Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Politics

Secession Petitions Flood White House Website 1163

Posted by samzenpus
from the we're-leaving dept.
First time accepted submitter RNLockwood writes "Political.com reports that several petitions to secede from the Union have been created at the White House site, We The People, for many states; all since Obama's re-election. Texas and Louisiana lead the list with Texas needing only 7,000 more signatures to qualify for a White House response, probably less now as more Americans have become aware of the petitions. It would be interesting to see a comparison done of these petitions and the Post Election Racist Tweets Map."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Secession Petitions Flood White House Website

Comments Filter:
  • by Hatta (162192) on Monday November 12, 2012 @06:14PM (#41960739) Journal

    They did pick an actual conservative. Obama. The guy is to the right on Nixon and Reagan on many issues.

  • by h4rr4r (612664) on Monday November 12, 2012 @06:19PM (#41960813)

    It would save us a shitload of tax money and we would no longer have to worry about the American taliban getting their voice in our laws.

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/09/who-receives-the-disproportionate-share-of-government-spending.html [typepad.com]

  • by MightyYar (622222) on Monday November 12, 2012 @06:29PM (#41960967)

    While I realize it is not a possibility anytime soon, but in 100 years could we see the return of the Confederate States of America?

    They'll have to pick a different capital - they lost Virginia, by virtue of it being too close to the Capitol. Or they could just split it up like last time. And they'd better hurry before whites are a minority in Texas. Currently they are only 52% of the population, and Hispanics make up something like 90% of the population growth in the state.

    I think Republicans are going to either change tactics, or become a permanent minority party.

  • by lysdexia (897) on Monday November 12, 2012 @06:34PM (#41961027) Homepage
    Hell yes. I grew up with older relatives who equated Richard Nixon with Atilla the Hun. The stuff that got him impeached would barely be reported on mainstream news these days. And we almost had Romney/Obama care back in the 70's. Do a google search for Nixon Permenente and lose your mind.
  • by LionKimbro (200000) on Monday November 12, 2012 @06:37PM (#41961059) Homepage

    And if you look at a county map, you will almost certainly see the CITIES.

    Time to update the urban archipelago maps. [urbanarchipelago.com] I bet they still hold.

  • by blind biker (1066130) on Monday November 12, 2012 @06:41PM (#41961123) Journal

    What is bad is America had no left wing candidate at all.

    That's not true at all - the Green Party fielded a genuinely left-leaning candidate - Jill Stein [wikipedia.org]
    I quite like her.

  • by HornWumpus (783565) on Monday November 12, 2012 @06:42PM (#41961131)

    The feds can't afford to pay anyhow. They will just print money, which any independent state can also do.

  • Re:Is this news? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 12, 2012 @06:47PM (#41961205)

    This is an argument that I absolutely despise. "X isn't as important as Y, so don't bother me until Y^2 happens."

    You do realize that it only takes one serious whackadoo to take some pop-shots at the presidential cavalcade to make the direction of the world change, correct? Further, do you realize that this funny little petition is the top-side of some real, and very confusing, anger in the country?

    Stop being a negative douche. By the time that something like this gets to the governor or state legislature, some "random retard" will have already taken the wind out of their sails by blowing something/someone up.

    In other words - stupid things are generally the leading edge of something more serious.

  • by houghi (78078) on Monday November 12, 2012 @07:13PM (#41961485)

    I assume you are referring to there not being a left wing candidate.

    You thinking that she is left wing just shows how long the US has not have a left wing candidate. To the rest of the world she is center at most.

  • by reboot246 (623534) on Monday November 12, 2012 @07:31PM (#41961619) Homepage
    Along with Texas and Louisiana, the other petitioners interested in secession are in Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, North Dakota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Missouri.

    Yep, all those are the poorest states and redder than a ripe tomato.
  • by dkleinsc (563838) on Monday November 12, 2012 @07:36PM (#41961657) Homepage

    Clinton was the most warlike president of all since Johnson. At least until Bush Jr went crazy.

    Definitely not:

    Richard Nixon: Elected on a secret plan to end the Vietnam War in 1968, he expanded it into Laos and Cambodia, two countries who's only crime was being next to Vietnam.

    Gerald Ford: Actually made peace in Vietnam. He's not a contender for the "most warlike".

    Jimmy Carter: A few minor things, such as trying to rescue the hostages. Also not a contender.

    Ronald Reagan: Invaded Grenada, Honduras, ordered various operations against Libya, was on the outskirts of the Iran-Iraq War (supplying weapons to both sides and using US ships to protect Kuwaiti oil tankers).

    George H.W. Bush: First Gulf War. Several smaller operations in Panama, Hondurus, and Liberia.

    Bill Clinton: Enforcing the no-fly zone in Iraq, air operations in former Yugoslavia, missile strikes on Al Qaida.

  • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Monday November 12, 2012 @07:36PM (#41961661)

    A republican candidate needs to have some degree of hick-and-nutter appeal, or they'll never get to be the candidate.

    So, you missed the part where the (relatively) moderate candidate won the primary and then picked a hick-and-nutter running mate?

  • by green1 (322787) on Monday November 12, 2012 @08:43PM (#41962231)

    I call BS on that one. I live in Canada, we also have a first past the post voting system, however we also have 5 major political parties, Conservative, Liberal, New Democrats, Bloc Quebecois, and Green. The Green party is in fact quite new and only won it's first seat in the past couple of elections, however they are quickly growing. This proves that even with a first past the post system, it is possible for new parties to form and be successful.
    I'm not sure what it is about the US that makes it impossible to have more than 2 parties, but first past the post isn't it.

  • by dcollins (135727) on Monday November 12, 2012 @08:45PM (#41962239) Homepage

    "The Republicans have the hick and religious nutter vote locked up, why court them at all?"

    Actually, no. Among the bitch-slaps the GOP took this cycle was the fact that, against all expectations, 6 million fewer white people voted than in 2008 (and of course, their population is actually larger) -- http://news.yahoo.com/karl-rove-why-romney-lost-obama-suppressing-vote-215625694.html [yahoo.com]

    Meanwhile, increasing voter participation occurred for Blacks and Hispanics. Young people (18-29) cast more votes than old people (65+) for possibly the first time ever -- and they vastly prefer Dems positions on social issues (immigration, health care, women's rights, gay marriage, etc.), breaking 60% for Obama even when most pundits thought they were disenchanted. This demographic trend is only expected to increase -- http://news.yahoo.com/gop-faces-steep-climb-young-voters-080006202--politics.html [yahoo.com]

    Arguably, the GOP is between a rock and a hard place; their primary seemingly cannot nominate a person acceptable to the electorate at large. This might even be seen to be the case for the last 20 years if the vote in 2000 had been counted accurately.

  • by dcollins (135727) on Monday November 12, 2012 @08:52PM (#41962311) Homepage

    Fact: In this election, young people (18-29) cast more votes than old people (65+) for the first time ever; and they vastly prefer Dems positions on social issues (immigration, health care, women's rights, gay marriage, etc.). Demographics say this will only increase in the future -- http://news.yahoo.com/gop-faces-steep-climb-young-voters-080006202--politics.html [yahoo.com]

    That's not everything, not a panacea for all our problems, but saying "the entire country has been moving to the right" just doesn't seem generally valid.

  • by fyngyrz (762201) on Monday November 12, 2012 @09:51PM (#41962841) Homepage Journal

    No. They're the portion of the country that keeps us swilling oil. Look at any oil production map:

    Texas, Montana, North Dakota... etc.: red states.

    It wouldn't matter a bit, though -- they'd still want to sell oil.

    What intrigues me in Texas' case, is that they have been screwing up school books for some time now, and it would be a real boon to the country if somehow, secession resulted in our books being more reality-based. They can keep their "no sex toy" laws and immigrant hating, too... be good to get those kinds of influences out of the country.

    For Montana (my state) I'm not sure secession is really any serious goal; first of all, we've got a Democrat governor and senator, and part of the reason we have a Republican congress-critter is gerrymandering. There are some really "red" areas in the state, but there are some really blue ones, too. I expect these petitions are coming from the red areas and won't amount to a thing, even should others succeed (which I doubt, but that's another issue.)

    But... we've got a good state constitution, and our legislators and courts have demonstrated -- repeatedly -- that they're willing to abide by it, instead of making up bullshit at the drop of a hat the way SCOTUS does. We have oil, mineral resources, timber and grain. We raise cattle, too. What we don't have is a lot of people. Maybe that would change if coming here meant that you no longer had to worry (for instance) about the government taking your property to build a mall, pretending you have no right to arms, surveilling your communications and banking without warrants, etc.

    One thing I honestly think about the US as a whole right now is that it is no longer a constitutional republic. I'd describe it more as a corporate-driven plutocracy. It's not pretty.

    OTOH, I don't think a bunch of little countries here would be pretty, either. I give it a rousing "ain't gonna happen" :)

  • by artor3 (1344997) on Monday November 12, 2012 @10:07PM (#41962973)

    You just backed it up for him. According to the site that you yourself linked there is only one "red" state that pays more in taxes than it gets in federal spending: Texas.

    Here's a quick summary, from your own link, of which states support the nation, sorted by the amount they give in excess of the amount they receive:

    California: $47B
    New Jersey: $32B
    New York: $24B
    Illinois: $19B
    Connecticut: $10B
    Texas: $10B
    Minnesota: $9B
    Massachusetts: $8B
    Nevada: $6B
    Colorado: $5B
    Michigan: $3B
    Washington: $3B
    Wisconsin $3B
    New Hampshire: $2B
    Delaware: $1.5B
    Oregon: $1B
    Florida: $0.5B

    That list includes big states, small states, densely populated states, sparse states, coastal states, landlocked states, and so on. The only common thread is that they're all liberal, except Texas. And if we're being honest, Texas only makes the list because of the big liberal cities like Houston that drive their economy.

    The fact is that the red states that bitch the most about taxes are also the ones who benefit the most from them. Not unlike their fervently anti-gay congressmen who get caught soliciting sex in the men's room.

  • by disambiguated (1147551) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @12:15AM (#41964011)
    This looks like a good place to post this. I took the data from this economist article [economist.com] and broke it down by red vs. blue state according to this map [washingtonpost.com]. This is what I found:

    * There were 20 surplus states and 30 deficit states.
    * Of the 24 states that voted for Romney, 4 of them had a surplus.
    * Of the 26 states that voted for Obama, 16 of them had a surplus.
    * Together, the blue states had a net surplus of 2.57 trillion, the red states had a net deficit of 1.50 trillion.
    * The average blue state had a surplus of 98.8 billion; the average red state had a deficit of 63.0 billion.
    * Four blue states (New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Minnesota) each had a surplus greater than all the red states with a surplus combined.
  • by Havokmon (89874) <rick&havokmon,com> on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @12:06PM (#41968355) Homepage Journal

    Imagine the message sent to both parties if Stein, or Johnson handed Obama a loss.

    You mean like when Nader handed Gore a loss in 2000?

    The lesson the Republicans learned was "we have a mandate" and proceeded to pursue a decade of self-destructive jingoistic policy they still haven't recovered from. The lesson the Democrats learned was "don't get Nadered again."

    You must be young - Perot handed the Presidency to Clinton in '92 and '96.

    The result of the increasing 3rd party relevance was the only cooperation we could get between the Republicans and Democrats, which was the effective removal of any other party from the election process.

    Bastards. All of them.

"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.

Working...