers, and remembering that he figured in a lot of "that will most likely go up, it always does" his $1.6 trillion of a $3 trillion budget isn't far off. His claim is that it is a bit over half of the budget, but even the publicly available official numbers come in to less than $0.2 trillion off what he said. And in a $3 trillion budget, I'm betting $200 billion can be lost track of pretty easily.
So, the short answer is: Those numbers are fairly close.
And that is the secret to the whole back and forth about and budgets and whatnot. Taxing the rich won't come close, cutting entitlements barely scratches the surface, and doing both only makes a dent. And neither side seriously wants to discuss cutting this war spending.
Everyone remembers the third debate on
