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This discussion has been archived.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 @06:15PM (#41960763) Journal

    Many people survived neither Bush nor Obama.

  • by inhuman_4 (1294516) on Monday November 12, 2012 @06:17PM (#41960783)

    I'm not American, but it seems to me that there is a growing geographical dichotomy between the left leaning states and the right leaning states. Some of the old confederate states esp. Texas seem to be moving more and more to the right as the coastal states seem to be moving more to the left.

    The left states seem to be moving closer to the Europe and the rest of the world in terms of politics. That is being less religious, pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-war, pro-environment, etc. While the right leaning states seem to be rallying around the Church.

    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?

  • Wrong Branch (Score:4, Interesting)

    by danheskett (178529) <danheskett AT gmail DOT com> on Monday November 12, 2012 @06:19PM (#41960811)

    They are asking the wrong branch. The Executive can't change the union. That's a matter for Congress.

    Or they can try to re-fight the Civil War. Something tells me the modern rebels would not appreciate a Predator drone armed with a small missile up in their business.

  • by Arancaytar (966377) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Monday November 12, 2012 @06:21PM (#41960845) Homepage

    then back to the center to have a chance in the final election ... I don't think anyone could have done that job any better than Mitt did

    I'm aware I don't watch the same news as most Republicans, but I got the reverse impression. Before he won the primaries he actually did look more moderate than Rick Santorum and Rick Perry. After winning the primaries he picked Ryan, got recorded with the "47%" remark, spoke out more strongly against gay marriage and Planned Parenthood.

    Was honestly wondering why he seemed to feel the need to appease the far right instead of the center after already winning the primaries. My only guess was that he feared the far right might get too disgusted with the election to vote if he came off as moderate.

  • by h4rr4r (612664) on Monday November 12, 2012 @06:25PM (#41960891)

    Jill Stein was just a figment of my imagination?

    I really do remember marking that box on the ballot.

  • by oic0 (1864384) on Monday November 12, 2012 @06:28PM (#41960939)
    Texas could maybe pull it off, Louisiana no... The only industry we have here is the Prison industry and the gov here is corrupt top to bottom. Those that aren't in prison are on food stamps. Its an all around crappy state... Every day I wake up I ask my self WTF am I doing here? "Louisiana's incarceration rate is nearly five times Iran's, 13 times China's and 20 times Germany's.... A majority of Louisiana inmates are housed in for-profit facilities, which must be supplied with a constant influx of human beings"
  • by h4rr4r (612664) on Monday November 12, 2012 @06:29PM (#41960953)

    I don't understand it either. The Republicans have the hick and religious nutter vote locked up, why court them at all?

    Playing towards the middle could win an election, but instead they take good middle of the road candidates like McCain and Romney and saddle them with a fringe nutcase VP. Then somehow convince them that it is in their own best interest to act like a far right winger instead of just acting like themselves. Not only does it turn these candidates into liars/flip-floppers but it dirves away votes.

  • by Smidge204 (605297) on Monday November 12, 2012 @06:32PM (#41960983) Journal

    Here's the proper response, IMHO:

    "Dear Pertitioners;

    If you loved this country as much as you claim to, you would know - or would make the effort to learn - that the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has absolutely no authority to determine who is and is not a state or territory. Next time try talking to your Senators and Representatives.

    Sincerely,
    President Barack Obama"

    Maybe it would be worded a little less snarky, but that's how I'd do it.
    =Smidge=

  • by jedidiah (1196) on Monday November 12, 2012 @06:34PM (#41961011) Homepage

    Yes quite. This is the perfect example of a "states rights" issue. If you want to succeed then you need to have a local succession convention in your own state. Dragging the "enemy" in Washington into it really seems beyond absurd.

    It's like genuine fire eaters petitioning Lincoln.

    These people are too stupid to even know what they're asking for.

  • by LionKimbro (200000) on Monday November 12, 2012 @06:38PM (#41961069) Homepage

    It's not about states. It's about cities. [urbanarchipelago.com]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 12, 2012 @06:45PM (#41961175)

    Secession would probably be a bad choice for Texas or any other state.

    Actually, I often wonder whether the US should not look into expansion as a way to boost economic growth in the next 2 or 3 decades. Europe is a mess right now but countries like Germany reaped tremendous economic benefits from the establishment of the European Union. Even though the US is in bad shape right now, there is probably still a lot of countries in latin america that would love the opportunity to join the US. The problem is that in the past the US has only offered trade agreements like NAFTA.

    I understand that the idea of expanding the US into Spanish speaking Latin America may seem like just more trouble. Think about it twice though. Just to the south of us we have Mexico. Probably most Mexicans (particularly in the North) would love to join the US. Mexico has a lot of oil and farmland. Their country is a mess...they would benefit from us coming in and putting the place in order and our economy would benefit of all the opportunities that expansion of our country would provide. Panama is another one further south that should probably be anexed to the US. Their economy has actually been thriving recently. Let's expand the USA rather than breaking it apart.

  • by Grayhand (2610049) on Monday November 12, 2012 @06:53PM (#41961291)

    Can't we at least let them try it this time?

    I agree, let's call their bluff and say okay you're out of the union. They're mostly the poorest states that use the most welfare and medicaid and medicare per capita. They also push the hardest for declaring war. If we let them go we might actually balance the budget finally. Give all the right wing conservatives a year to relocate to the red state of their choice then close the borders. About the time they realize how bad off they are it'll be too late and the rest of us can finally move forward without the half of Congress that always stonewalls efforts to fix the mess. It's a win win because they get to live in a world of fear and hate and teach their kids about Jesus riding dinosaurs while the rest of us get the economy back on track and fix the pollution problem and finally get energy independent.

  • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Monday November 12, 2012 @07:05PM (#41961409)
    Because the rick-and-nutter vote may be tied up at the election, but they seriously matter in the primaries. A republican candidate needs to have some degree of hick-and-nutter appeal, or they'll never get to be the candidate. The party leadership also knows that the social conservatives are very powerful for local organisation and get-out-the-vote efforts, so it's not enough to just have them voting to keep the democrats out. The trick for the republicans is to find a way to whip the social conservatives up into a frenzy of support without also alienating the moderates.
  • Re:Now's our chance! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hey! (33014) on Monday November 12, 2012 @07:08PM (#41961443) Homepage Journal

    I'm not signing, out of respect for the 41.4% of Texans who voted for Obama and the fraction of the 57.2% who voted for Romney who aren't loudmouthed fatheads. Together they surely form a majority of Texas voters.

  • Good Idea (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hackus (159037) on Monday November 12, 2012 @07:19PM (#41961533) Homepage

    Anyone with half a brain I know of didn't vote.

    I didn't vote, and none of my friends voted.

    This two party system is only going to bring more welfare, poverty and despair and finally a dictatorship to control it all just like North Korea.

    I use to wonder how the German people could stand by and watch the transformation of their country when Hitler came to power and enacted citizen execution laws like the USA just recently enacted along with the bull crap for travel....(i.e. Papers please.).

    We have all that now, and it just keeps getting worse.

    Nobody is doing nothing about the banks robbing everything, billions go missing and nobody goes to jail.

    It is out of control, and it is all going to end very badly.

    If any of you have half a brain and actually read history, you should be making plans to leave the country, seriously because this isn't going to get better it is going to get far far worse.

    Especially when all of the criminal banking activity comes home to roost.

    -Hack

  • Care to back that up? [taxfoundation.org] I only mention this because most people seem to be unaware of which states are net receivers and which states are net payers of Federal tax revenues. California and Texas, for example, are net payers, thus it could be argued that if they seceded they would see an increase of capital.
  • by MightyYar (622222) on Monday November 12, 2012 @07:33PM (#41961641)

    Well, he didn't have a (pick a cliche and insert here) to win, thus my labeling of the vote as a "protest". He was better than the two viable candidates.

    I disagree with him on some substantial parts of his platform: ending the Fed (though he's not a huge proponent of that), ending farm subsidies (does he mean all? what about food security?), and I think he shares the same flaw that many Libertarians do when considering corporations: for some reason, they do not see corporations as an example of massive government regulation of the private market, when they clearly are. I also think that the federal government does belong in the EPA business, since many pollution issues cross state boundaries.

    That said, I largely agree with him on almost every other issue and he was by far the closest fit for me.

  • sexism at its finest (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SuperBanana (662181) on Monday November 12, 2012 @08:58PM (#41962363)

    Further, the liberal side is mostly women, minorities, homosexuals/transgenders and college students. The conservative side is mostly white men.

    No, actually. A solid majority of white women voted for Romney. Also, while virtually nobody black voted for Romney, a very large number of other non-white citizens did - each category, it was around 1/3rd.
    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/11/why-white-women-voted-for-romney.html [newyorker.com]
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-exit-poll [foxnews.com]

  • by hardwarefreak (899370) on Tuesday November 13, 2012 @08:06PM (#41975543)

    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:

    [snip]

    What I found is that you have no clue how to do data analysis and have concocted some bogus correlations to push a liberal agenda. In 1984 and 1972 all states were red but one . That one shot just sank your bogus analysis and agenda, but I'll add some detail. I'll focus on a prime example we can all relate to of why these federal spending "deficits" into states exist and that they have nothing to do with which presidential candidate carried the state in the last election, i.e. whether the state is "blue" or "red". Since 1968 New Mexico has voted Republican 7 times and Democrat 5 times. It is blue after the 2012 election and was blue in 2008, Obama winning the state easily both times. In 2004 it was red when G.W. Bush won the state by a gnat's hair. New Mexico has the highest federal spending to taxes paid ratio of any state, $2.03 for each $1 in taxes as of 2005, and has been roughly equally blue and red over the last 50 years. Why such a deficit?

    * population of only 2 million people
    * Los Alamos National Laboratory, 2.2 $bn/year, $100+ million each year on compute hardware
    * Sandia National Laboratory, 2.1 $bn/year, $100+ million each year on compute hardware
    * 3 US Air Force bases: Holloman AFB, Kirtland AFB, Cannon AFB, many $bn/year, no time to research exact $$
    * White Sands missile testing range, unkown $
    * Protection and management of 6 National Forests in the state, unkown $
    * many other fed govt facilities

    The reasons for these federal spending "deficits" and "surpluses" have nothing to do with red and blue. New Mexico has been blue 5/6 recent elections, and red in 6/6 from '68 to '92. New Mexico's current 2:1 ratio and the state's growth are directly linked to a single project in the 1940s called "Manhattan". The first nuclear bomb test of the Trinity device destroyed nothing in New Mexico but the tower upon which it was perched and some wooden shacks. But it was nuclear fertilizer for the state, spurred population and economic growth for decades, with nearly all of the money coming into the state economy for 50 years from Uncle Sam for nuclear weapons research.

    To understand these federal spending "deficits" and "surpluses" into the states you must look at each state individually. It usually boils down to how many federal facilities and employees are in a state, and/or defense/govt contractors, vs population. California has a great number of military bases, defense contractors, govt labs, etc, but the state's population is over 1/10 of the entire US, 37 million people, greater than the population of Canada and 160 other countries. Thus private sector output and federal taxes are greater than the dollars Uncle Sam is injecting into the state's economy.

Please go away.

Working...