MTG Calls for Red State Secession

[Delmar]

It's the same thing as what Bernie did.

MTG has been fully embraced by Trump's MAGA following. They believe every word she says.

You would have to have the IQ of a turnip to believe anything that Klan Mom has to say. She is a certifiable nut case.

 

[clarksvol00]

I did. The 10th Amendment. Any powers not expressly mentioned in the Constitution fall to the individual states.

Give me something from the federalist papers or anything else that backs up your point? If you secede do you get to keep any federally owned land, federally built improvements, forts, weapons, soldiers, that are housed in your state? What are the logistics of your partisan pipe dream?

 

[Vol8188]

It wasn't a deflection, I was commenting on the last part of your post.

Wrong is subjective. All I said is the situations are not the same, because they aren't.

It was a topic you had originally brought up that was different than our original disagreement, thus the term “deflection”.

So you believe both to be equally acceptable? If not, then you’re proclaiming one to be wrong and should be able to articulate why you find one acceptable but not the other

 

[clarksvol00]

I get it..once entrenched things are very difficult to unentangle

No answer then?

 

[tvolsfan]

There’s plenty of unified armies. For example the UN. Yet I’m sure you would be okay with a country leaving the UN.

Every state has a constitution and an army. And a constitution vs the founding documents of the UN/EU or any other collective are no different than any other contract between multiple entities. I’m not sure why you see that term “constitution” as more significant than the UN Charter for example

Well, sure, if you don't read them.

 

[hog88]

Can you cite to anything saying states have a right to secede or is this your opinion so that makes it "technically" true? If I say, the constitution doesn't say it's allowed, so "technically" it isn't allowed why is that any less true?

Our constitution limits the power of the federal government not the sovereignty of the states.

 

[Delmar]

Took almost 4 pages to get to a but but but Trump

Couldn’t resist. Only President I know that made fun of a disabled person. Such a great human being. His admiration society should be very proud.

 

[tvolsfan]

It was a topic you had originally brought up that was different than our original disagreement, thus the term “deflection”.

A deflection is when you try to change the subject. I wasn't changing the subject, I was answering your question.

So you believe both to be equally acceptable? If not, then you’re proclaiming one to be wrong and should be able to articulate why you find one acceptable but not the other

I said they were different. Wrong is subjective.

 

[clarksvol00]

No our constitution does not spell out a mechanism for withdrawing but neither does it have a prohibition.

IDK about the EU

So you're position is that the constitution is a document that sets out our rules for government, but if you don't like them you can unilaterally choose to leave and take everything you gained from that government? I guess that's okay. I'm kind of looking at this like a contract I might sign with another company. Can I back out unilaterally, or do I have to get consent or show a breach?

 

[McDad]

That was my whole point ...

You can find similar articles disputing that AOC is the future of the Democratic Party, because she is also an extremist.

My point in posting those two links together is to show that MTG was touted as the future of the Republican Party by Donald Trump ... but Republicans who aren't extremists won't feel that way ... just as Democrats who aren't extremists won't see AOC and the "The Squad" as the future of the Democratic Party.

@Vol8188 is a hypocrite with a very clear double standard. It appears that you are as well.

Bless your heart.

 

[clarksvol00]

Our constitution limits the power of the federal government not the sovereignty of the states.

And it provides no mechanism for the states to secede.

 

[hog88]

Give me something from the federalist papers or anything else that backs up your point? If you secede do you get to keep any federally owned land, federally built improvements, forts, weapons, soldiers, that are housed in your state? What are the logistics of your partisan pipe dream?

Just like England withdrawing from the EU, details would have to negotiated.

 

[Vol since 77]

The funniest part is she likely thinks she would be part of the ruling class if this happened. That ho should be making decisions for no one. Especially pushing ones she doesn't currently endorse

This is so hypocritical coming from you. I've seen you call out others for calling VP Harris a whore/ho and yet here you are. (For the record, I think both Harris and MTG are dumb as a box of rocks and shouldn't be representatives at all.)

 

[Vol8188]

Well, sure, if you don't read them.

What content are you claiming to be so different that changes everything here and makes one acceptable but the other not

 

[tvolsfan]

Give me something from the federalist papers or anything else that backs up your point? If you secede do you get to keep any federally owned land, federally built improvements, forts, weapons, soldiers, that are housed in your state? What are the logistics of your partisan pipe dream?

And do the blue cities get to secede from the rural red counties?

 

[McDad]

So you're position is that the constitution is a document that sets out our rules for government, but if you don't like them you can unilaterally choose to leave and take everything you gained from that government? I guess that's okay. I'm kind of looking at this like a contract I might sign with another company. Can I back out unilaterally, or do I have to get consent or show a breach?

I wish the Constitution outlined things like breach, severance, and dissolution like a contract with a company does.

 

[tvolsfan]

What content are you claiming to be so different that changes everything here and makes one acceptable but the other not

You're the only one using the word acceptable. Because, again, that's subjective.

 

[clarksvol00]

Just like England withdrawing from the EU, details would have to negotiated.

I'll ask again, does the EU governing document provide a mechanism for withdrawal?

 

[Vol8188]

You're the only one using the word acceptable.

So you find both the Uk leaving the EU and if California were to leave the US as acceptable things?

What term would you like to use here? I tried wrong and you disapproved of that.

 

[clarksvol00]

I wish the Constitution outlined things like breach, severance, and dissolution like a contract with a company does.

It doesn't.

 

[hog88]

So you're position is that the constitution is a document that sets out our rules for government, but if you don't like them you can unilaterally choose to leave and take everything you gained from that government? I guess that's okay. I'm kind of looking at this like a contract I might sign with another company. Can I back out unilaterally, or do I have to get consent or show a breach?

Details would of course have to worked out just like breaking any contract.

 

[hog88]

And it provides no mechanism for the states to secede.

And it doesn’t forbid it either.

 

[tvolsfan]

So you find both the Uk leaving the EU and if California were to leave the US as acceptable things?

What term would you like to use here? I tried wrong and you disapproved of that.

Because I never addressed the morality of secession. What part of that are you not getting?

 

[Weezer]

Give me something from the federalist papers or anything else that backs up your point? If you secede do you get to keep any federally owned land, federally built improvements, forts, weapons, soldiers, that are housed in your state? What are the logistics of your partisan pipe dream?

I don't think you understand the Constitution, or specifically the 10th Amendment. Also, at the time of the Constitution, the idea of "federally owned land" didn't really exist, other than in the notion of D.C. States had their own armies, and the federal military was much smaller. You're trying to project what has become our reality now on what was originally intended.

And the Federalist Papers were not legal documents. They were the express views of their authors.

 

[Orangeburst]

No answer then?

I agreed with you in some regard and you still want to argue

never should give up sovereign national statehood or nationhood rights

Look at it this way..The World or states are not homogenous in belief no matter what one says. Unless authoritarian.