If Obama Wins, Wither the Republicans?

[New Chalcedon]

Actually, I don't like Jeb Bush, because his cabinet helped his brother "win" the 2000 elections. The sad part is that the Bush Presidency killed off the Republican Party. I mean McCain? Romney? Que pasa guys?

For what it's worth, I don't think Jeb Bush is guilty of any wrongdoing in the 2000 election. It was largely a legal matter, and was handled that way.

Frankly, my only particular gripe with Jeb Bush is that he should have done a better job ensuring that Florida was ready for the 2000 election once it was clear how incompetent (at best!) Katherine Harris was. While she was elected as the Florida Sec'y of State (and thus not really sackable), he could have sidelined her, and chose not to do so.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm usually skeptical of the "If X wins, then party Y is doomed, and third party Z will take its place", but if the GOP decides that Romney lost because they weren't far enough to the right (despite blatant evidence to the contrary), then I can actually see the Libertarians becoming an attractive option for the fiscally conservative yet socially moderate wing of the Republican Party, at least among the membership at large if not the officials themselves. Another defeat at the polls in 2014 would destroy them. Their best hope would be a Clintonesque figure coming along, someone willing to alienate the traditional base in order to pick up moderate and swing votes, shifting the party back towards the center in the process.

[Caninope]

For what it's worth, I don't think Jeb Bush is guilty of any wrongdoing in the 2000 election. It was largely a legal matter, and was handled that way.

Frankly, my only particular gripe with Jeb Bush is that he should have done a better job ensuring that Florida was ready for the 2000 election once it was clear how incompetent (at best!) Katherine Harris was. While she was elected as the Florida Sec'y of State (and thus not really sackable), he could have sidelined her, and chose not to do so.

That's a fair gripe, I suppose. However, he's got a pretty good record, when all's said and done. Yes, we can disagree over the specifics of his policies, such as his line item vetoes of library funding, but he was a pretty good governor, from what I understand.

I feel as if he would also be a good national politician.

[Ostroeuropa]

Frankly, my only particular gripe with Jeb Bush is that he should have done a better job ensuring that Florida was ready for the 2000 election once it was clear how incompetent (at best!) Katherine Harris was. While she was elected as the Florida Sec'y of State (and thus not really sackable), he could have sidelined her, and chose not to do so.

That's a fair gripe, I suppose. However, he's got a pretty good record, when all's said and done. Yes, we can disagree over the specifics of his policies, such as his line item vetoes of library funding, but he was a pretty good governor, from what I understand.

I feel as if he would also be a good national politician.

The same could have been said of romney in massechusetts.
I have a feeling that in the US, when a politician goes national, they very quickly become awful

[Caninope]

That's a fair gripe, I suppose. However, he's got a pretty good record, when all's said and done. Yes, we can disagree over the specifics of his policies, such as his line item vetoes of library funding, but he was a pretty good governor, from what I understand.

I feel as if he would also be a good national politician.

The same could have been said of romney in massechusetts.
I have a feeling that in the US, when a politician goes national, they very quickly become awful

I think Romney was pushed so far to the left because he needed to build a base, while Jeb Bush also has a preexisting base. All the same, he also couldn't win the general for the same reason; that last name.

[Tahar Joblis]

The same could have been said of romney in massechusetts.
I have a feeling that in the US, when a politician goes national, they very quickly become awful

I think Romney was pushed so far to the left because he needed to build a base, while Jeb Bush also has a preexisting base. All the same, he also couldn't win the general for the same reason; that last name.

WHH was arguably a terrible president, dying shortly after taking office. This didn't stop Benjamin Harrison.

John Adams lasted one term in office before being roundly voted out; the next two presidents were the founding leaders of the opposition party, and his own political party exited the scene before Quincy ran for president.

Bush I was a single term president, blasted from the left for being a Republican, and blasted from the right for placing practicality over ideology and hiking taxes. Bush II was elected anyway. Bush III isn't out of the realm of possibility at some point in the future; right-wing blowhards have already been trying to shift blame to Clinton and Obama for everything bad that happened when Bush II was in office.

[Wikkiwallana]

Since Ron Paul is out of the business you have to vote Gary Johnsson or if you don't agree with him you have to vote Obama because if you vote Romney you will be able to vote Ron Paul on the next elections .

Say what?

[Khadgar]

Since Ron Paul is out of the business you have to vote Gary Johnsson or if you don't agree with him you have to vote Obama because if you vote Romney you will be able to vote Ron Paul on the next elections .

Say what?

He'd rather another four years of Obama and let Ron Paul run again in 2016 than a Romney win, which would put the next Ron Paul Revolution (ha!) back to 2020 when Paul will be either too old or too dead to run.

[New Chalcedon]

Frankly, my only particular gripe with Jeb Bush is that he should have done a better job ensuring that Florida was ready for the 2000 election once it was clear how incompetent (at best!) Katherine Harris was. While she was elected as the Florida Sec'y of State (and thus not really sackable), he could have sidelined her, and chose not to do so.

That's a fair gripe, I suppose. However, he's got a pretty good record, when all's said and done. Yes, we can disagree over the specifics of his policies, such as his line item vetoes of library funding, but he was a pretty good governor, from what I understand.

I feel as if he would also be a good national politician.

The fact is that Jeb Bush screwed the pooch, whichever way you think it should have worked out.

If you think Gore should have won, then he essentially gave the country 8 years of disaster.
If you think Bush should have won, then his clumsiness undercut Bush's legitimacy as President.

Like I said, he screwed the pooch in that one case. Other than that, there's just the usual "He's a Republican, I disagree with him" angle. Nothing personal about that, however.

[Inoroth]

I think america is just very divided right now - North v. South, East v. West, Inland v. Coast, City v. Rural, Rich v. Poor, Management v. Labor, Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice, Pro-Marriage v. Pro-Homo, Conservative v. Liberal, etc...

Neither party (especially the presidential candidates) really takes a hard stance one way or the other, for fear of losing the invaluable 'middle ground' voters. Thus, the parties have become increasingly out of touch with the needs and goals of the people it claims to represent. I for see something like what happened in the 1860 presidential election happening soon, where the Southern Democrats (no relation to the current Democratic Party) kinda broke up and several new parties emerged to try and gain power. In 1860, the issue was slavery, and the old parties refused to really take a stand to avoid losing voters of the opposite opinion, but today, there are so many issues that could possibly cause the split (as mentioned above), so many small parties could develop, each championing a specific or limited number of goals. I envision a poly-party system similar to that of most European countries or the Israeli Knesset developing in the USA... probably not for another few election cycles, but sooner or later I think it's bound to happen - unless the polarization of American opinion begins to revers it's course.

[Alien Space Bats]

I think america is just very divided right now - North v. South, East v. West, Inland v. Coast, City v. Rural, Rich v. Poor, Management v. Labor, Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice, Pro-Marriage v. Pro-Homo, Conservative v. Liberal, etc...

"Pro-Marriage v. Pro-Homo"? Why not "Pro-Bigot v. Pro-Freedom"?

Or maybe - less pejoratively - how about "Pro-Equal Marriage v. Pro-Traditional Marriage"?

Then, too, you left out the most important divide of all: White v. Minority (or maybe White v. Multicultural, which would capture the fact that many whites seem comfortable with diversity); without that one, you can't understand why the GOP is in trouble.

Otherwise, you are correct in saying that the Nation is deeply polarized, yet...

Neither party (especially the presidential candidates) really takes a hard stance one way or the other, for fear of losing the invaluable 'middle ground' voters.

If we're deeply polarized, how can there be any middle?

The truth is, there is in fact no middle, which is both a consequence of polarization and allows polarization to continue unhindered.

Thus, the parties have become increasingly out of touch with the needs and goals of the people it claims to represent.

On the contrary: The GOP has been taken over by its grass roots; it is entirely in touch with what the rank-and-file want - in fact, that's the heart of the problem. The Republican "establishment" (led by the Bush family and their supporters) would rather court Latinos; the rank-and-file want to disenfranchise and deport them. This same "establishment" wants to woo Arab-Americans (which is why Bush supported efforts at outreach towards Muslims led by former Michigan Senator Spencer Abraham, a Lebanese-American); the rank-and-file see Islam as a threat, with the fringe wanting global Holy War against them. The "establishment" thought a health care mandate was a great idea; the rank-and-file want absolute laissez-faire. The "establishment" wanted to walk away from "culture war" issues; the rank-and-file demands a resolution that will stamp out "permissiveness" everywhere.

Which means that the Democratic Party is also in touch with its grass roots. Unlike the GOP, which is united by an ideology of absolute economic deregulation, Social Darwinism, and letting the States enforce rigid adherence to Christian values for the sake of restoring traditional morality throughout the Nation, Democrats are united by horror at the thought of Republican rule. IOW, it's not that the leaders are being stubborn at a time when the people want compromise; it's that the people are divided and their leaders must follow in observing this division, lest they be driven from office by those they fill with outrage over their lack of strength or zeal (strength on the left, zeal on the right).

I for see something like what happened in the 1860 presidential election happening soon, where the Southern Democrats (no relation to the current Democratic Party) kinda broke up and several new parties emerged to try and gain power.

There are analogies between what we see today and what we saw in 1860, yes. And party breakup is one possibility.

In 1860, the issue was slavery, and the old parties refused to really take a stand to avoid losing voters of the opposite opinion...

Here you are completely wrong. The Democratic Party had no problem whatsoever with slavery; it fought hard to support slavery. The division within the Democratic Party came at the very end of the period, and it only came because Northern Democrats weren't in favor of being too zealous in pursuing the otherwise agreed-upon plan of forcing slavery upon the Northern States (Douglas and his faction wanted to allow Northern States to have some ability to simply take a "hands-off" approach to the presence of slaves on Northern soil, while Southern Democrats insisted that the whole social system of Slave Codes be forced on the North in addition to simply striking down their anti-slavery laws). More importantly, it was pretty much a contrived split, aimed at forcing secession to occur - because Southern Democrats, having spent the last year arming themselves (and transferring Federal arms to Southern magazines where they could be seized when secession came) and knowing that their break with the Union would deprive the Federal government of tax revenue (90% of all duties and tariffs were collected in Charleston and New Orleans), expected the government in Washington to collapse upon their departure: With all the guns and all the hard currency, they thought the defenseless, bankrupt Federal government would fold without a fight, allowing them to force the disorganized and economically depressed Northern States into the Confederacy at gunpoint, on terms dictated by them.

It wasn't supposed to result in two countries; it was supposed to be a coup d'etat.

... but today, there are so many issues that could possibly cause the split (as mentioned above), so many small parties could develop, each championing a specific or limited number of goals. I envision a poly-party system similar to that of most European countries or the Israeli Knesset developing in the USA... probably not for another few election cycles, but sooner or later I think it's bound to happen - unless the polarization of American opinion begins to revers it's course.

A system like that could never work in America. Divided government in the absence of broad agreement on governing principles necessarily produces gridlock; indeed, the American Constitutional system does this by design.

[Jinos]

It wasn't supposed to result in two countries; it was supposed to be a coup d'etat.

I would be very interested in sources which further explain this.

[Not Safe For Work]

A few weeks back, in the "horse race" thread, the issue came up of what will happen to the each of the two major American political Parties if they lose. After some consideration, we decided that the right way to do things is to start two separate threads, one for each Party.

Some ground rules: This is not a 2016 Presidential Election thread. CTOAN has threatened to murder a puppy if we go there, and I strongly believe that we should respect the poor little guy's right to live.

(Image)

So what we want to do here is stick to generalities - essentially, the "view from height" thing. A lot of us (yours truly perhaps most frequently and loudly) have proclaimed that this is going to be a realignment election, and that whichever way it goes, the political landscape is going to be irrevocably transformed. This is your chance to address that theme: Will defeat for either party cause the current two-party system to come unglued, resulting (perhaps) in a different political balance of power, possibly with different political Parties?

In this thread, we'll talk about what might come to pass if the Republicans lose. If you want to talk about what will happen if the Democrats lose, do it in the other thread.

GRAMMATICAL NOTE: And yes, I recognize that "whither" (as in "which way?") isn't spelled "wither". It's a pun, son.

---

I'm sure other people have said it before, and it's possible some have said it as often or as loudly; but one of Rachel Maddow's most frequent assertions is that Republicans respond to defeat by moving further to the right.

As Mitt Romney's campaign begins to look more and more like a forlorn hope, the telltale signs are already starting to appear. Romney was not "an authentic conservative"; while he may have tried to look, act, and talk like one, he never quite pulled it off. "Real" conservatives knew that he wasn't the long-hoped-for Second Coming of Reagan, and from time to time he tipped the world off to the fact that he really didn't want to be Reagan Reborn himself: Remember Romney saying that he wasn't going to yank every last vestige of Obamacare out of the ground and burn it with fire?

So come the morning of November 7th, 2012, the GOP will begin its next great forced march to the right; and given how far and how fast it spent the last four years moving that way, we can only imagine where it will end up even by the 2014 mid-terms.

Yet there are real problems with continued movement to the right: Simply put, a very large number of Americans already think the GOP functionally insane; one has to wonder how much farther it can go towards flat-out John Bircherism. More importantly, though, is the prospect of a battle down the road between Paul supporters (who will have to find a new leader going forward, given that their favorite Texas congressman has run his last race) and more traditional conservatives (who still control the Party's microphones).

An objection might be raised on practical grounds: If the November election turns out to be enough of a disaster, won't the Party establishment rebel and demand a more centrist approach? My take is that this will not happen, largely because the GOP's main power centers are now primarily outside the Party.

Think about it: The GOP's principal opinion leaders are all media personalities. Most (like Rush Limbaugh) are independent, and will continue to exert influence regardless of the Party's fate at the ballot box. True, there are media moguls like Rupert Murdoch who have the power to bend a large number of media personalities to their will. Yet much of Murdoch's power is held in check by ratings; even he can't move against the tide of public opinion if it means losing the ear of the Party's grass roots.

Then there are the money men: Karl Rove, the Koch Brothers, Bob Perry, Sheldon Adelson, and many, many more. Again, the biggest challenge for the GOP is the fact that these people operate outside the Party, and can't be controlled by it. The GOP establishment might want to move the Party to the middle, but if the people with the money refuse, then that movement is simply never going to happen.

Against this is the simple reality that demographic factors are rapidly making Ronald Reagan's political coalition of Christian fundamentalists, Southern ultra-conservatives, Western libertarians, working-class reactionaries obsolete. Non-whites are becoming a larger and larger segment of the American populace, and their electoral participation rates are rising to boot; these voters have historically favored Democrats by a 3:1 or even 4:1 margin. As this segment grows in voting strength, it's going to be harder and harder for Republicans - who are hard-pressed to win the white vote by a 60-40 margin - to carry the day. In the past, various Republicans - most of whom belonged to the GOP's "Bush wing" - advocated efforts to win support among African-Americans and Latinos; unfortunately, this would require losing the support of right-wing nativists and disaffected whites, who represent a large part of the GOP's voting strength.

It's a painful dilemma for the GOP: Ride their current base down to defeat, or abandon that base and try to build a new one. Historically, Parties usually only make this choice only when all hope of winning with the old coalition is gone; compounding this in the case of the Republican Party, however, is that fact that it's not the office-holding establishment that has the power to make the decision to do this: It has to be done by the media talking heads and by the cash cows, neither of whom is under any particular pressure to make such a change. Is Rush Limbaugh going to turn his listeners off by advocating ethnic outreach so that the GOP can win? Not likely. If there's going to be any impetus to change, it will have to come from the money men, and it will likely be over the protests of the media blowhards, whose vested interest is in continuing to stroke angry white, male egos.

There's another problem facing the GOP: Young voters. It's often said that voters grow more conservative with age, and to some extent that's true. But there's another angle to be considered here: The "brand loyalty" model of political allegiance. This model says that, just as consumers become attached to a brand through their first experiences in the marketplace (the quintessential example being American car owners), voters become attached to the first political Party they vote for. So just as it was a coup for the Japanese to win the compact car market in the 70's (in so far as it produced a generation of Corolla buyers by the time the 90's rolled around), Republicans benefited immensely from the Reagan Revolution, which produced a generation of lifelong Republicans.

(Image)

The graph shown above makes the implications of this behavior clear in a way that is omnious for Republicans: Young voters are turning to the Democratic Party to an extent not seen since the 60's. Combined with the rising power of non-white voters, it's not hard to see that the GOP is facing annihilation in short order if they can't address these trends.

In theory, Ron Paul's support among younger voters should be the solution to this: If other Republicans adopted Paul's platform, that might help reduce the gap among younger voters. But there are good reasons why Paul got stomped in the GOP primaries: Young Republicans may have loved him, but mainstream Republicans don't. Unless the GOP can develop some big-tent tolerance, the most likely place for Paul supporters to end up is in the arms of the Libertarian Party, as minor Party voters, with an eventual migration from there into the ranks of the permanently disaffected.

The overall picture, then, is a grim one: The GOP seems destined to lurch further to the right; it seems destined to turn off minority voters even as minorties become the new American political kingmakers; it seems destined to turn away young voters who increasingly want to move in a different direction from the Party base; and nobody seems to be in a position to grab control of the Party and steer it back to safety. Between the certainty of continuing defeat and infighting, the GOP seems destined to falter and fade into a regional Party and then nothing at all; down this road lies ultimate fragmentation and replacement by another Party, with several possible candidates looming on the horizon, including the Democratic Party itself.

Which may well make 2012 the GOP's last hurrah; if Obama wins by 5-7% the way he did four years ago (or even by a larger margin), it will be clear that the demographic door has closed on the Republican Party and that we have entered into a new political era, just as we did in 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, and 1980.

---

tl&dr: I think that Rush Limbaugh, like the proverbial broken clock that's right twice a day, is right when he says that if the Romney loses, it's going to be the end of the GOP. It may take a generation, but I just can't see the party surviving the rot.

---

And with that, it's your turn: What do you think will happen to the Republican Party if it loses this year? Will it veer so far to the right that it never comes back, will it splinter into several fragments, will saner heads take charge, bite the bullet, end the Party's war on minorities and transform it into a moderate conservative movement that can compete amidst the diversity of mid-21st Century America, or will something altogether different happen?

Personally, I don't lean towards party implosion. Unless there's a real change in the demographics, the worst situation I can see for the GOP is that they end up sitting on a base of about a third of the population - a combination of the bases of what I would consider to be America's least-desirable values - extremist Christians, homophobes, nationalists, the altruistically-challenged.... etc.

So I can see the GOP bouncing around for the next few years as an extremist political collective with a rabidly active base. It would be a swing further to the right, but I imagine it would be championed by their biggest sponsors and their pocket-media. And after a few years, enough people would eventually get disenchanted enough with the status quo that voter turn-out would be so bad, or the swing in 'protest' votes would be so great - that the militantly rightwing GOP would end up back in the majority, further validating the rightwing trend.

[Coltarin]

Reagan helped usher in a new era in Nuclear weapons treaties, and with out US pressure the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan would of continued much longer, and the USSR may not have fallen as soon.

USSR fell because USSR had crappy leaders, not because of Afghanistan. The US did much worse in Vietnam. Did US fall because of Vietnam? In terms of foreign policy, Reagan's overrated. He went up against Gorbachev. If you combine Stalin's failures, Khrushchev not having enough time to address said failures, Brezhnev doing little about said failures, and Gorbachev letting those failures blossom by running incompatible policies - you get what you get. If the USSR had someone like FDR for at least two decades, and Zhukov, (the Soviet equivalent of Ike,) for eight years, then USSR would have done much better.

Say what you want against George Bush, the only reason anyone (and by that, I mean Democrats) should dislike Jeb Bush is because he would have destroyed the other GOP candidates and given Obama a run for his money in the general election.

I mean seriously. You guys want a candidate who can deliver Hispanics? Jeb's your man. At the very least, he could do it better than any candidate who ran. IIRC, he also speaks Spanish (like his brother, and better than him brother I think). I feel it might also be worth noting that George W. Bush knew the importance of Hispanics too, and helped close the lead among Hispanic voters in his term.

Best of all, we wouldn't have seen such a strong Clinton endorsement of Obama, given Clinton's strong ties with the Bush family (yes, I'm actually serious here).

Actually, I don't like Jeb Bush, because his cabinet helped his brother "win" the 2000 elections. The sad part is that the Bush Presidency killed off the Republican Party. I mean McCain? Romney? Que pasa guys?

The Soviet war in Afghanistan was a major drain on their economy, that war would have probably gone better if the US had decided not to take as heavy of an influence as it did.

[The Cookish States]

One minor correction.

If the US declared war on the new independent nation and blockaded it, the resulting retaliatory strike would not invoke a Mutual Defense Pact. In that case, the United States is the aggressor nation, and thus mutual defense pacts do not apply.

The rest of it is accurate, though.

Possibly, I mean it may be a justification used by NATO states to not get involved in an "internal" matter and then cast the US federal government as "aggressors" to try and get out of defense pacts, but that's a stretch. What's even more of a stretch is imagining NATO somehow NOT getting involved in an armed rebellion brewing inside the largest economic and military might in the world, and their most powerful ally.

Even if they mumble something about "defensive pacts, have to do it" the reality is the European NATO powers aren't going to let the US federal government stand alone at a time like that. Some internal terrorist problem, sure. Actual full scale insurrection? No. Not only are they not going to risk damaging their most valueable alliance but, even though the rebells almost certainly won't win, god help us all if they somehow DO.

But, to further this idiocy of "southern secession", who do you think is going to FIGHT this war for you, oh southern rebels? A few wingnuts with guns is not going to handle the US military.

And even if you think that you'll get some of the military to join you under some misguided belief that they're all "good old boys", think again, demographically, recruits to the US military are pretty evenly spread out, and represent a portion of the urban recruitment not terribly out of whack with the general population. And urbanites are much less likely to support this rebellion of yours.

Moreover your rhetoric of "fuck the federal government" may not go over so well with employees of the federal government.

But ignoring that, let's pretend you do get about half the military to join you. And along with that, about half the military assets.

Well you know what those military assets all come equipped with?

Remote kill switches.

Meaning all those boats and bombers and nuclear weapons and drones you got your hands on? They're all turned off. And the only people with the keys is the Pentagon.

So yeah, you may get your hand on a carrier or two, but unless you want to paddle that bitch home, you're gonna have to try to find a way past the encrypted servers that control the engine. Servers that were given a remote shut down signal the minute you fired your first shot.

I know somewhere in your heart you believe the south will rise again. It won't. This isn't 1862. It's 2012. And even if, in the most optimal conditions of a southern rebellion you may get your hands on some grunts, some guns, and whatever bullets you manage to scavange up, the north will have all the planes, the bombs, the drones, the industries, the power, the oil, the water, and the ports.

And the entire NATO alliance

I support a free Texas. We don't want that shit east of the Sabine or north of the Red.

Texas, I think could survive on its own, my fear though, is that they'd have to keep the other southern states out of it to keep from being dragged down completely, because as great as the other places are for seafood and butter-filled cookin', they're shit investments.

I kind of resent your assumption that the war would be fought by "hicks with guns". While they'd provide a helpful element of insurgency, I doubt VERY highly they'd actually fight the war. Defecting soldiers would probably be the leading source of fighters. Because oath or no oath, most people have loyalty to their families and state before their countries. At least, I know Texans do, I'd assume you fine northern states believe in a similar thing. I'm sure that if New York declared independence, New Yorkers would line up to fight for their new country. Texas isn't any different.

Also, here's a little thing on Fort Hood, Texas


"...Forty percent of the U.S. Army's combat power is located here--two heavy divisions of tanks and mechanized infantry, the III Corps command, plus numerous supporting units. Some forty-three thousand people are stationed at Fort Hood, making it the largest installation in the armed services..."

It's actually the largest in the world iirc. And an overwhelming amount of those stationed there are loyal to Texas, or Texan National Guard.

Found this interesting, not sure of its relevance.

http://www.statemaster.com/red/state/TX-texas/mil-military&all=1

Anyways, I'd just like to distance the state of Texas from the eastern..well...nutjobs. We have our hicks, but so does Pennsylvania for example. Get in the towns, and you'll find us to be just as intelligent and reasonable as you, just a lil different. For that reason and those stated above, I contest that if the Republican party were to wither and die, or if it became so displaced from Texan values (It's quickly turning Texas into a purple state, or rather into its own thing). I would not be the least bit surprised if Texas passed a referendum for independence within the next 15 years, furthermore, I HIGHLY doubt the U.S would let even the closest of allies (The U.K for example) meddle in an American conflict. In fact, considering the magnitude of force at play, I think the U.S would probably let them go without a fight, or else risk all kinds of demonization from western media and CERTAINLY eastern media. Because the U.S wins wars through shock and awe, and once the B-2's start orbiting Austin, you better believe that every dead baby, wounded grandmother, and homeless dog will be showcased to the U.N.

Honestly, Texas' biggest issue is that it wouldn't be allowed into NAFTA or NATO unless Canada and Mexico really help them out (which they wouldn't, since they'd rather not piss off the U.S). Trade could be rough, and Texas might be that nerdy kid in the corner of a lunchroom for about five years, but once its independence was solidified, it'd be a given that Europe and even the U.S would capitalize on being able to tariff the gasoline coming out of Texan refineries (we have many).

Relevancy to the thread? If Obama wins, the Republican party may fail, and the conservative base would become scattered between a withered and dead Republican party, the Tea Party, and the Libertarians (giving the left full control of government). If this happens, most southern states (and Alaska, perhaps some of the midwest as well, depending on the degree of the takeover) will be legitimately considering a secession since forming a new (popular) party nowadays would be far too difficult with how deeply rooted the Republican and Democratic systems are in US social politics. Finally, re-iterating my primal point, Texas is the only one I see surviving that comfortably, or at all really. Anyways, I see secession, not war. If your significant other is leaving you (or employee is quitting), you don't strap him/her down and saw off his/her limbs for their disloyalty. Honestly, I prefer to think that the northern United States, with their Texan-like (us urbanites anyways..) reason-ability and informed populace, wouldn't go LOLWAR NAO UMADUMADUMAD??!?!

(Note:Please, someone respond, the last times I've devoted a half hour of my life to a debate on NSG, it killed the thread and/or was ignored.)

[Farnhamia]

Possibly, I mean it may be a justification used by NATO states to not get involved in an "internal" matter and then cast the US federal government as "aggressors" to try and get out of defense pacts, but that's a stretch. What's even more of a stretch is imagining NATO somehow NOT getting involved in an armed rebellion brewing inside the largest economic and military might in the world, and their most powerful ally.

Even if they mumble something about "defensive pacts, have to do it" the reality is the European NATO powers aren't going to let the US federal government stand alone at a time like that. Some internal terrorist problem, sure. Actual full scale insurrection? No. Not only are they not going to risk damaging their most valueable alliance but, even though the rebells almost certainly won't win, god help us all if they somehow DO.

But, to further this idiocy of "southern secession", who do you think is going to FIGHT this war for you, oh southern rebels? A few wingnuts with guns is not going to handle the US military.

And even if you think that you'll get some of the military to join you under some misguided belief that they're all "good old boys", think again, demographically, recruits to the US military are pretty evenly spread out, and represent a portion of the urban recruitment not terribly out of whack with the general population. And urbanites are much less likely to support this rebellion of yours.

Moreover your rhetoric of "fuck the federal government" may not go over so well with employees of the federal government.

But ignoring that, let's pretend you do get about half the military to join you. And along with that, about half the military assets.

Well you know what those military assets all come equipped with?

Remote kill switches.

Meaning all those boats and bombers and nuclear weapons and drones you got your hands on? They're all turned off. And the only people with the keys is the Pentagon.

So yeah, you may get your hand on a carrier or two, but unless you want to paddle that bitch home, you're gonna have to try to find a way past the encrypted servers that control the engine. Servers that were given a remote shut down signal the minute you fired your first shot.

I know somewhere in your heart you believe the south will rise again. It won't. This isn't 1862. It's 2012. And even if, in the most optimal conditions of a southern rebellion you may get your hands on some grunts, some guns, and whatever bullets you manage to scavange up, the north will have all the planes, the bombs, the drones, the industries, the power, the oil, the water, and the ports.

And the entire NATO alliance

I support a free Texas. We don't want that shit east of the Sabine or north of the Red.

Texas, I think could survive on its own, my fear though, is that they'd have to keep the other southern states out of it to keep from being dragged down completely, because as great as the other places are for seafood and butter-filled cookin', they're shit investments.

I kind of resent your assumption that the war would be fought by "hicks with guns". While they'd provide a helpful element of insurgency, I doubt VERY highly they'd actually fight the war. Defecting soldiers would probably be the leading source of fighters. Because oath or no oath, most people have loyalty to their families and state before their countries. At least, I know Texans do, I'd assume you fine northern states believe in a similar thing. I'm sure that if New York declared independence, New Yorkers would line up to fight for their new country. Texas isn't any different.

Also, here's a little thing on Fort Hood, Texas


"...Forty percent of the U.S. Army's combat power is located here--two heavy divisions of tanks and mechanized infantry, the III Corps command, plus numerous supporting units. Some forty-three thousand people are stationed at Fort Hood, making it the largest installation in the armed services..."

It's actually the largest in the world iirc. And an overwhelming amount of those stationed there are loyal to Texas, or Texan National Guard.

Found this interesting, not sure of its relevance.

http://www.statemaster.com/red/state/TX-texas/mil-military&all=1

Anyways, I'd just like to distance the state of Texas from the eastern..well...nutjobs. We have our hicks, but so does Pennsylvania for example. Get in the towns, and you'll find us to be just as intelligent and reasonable as you, just a lil different. For that reason and those stated above, I contest that if the Republican party were to wither and die, or if it became so displaced from Texan values (It's quickly turning Texas into a purple state, or rather into its own thing). I would not be the least bit surprised if Texas passed a referendum for independence within the next 15 years, furthermore, I HIGHLY doubt the U.S would let even the closest of allies (The U.K for example) meddle in an American conflict. In fact, considering the magnitude of force at play, I think the U.S would probably let them go without a fight, or else risk all kinds of demonization from western media and CERTAINLY eastern media. Because the U.S wins wars through shock and awe, and once the B-2's start orbiting Austin, you better believe that every dead baby, wounded grandmother, and homeless dog will be showcased to the U.N.

Honestly, Texas' biggest issue is that it wouldn't be allowed into NAFTA or NATO unless Canada and Mexico really help them out (which they wouldn't, since they'd rather not piss off the U.S). Trade could be rough, and Texas might be that nerdy kid in the corner of a lunchroom for about five years, but once its independence was solidified, it'd be a given that Europe and even the U.S would capitalize on being able to tariff the gasoline coming out of Texan refineries (we have many).

Relevancy to the thread? If Obama wins, the Republican party may fail, and the conservative base would become scattered between a withered and dead Republican party, the Tea Party, and the Libertarians (giving the left full control of government). If this happens, most southern states (and Alaska, perhaps some of the midwest as well, depending on the degree of the takeover) will be legitimately considering a secession since forming a new (popular) party nowadays would be far too difficult with how deeply rooted the Republican and Democratic systems are in US social politics. Finally, re-iterating my primal point, Texas is the only one I see surviving that comfortably, or at all really. Anyways, I see secession, not war. If your significant other is leaving you (or employee is quitting), you don't strap him/her down and saw off his/her limbs for their disloyalty. Honestly, I prefer to think that the northern United States, with their Texan-like (us urbanites anyways..) reason-ability and informed populace, wouldn't go LOLWAR NAO UMADUMADUMAD??!?!

(Note:Please, someone respond, the last times I've devoted a half hour of my life to a debate on NSG, it killed the thread and/or was ignored.)

Each and every member of the United States military takes an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Violating that oath makes them criminals, at the very least. I'd like to know how you know that "an overwhelming amount of those stationed [at Ft. Hood] are loyal to Texas."

And why would anyone want to secede just because their guy didn't become President? That was shown to be a fool's errand 150 years ago.

[The Cookish States]

I support a free Texas. We don't want that shit east of the Sabine or north of the Red.

Texas, I think could survive on its own, my fear though, is that they'd have to keep the other southern states out of it to keep from being dragged down completely, because as great as the other places are for seafood and butter-filled cookin', they're shit investments.

I kind of resent your assumption that the war would be fought by "hicks with guns". While they'd provide a helpful element of insurgency, I doubt VERY highly they'd actually fight the war. Defecting soldiers would probably be the leading source of fighters. Because oath or no oath, most people have loyalty to their families and state before their countries. At least, I know Texans do, I'd assume you fine northern states believe in a similar thing. I'm sure that if New York declared independence, New Yorkers would line up to fight for their new country. Texas isn't any different.

Also, here's a little thing on Fort Hood, Texas


"...Forty percent of the U.S. Army's combat power is located here--two heavy divisions of tanks and mechanized infantry, the III Corps command, plus numerous supporting units. Some forty-three thousand people are stationed at Fort Hood, making it the largest installation in the armed services..."

It's actually the largest in the world iirc. And an overwhelming amount of those stationed there are loyal to Texas, or Texan National Guard.

Found this interesting, not sure of its relevance.

http://www.statemaster.com/red/state/TX-texas/mil-military&all=1

Anyways, I'd just like to distance the state of Texas from the eastern..well...nutjobs. We have our hicks, but so does Pennsylvania for example. Get in the towns, and you'll find us to be just as intelligent and reasonable as you, just a lil different. For that reason and those stated above, I contest that if the Republican party were to wither and die, or if it became so displaced from Texan values (It's quickly turning Texas into a purple state, or rather into its own thing). I would not be the least bit surprised if Texas passed a referendum for independence within the next 15 years, furthermore, I HIGHLY doubt the U.S would let even the closest of allies (The U.K for example) meddle in an American conflict. In fact, considering the magnitude of force at play, I think the U.S would probably let them go without a fight, or else risk all kinds of demonization from western media and CERTAINLY eastern media. Because the U.S wins wars through shock and awe, and once the B-2's start orbiting Austin, you better believe that every dead baby, wounded grandmother, and homeless dog will be showcased to the U.N.

Honestly, Texas' biggest issue is that it wouldn't be allowed into NAFTA or NATO unless Canada and Mexico really help them out (which they wouldn't, since they'd rather not piss off the U.S). Trade could be rough, and Texas might be that nerdy kid in the corner of a lunchroom for about five years, but once its independence was solidified, it'd be a given that Europe and even the U.S would capitalize on being able to tariff the gasoline coming out of Texan refineries (we have many).

Relevancy to the thread? If Obama wins, the Republican party may fail, and the conservative base would become scattered between a withered and dead Republican party, the Tea Party, and the Libertarians (giving the left full control of government). If this happens, most southern states (and Alaska, perhaps some of the midwest as well, depending on the degree of the takeover) will be legitimately considering a secession since forming a new (popular) party nowadays would be far too difficult with how deeply rooted the Republican and Democratic systems are in US social politics. Finally, re-iterating my primal point, Texas is the only one I see surviving that comfortably, or at all really. Anyways, I see secession, not war. If your significant other is leaving you (or employee is quitting), you don't strap him/her down and saw off his/her limbs for their disloyalty. Honestly, I prefer to think that the northern United States, with their Texan-like (us urbanites anyways..) reason-ability and informed populace, wouldn't go LOLWAR NAO UMADUMADUMAD??!?!

(Note:Please, someone respond, the last times I've devoted a half hour of my life to a debate on NSG, it killed the thread and/or was ignored.)

Each and every member of the United States military takes an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Violating that oath makes them criminals, at the very least. I'd like to know how you know that "an overwhelming amount of those stationed [at Ft. Hood] are loyal to Texas."

And why would anyone want to secede just because their guy didn't become President? That was shown to be a fool's errand 150 years ago.

Secession was on the table smack dab in the middle of the Bush years bud.

And how many servicemen do you know, personally? I'm not being douchey, just curious. Because all of the ones I'm good friends with seem to be fed up with many things within the government, across the party spectrum. I doubt many Texans would take up arms against fellow Texans. The best Washington could hope to get from military units in Texas is neutrality, and that's literally the best they could bargain for.

But again, I doubt it'd come to war. Personally, I think the U.S would let Texas go, expecting their failure, or perhaps even viewing them as a potential puppet state (not happenin' ), or, finally just seeing Texas as what it's used as now, a money cow. Except they'd make their money through tariffs, not taxes, which would actually be a bigger piece of the GDP, which means the U.S may well PROFIT from a Texas (and only texas) secession.

[PapaJacky]

By the way, unsurprisingly, California tops the charts in much of the military!

[SaintB]

Each and every member of the United States military takes an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Violating that oath makes them criminals, at the very least. I'd like to know how you know that "an overwhelming amount of those stationed [at Ft. Hood] are loyal to Texas."

And why would anyone want to secede just because their guy didn't become President? That was shown to be a fool's errand 150 years ago.

Secession was on the table smack dab in the middle of the Bush years bud.

And how many servicemen do you know, personally? I'm not being douchey, just curious. Because all of the ones I'm good friends with seem to be fed up with many things within the government, across the party spectrum. I doubt many Texans would take up arms against fellow Texans. The best Washington could hope to get from military units in Texas is neutrality, and that's literally the best they could bargain for.

But again, I doubt it'd come to war. Personally, I think the U.S would let Texas go, expecting their failure, or perhaps even viewing them as a potential puppet state (not happenin' ), or, finally just seeing Texas as what it's used as now, a money cow. Except they'd make their money through tariffs, not taxes, which would actually be a bigger piece of the GDP, which means the U.S may well PROFIT from a Texas (and only texas) secession.

The phrase Pipe Dream comes to mind.

[The Cookish States]

By the way, unsurprisingly, California tops the charts in much of the military!

I'm under the impression that that's primarily naval and air forces, and in any case, how many US servicemen and women do you honestly believe will open fire on Texans? I mean, you can play and joke about how Texans are silly, stupid, fat, y'know, whatever. But, when your Californian (Or New Yorker, or Oklahoman) soldier is ordered to attack a state he has family in...

It wouldn't come to a war. Hell, I don't know if Texas bases have any real control of their nukes, but MAD may even come into play. (Haha...good one...right?)

[The Cookish States]

Secession was on the table smack dab in the middle of the Bush years bud.

And how many servicemen do you know, personally? I'm not being douchey, just curious. Because all of the ones I'm good friends with seem to be fed up with many things within the government, across the party spectrum. I doubt many Texans would take up arms against fellow Texans. The best Washington could hope to get from military units in Texas is neutrality, and that's literally the best they could bargain for.

But again, I doubt it'd come to war. Personally, I think the U.S would let Texas go, expecting their failure, or perhaps even viewing them as a potential puppet state (not happenin' ), or, finally just seeing Texas as what it's used as now, a money cow. Except they'd make their money through tariffs, not taxes, which would actually be a bigger piece of the GDP, which means the U.S may well PROFIT from a Texas (and only texas) secession.

The phrase Pipe Dream comes to mind.

I believe this was widely heard around the early 1770's on the east coast you all seem to be idolizing in this thread.

[Not Safe For Work]

And how many servicemen do you know, personally? I'm not being douchey, just curious. Because all of the ones I'm good friends with seem to be fed up with many things within the government, across the party spectrum.

Being 'fed up with many things within the government" is not the same as being prepared for acts of war against your country.

I know quite a few servicemen, and I don't know any that actually admit they'd be willing to break their oath, and go to war against the country.

I doubt many Texans would take up arms against fellow Texans.

It's a cliche, but 'brother' fighting 'brother' isn't unprecedented.

But again, I doubt it'd come to war.

I doubt it would come to war, also. The situation isn't really bad enough, yet, that we're really being the 'first world problem' level - and aside from maybe a few thousand survivalists, it's unlikely there's anyone likely to go to war on that basis.

[PapaJacky]

By the way, unsurprisingly, California tops the charts in much of the military!

I'm under the impression that that's primarily naval and air forces, and in any case, how many US servicemen and women do you honestly believe will open fire on Texans? I mean, you can play and joke about how Texans are silly, stupid, fat, y'know, whatever. But, when your Californian (Or New Yorker, or Oklahoman) soldier is ordered to attack a state he has family in...

It wouldn't come to a war. Hell, I don't know if Texas bases have any real control of their nukes, but MAD may even come into play. (Haha...good one...right?)

Nah, we also have the most active duty personnel in a state. And in honesty, most people won't mind putting down a rebellion if it came to that. Hell, given that it's Texas, I'd be surprised if non-secessionist did not rise against the secessionists. If one's family is in this resistance group, than no sympathy should be held on Texans for secession. Otherwise, it'd be a standard shock n' awe campaign with mostly armored foot work.

[The Cookish States]

And how many servicemen do you know, personally? I'm not being douchey, just curious. Because all of the ones I'm good friends with seem to be fed up with many things within the government, across the party spectrum.

Being 'fed up with many things within the government" is not the same as being prepared for acts of war against your country.

I know quite a few servicemen, and I don't know any that actually admit they'd be willing to break their oath, and go to war against the country.

I doubt many Texans would take up arms against fellow Texans.

It's a cliche, but 'brother' fighting 'brother' isn't unprecedented.

But again, I doubt it'd come to war.

I doubt it would come to war, also. The situation isn't really bad enough, yet, that we're really being the 'first world problem' level - and aside from maybe a few thousand survivalists, it's unlikely there's anyone likely to go to war on that basis.

That's why I emphasized that this wouldn't happen tomorrow, it'd happen in 15 to 20 years, under the right circumstances.

On a more personal level, this is directed at NSG...Well...wait...y'know what? I'm going to start a thread over this, before we get off track.

*Scampers away*

[SaintB]

The phrase Pipe Dream comes to mind.

I believe this was widely heard around the early 1770's on the east coast you all seem to be idolizing in this thread.

It's still a pipe dream. The whole scenario beginning with the end of the GOP.