The Reality of State Secession

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

I thought fishing in Texas was done with ordnance? 

The first rule about Texas' hunting methods is: We don't talk about Texas' hunting methods.

[Ironhold]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The first rule about Texas' hunting methods is: We don't talk about Texas' hunting methods.

Sadly, a lot of people have the mindset of "It's legal as long as the warden doesn't catch us."

[Grunt]

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Look, I pray I’m wrong here. I’m just not naive to the technology of the Army. Your AR-15 will do absolutely nothing if they drop the bomb on Dallas. 

You're absolutely wrong.  Why?  Because they can't drop the bomb on Dallas.   Asymmetric warfare is very difficult for organized armies and that is compounded when both sides are domestic.  The military has been chess boarding this for decades.   Asymmetric warfare is hard enough to win in foreign lands.  It doesn't matter if you have the best tech. That's why we've had issues in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, etc.  It's easy for us to go in there and stomp the government or factions we are after.  However, the voids are soon filled by others.  That's why we rarely last in those places.   We spent 20 years stomping muddles in the Taliban.  Guess who runs Afghanistan now?

The US is no different.  First, you're asking Soldiers from the US to whack citizens from the US.  Even with an incredible propaganda campaign, it's not sustainable.  What happens when you drop the bomb on Dallas?  What happens to everyone in the military who have relatives in Dallas?  What happens to the rest of Texas?  Are Texans going to say "yep, they deserved it" and sit back, or have you just radicalized more people across the country?   We don't need to guess, we've seen it play out time and time again in foreign countries.  It's multiplied domestically.   

Like I said, it's been chess boarded constantly.   They actually train for it in Robin Sage and other exercises.  I'm certainly not naive to the technology of the army.   The army would have a very difficult time stomping an insurrection of any size, regardless the weapons they used.

[Grunt]

Dupalicious

Edited July 23, 2022 by Grunt

[LDSGator]

Just now, Grunt said:

You're absolutely wrong.  Why?  Because they can't drop the bomb on Dallas.   Asymmetric warfare is very difficult for organized armies and that is compounded when both sides are domestic.  The military has been chess boarding this for decades.   Asymmetric warfare is hard enough to win in foreign lands.  It doesn't matter if you have the best tech. That's why we've had issues in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, etc.  It's easy for us to go in there and stomp the government or factions we are after.  However, the voids are soon filled by others.  That's why we rarely last in those places.   We spent 20 years stomping muddles in the Taliban.  Guess who runs Afghanistan now?

The US is no different.  First, you're asking Soldiers from the US to whack citizens from the US.  Even with an incredible propaganda campaign, it's not sustainable.  What happens when you drop the bomb on Dallas?  What happens to everyone in the military who have relatives in Dallas?  What happens to the rest of Texas?  Are Texans going to say "yep, they deserved it" and sit back, or have you just radicalized more people across the country?   We don't need to guess, we've seen it play out time and time again in foreign countries.  It's multiplied domestically.   

Like I said, it's been chess boarded constantly.   They actually train for it in Robin Sage and other exercises.  I'm certainly not naive to the technology of the army.   The army would have a very difficult time stomping an insurrection of any size, regardless the weapons they used.

Great. You are the expert here, not me. I have no military experience at all. Never claimed otherwise. 
 

I still remain extremely skeptical that the an armed insurrection would do anything substantial against the US government. I think I hit the nail on the head when I said this is the middle aged, out of shape guy trying to take on Mike Tyson. 
 

Again though, I hope it never ever gets there. 

[Grunt]

5 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Great. You are the expert here, not me. I have no military experience at all. Never claimed otherwise. 
 

I still remain extremely skeptical that the an armed insurrection would do anything substantial against the US government. I think I hit the nail on the head when I said this is the middle aged, out of shape guy trying to take on Mike Tyson. 
 

Again though, I hope it never ever gets there. 

I'm hardly an expert.  The biggest factor you seem to be missing is the US military isn't the US government, and the US military can't do anything to the populace.  

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

I'm hardly an expert.  The biggest factor you seem to be missing is the US military isn't the US government, and the US military can't do anything to the populace.  

I’m also remembering that the last rebellion here was put down here relatively easily. The south got annihilated. So, if Civil War 2.0 breaks out, why won’t the same thing happen? 

[Grunt]

7 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I’m also remembering that the last rebellion here was put down here relatively easily. The south got annihilated. So, if Civil War 2.0 breaks out, why won’t the same thing happen? 

If it breaks out as a succession, it very well could end with one side winning.  That isn't what we're discussing, though.  With a succession you have 2 standing armies slugging it out.  The US Army fighting citizens with ARs wouldn't be the battle.  You'd have, to use the same example, the northern army fighting the southern army and both sides would have the modern tech and capabilities that came with their territories.

An insurrection, where the discussion of armed civilians comes more into play and what this discussion was about when I entered, is people from the block going against the government.  To use your example, what do you think would happen if the US Government nuked a domestic city?  What do you think the average military member's reaction would be?  What would happen if the US used their advanced firepower in Miami?  What percentage of Soldiers called to carry out that strike would participate?  Would it endear the locals and state to the government?  Would it cause locals to back down, or join the cause?  Would escalation cause more Soldiers to turn their guns on their neighbors, or back down?   

It doesn't matter how good the Army's firepower is if Soldiers won't wield it and if wielding it turns more people against the government.  Soldiers see themselves as protectors of freedom and America.  They don't seem themselves as the armed thugs of politicians.  

Like I said, this gets chess boarded at high levels regularly.  It's not a great outcome for politicians.  Heck, we saw what would happen in many places on January 6th.  Police/Soldiers opening the doors and welcoming them in.

[LDSGator]

l

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

If it breaks out as a succession, it very well could end with one side winning.  That isn't what we're discussing, though.  With a succession you have 2 standing armies slugging it out.  The US Army fighting citizens with ARs wouldn't be the battle.  You'd have, to use the same example, the northern army fighting the southern army and both sides would have the modern tech and capabilities that came with their territories.

An insurrection, where the discussion of armed civilians comes more into play and what this discussion was about when I entered, is people from the block going against the government.  To use your example, what do you think would happen if the US Government nuked a domestic city?  What do you think the average military member's reaction would be?  What would happen if the US used their advanced firepower in Miami?  What percentage of Soldiers called to carry out that strike would participate?  Would it endear the locals and state to the government?  Would it cause locals to back down, or join the cause?  Would escalation cause more Soldiers to turn their guns on their neighbors, or back down?   

It doesn't matter how good the Army's firepower is if Soldiers won't wield it and if wielding it turns more people against the government.  Soldiers see themselves as protectors of freedom and America.  They don't seem themselves as the armed thugs of politicians.  

Like I said, this gets chess boarded at high levels regularly.  It's not a great outcome for politicians.  Heck, we saw what would happen in many places on January 6th.  Police/Soldiers opening the doors and welcoming them in.

We see it vastly differently, that’s for sure. 
 

What we are hopefully unified on is the prayer that we never get there. 

[Grunt]

5 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

l

We see it vastly differently, that’s for sure. 
 

What we are hopefully unified on is the prayer that we never get there. 

We may see it differently, but I live it.  I like to think I have a clearer picture and more facts.  My position isn't emotional, it's derived from years of experience home and abroad.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Ironhold said:

Sadly, a lot of people have the mindset of "It's legal as long as the warden doesn't catch us."

You mean, it's not?

Kidding!!!

[Carborendum]

So, what do people think of Article V?

[Grunt]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, what do people think of Article V?

Having one?   Nope nope nope

[NeuroTypical]

I'd love to have a constitutional convention.  It would be a perfect time to have one.  Because the CC runs off of 75% of the states agreeing, not by population.  We're around 50/50 red v blue these days.  So no matter what someone wants to do, they'll need to convince half of the other team to ratify it. 

Please have one quickly, and do the following:

- Term limits on all federal offices.
- Forced balance budget, no more deficits.

I think the first one is totally doable, the 2nd one possible.   If they wanna define gender, or cap govt salaries, or simplify the tax code to stop endless tinkering for political reasons, or cut federal power in various ways while they're at it, I wouldn't mind.

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by NeuroTypical

[Still_Small_Voice]

11 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'd love to have a constitutional convention.  It would be a perfect time to have one.  Because the Constitutional Convention runs off of 75% of the states agreeing, not by population.  We're around 50/50 red versus blue these days.  So no matter what someone wants to do, they'll need to convince half of the other team to ratify it. 

I heard the deficit spending amendment they want to add would require over 50% of the State legislatures to approve the deficit spending unless we had a declaration of war in effect.

The more and more I look at the District of Columbia the more I see it resembles a corrupt banana republic.  We have many robbers and thieves sitting in some of the highest seats of authority in this land.

[Carborendum]

On 8/2/2022 at 3:23 PM, Grunt said:

Having one?   Nope nope nope

I hear this reaction a lot.  But it usually comes from people who believe it would turn into a runaway convention.  That's not really possible.  The worst case scenario is that they are completely ineffective and get nothing done.  

There are always two major safeguards in place at such a convention.

1. The purpose and subject matter of the convention must be spelled out prior to the states voting on whether we can even have a convention.  Any deviation from those topics cannot be discussed, or if discussed, cannot be a proposed item for final vote.

2. After the convention, any resulting proposals (amendments) must be ratified by 3/4 of the states (38).  With the political makeup of the states now, good luck getting anything passed.

[NeuroTypical]

Excellent read, it's been way too long since I've read it.

[Phineas]

I assume this message board has no rules against discussing  politics.  

[Vort]

4 hours ago, Phineas said:

I assume this message board has no rules against discussing  politics.  

It's allowed as long as your politics agree with mine.

[Ironhold]

Basically, we can discuss matters so long as things don't get heated and we generally keep the conversation within the overall posting and content guidelines. 

For example, you can talk about a politician getting caught on film doing something illegal but likely not go into specifics about what those illegal things were. 

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Succession is not necessary. Article Five of the Constitution is the Founders ripcord. 

[Carborendum]

Succession: the right, act, or process, by which one person succeeds to the office, rank, estate, or the like, of another.

Secession: the formal withdrawal from an alliance, federation, or association, as from a political union, a religious organization, etc.

Cheers.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Succession: the right, act, or process, by which one person succeeds to the office, rank, estate, or the like, of another.

Secession: the formal withdrawal from an alliance, federation, or association, as from a political union, a religious organization, etc.

Cheers.

Uh, oh, I screwed up my spelling with an additional C. I am ashamed of myself.

[Carborendum]

On 8/19/2022 at 3:42 PM, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Uh, oh, I screwed up my spelling with an additional C. I am ashamed of myself.

You weren't the first and you won't be the last.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 8/20/2022 at 7:10 PM, Carborendum said:

You weren't the first and you won't be the last.

I am so embarrassed. lol