It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The U.S. Will See Secession In the Coming Years

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
No.

The states that do will have to pay back their portion of the national debt. That'll never happen.




posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   


My guess... the first step would be to blend the United States, Canada and Mexico a la European Union.
a reply to: eluryh22

They are already working on that...



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I admit your taking the 'high road' on not politicizing the truth of these different views on how a country should be run and which priorities it takes creates a good thread.

However, there are those who, understandably, feel the price in blood and sacrifice already paid demands continued effort to make this union succeed otherwise that blood and sacrifice will have been in vain.

I rebut that those previous efforts weren't in vain. They gave us a pretty damn good run. The best ever. Anywhere.

Which will cost the more in sacrifice and blood? Fighting to maintain the Union or ending it? From where I sit, the agreement to disagree is the least worst scenario. Lacking that, either way is going to be messy.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I wish Texas would secede like they keep threatening to do. Perhaps then we could charge them a healthy fee to cross the border to come and ski and gamble here in the "Land of Enchantment" and Colorado could institute a tariff on all the "pot" tourist from Texas.



Ain't gonna happen...to much economic commerce between states not to mention the federal aid states receive.

wallethub.com...
edit on 18-11-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I don't see it happening.

What I think *should* happen is a voluntary dissolution of the USA as we know it -- and create several countries out of what is now the USA. There would be maybe 5-8 countries based on region, loosely affiliated in the same way the EU is. Trade/currency and and defense treaties like NATO.

I think we'd see more responsive and responsible government that way. Someone in Florida wouldn't be telling someone in Alaska how to manage their wildlife. The needs of someone in NYC are not anywhere close to those of someone in rural Nebraska.

Lets have government work for the people it represents instead of trying to be a jack of all trades, an average of none. Let's face it, the USA is to sprawling and diverse to represent us all in a meaningful and responsive manner.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildb



My guess... the first step would be to blend the United States, Canada and Mexico a la European Union.
a reply to: eluryh22

They are already working on that...


Sadly, this is true. NAFTA and all that.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus




Whether the Authoritarians in Washington DC will allow the states to secede is another question, but I for one look forward to seeing the U.S. break up and split into smaller, self-governing regions.


This is a major part of the problem. Over the years, the States have ceded their power to the federal government, not retaining the power as it was intended. The fed's have grown into a monstrosity that controls our entire lives. We let that happen.

If you disagree, look at the current Syrian refugee debacle. Governor's and state Legislatures can scream they will not take any refugees in their state's, but most likely the fed's will win. How is that? The fed's have too much power.

The "authoritarians" in D.C. should have no say in whether a state or multiple states decide to leave the union. That decision should be up to the state's.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   

What I think *should* happen is a voluntary dissolution of the USA as we know it -- and create several countries out of what is now the USA. There would be maybe 5-8 countries based on region, loosely affiliated in the same way the EU is. Trade/currency and and defense treaties like NATO.


1. What do you think the original intent of this nation and its governance was? We were supposed to have 13 of those originally. Look up Articles of Confederation. In the end, they didn't work.

2. What do you think secession is ... if not a peaceful dissolution. The Southern states wanted to simply go. The Union wouldn't let them out. Now, we can argue about the ethics of whether or not they should have been let go given slavery ... but at the very base, they simply sought to withdraw.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I don't see it happening.

What I think *should* happen is a voluntary dissolution of the USA as we know it -- and create several countries out of what is now the USA. There would be maybe 5-8 countries based on region, loosely affiliated in the same way the EU is. Trade/currency and and defense treaties like NATO.

I think we'd see more responsive and responsible government that way. Someone in Florida wouldn't be telling someone in Alaska how to manage their wildlife. The needs of someone in NYC are not anywhere close to those of someone in rural Nebraska.

Lets have government work for the people it represents instead of trying to be a jack of all trades, an average of none. Let's face it, the USA is to sprawling and diverse to represent us all in a meaningful and responsive manner.

I could agree to that, especially if us Socialists got to pick an area in the South for our city-state, particularly with access to the ocean. I hate cold weather & it's hard to create a real hippie-driven socialist utopia without warm weather, beaches, and tropical fruit.

The breakup wouldn't have to be violent or negative. People could just agree to disagree & go their own ways. We could even have "special relationships" with our former countrymen's new countries. That way, socialists wouldn't have to worry about capitalists hindering our plans & capitalists wouldn't have to worry about socialists hindering their plans. Win-win, right?



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

When the Union was first formed it was the belief of the states that they were free to leave if they felt the need or desire. Sadly, Lincoln and the the Feds destroyed that by not allowing the South to leave during the first civil war. Now it is practically assumed that it would be war, but that was not how it was intended.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I don't see it happening.

What I think *should* happen is a voluntary dissolution of the USA as we know it -- and create several countries out of what is now the USA. There would be maybe 5-8 countries based on region, loosely affiliated in the same way the EU is. Trade/currency and and defense treaties like NATO.

I think we'd see more responsive and responsible government that way. Someone in Florida wouldn't be telling someone in Alaska how to manage their wildlife. The needs of someone in NYC are not anywhere close to those of someone in rural Nebraska.

Lets have government work for the people it represents instead of trying to be a jack of all trades, an average of none. Let's face it, the USA is to sprawling and diverse to represent us all in a meaningful and responsive manner.

I could agree to that, especially if us Socialists got to pick an area in the South for our city-state, particularly with access to the ocean. I hate cold weather & it's hard to create a real hippie-driven socialist utopia without warm weather, beaches, and tropical fruit.

The breakup wouldn't have to be violent or negative. People could just agree to disagree & go their own ways. We could even have "special relationships" with our former countrymen's new countries. That way, socialists wouldn't have to worry about capitalists hindering our plans & capitalists wouldn't have to worry about socialists hindering their plans. Win-win, right?


This is exactly what I envision. You are a good human who honestly believes in his Socialist ideals, but that is not how I want to live. Why should we have to fight when we can just agree to go our separate ways in peace and not force our incompatible lifestyles on each other?



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: retiredTxn

The states can actually take back their rights in productive ways. For example, even though Congress will never impose term limits on themselves, the states can choose to do so on their individual senators and congress people, should the people of the state, for example, believe that it was never intended for our representation in Congress to be a lifelong career or profession with great perqs, pay, benefits, and the entrenchment of corruption. But the states don't do that. Instead they bicker and flex their muscles and get us nowhere.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

There is no where in the constitution to secede from the United States. You would have to declare war and forcibly remove yourself.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiteDawn
a reply to: Metallicus

There is no where in the constitution to secede from the United States. You would have to declare war and forcibly remove yourself.


True. But if multiple states or areas bring it up at the same time, would not the fed's have to address the situation before it gets out of hand? Maybe that would spark a national conversation on the matter.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

If the states would actually do something like that. Nobody wants to be the first though. Especially if other states aren't willing to do the same. Just more bickering and acting like small children.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I don't see it happening.

What I think *should* happen is a voluntary dissolution of the USA as we know it -- and create several countries out of what is now the USA. There would be maybe 5-8 countries based on region, loosely affiliated in the same way the EU is. Trade/currency and and defense treaties like NATO.

I think we'd see more responsive and responsible government that way. Someone in Florida wouldn't be telling someone in Alaska how to manage their wildlife. The needs of someone in NYC are not anywhere close to those of someone in rural Nebraska.

Lets have government work for the people it represents instead of trying to be a jack of all trades, an average of none. Let's face it, the USA is to sprawling and diverse to represent us all in a meaningful and responsive manner.

I could agree to that, especially if us Socialists got to pick an area in the South for our city-state, particularly with access to the ocean. I hate cold weather & it's hard to create a real hippie-driven socialist utopia without warm weather, beaches, and tropical fruit.

The breakup wouldn't have to be violent or negative. People could just agree to disagree & go their own ways. We could even have "special relationships" with our former countrymen's new countries. That way, socialists wouldn't have to worry about capitalists hindering our plans & capitalists wouldn't have to worry about socialists hindering their plans. Win-win, right?


This is exactly what I envision. You are a good human who honestly believes in his Socialist ideals, but that is not how I want to live. Why should we have to fight when we can just agree to go our separate ways in peace and not force our incompatible lifestyles on each other?

I agree. Just don't change your mind & invade us, ok? lol I'd rather not have to allocate our money towards too much defense spending. Unless it's defense against diseases and a possible Klingon invasion.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Well if it happens as a person from the south living on the West Coast, the south would be F'ed. Didn't realize how bad things are there until I left. The school systems are awful, mass unemployment, generational poverty and a very bad health care system. Southerners tend to die younger than the rest of the country. The first civil war destroyed the south and it has never recovered, they would be decimated with succession. A lot of people live on government money but lie about it point fingers at others. Almost everyone I knew was on government assistance of some kind. Living on West Coast has been very different. Better schools, better health care, less government assistance (although its prevalent not as much as the south) and better jobs. When I think about the states that would want to secede already hanging on by a thread, it would be not only a stupid choice but a 3rd world chose. They would end up living in 3rd world conditions. So its not going to happen, politicians know how bad things are even if the people hide their heads in the dirt.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: retiredTxn

That is a big what if. Never going to happen. it would be a declaration of war and treason.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Here is the problem, even in states with small populations, you have folks on both sides. In Georgia, am pretty much sure rural Georgia would vote to secede, but then you have Atlanta with a large population, these differences could be devastating, even in small states. So you would have a civil war within the state, before they decided which faction they would join. I am in Missouri, and that thought here scares the hell out of me, will be shooting my own kin.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiteDawn
a reply to: Metallicus

There is no where in the constitution to secede from the United States. You would have to declare war and forcibly remove yourself.


There is the 10th Amendment. So where is it in the COTUS that the government must compel states to stay in the union if they are unwilling? Otherwise, that is a power not specifically designated to the government and thus reserved to the states.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join