Slashdot Mirror


Secession Petitions Flood White House Website

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."

149 of 1,163 comments (clear)

  1. If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..you'd find these states well ranked.

    Secession is an economically unviable option. If you want copious analyses ask the Quebec'ers.

    We in the US seem to have a hard time admitting when we are wrong. Mitt was a dreadful choice for a conservative presidential candidate. Obama's winning the election was not a sign that the poor Texans are oppressed. They simply picked a moderate who had to pivot to the right of Rick Perry to win the primaries, and 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, but even with 3 to 1 outspending of their opponents it wasn't enough. I sent my $100 to Buddy Roemer to try to get an honest man into the race, and honesty lost.

    So, please quit your whining and next time pick an actuall conservative. Pick someone with a tax plan that adds up, low spending, little war-lust, and who understands what a disaster the "personhood" amendment would be, and then you'll have a race.

    1. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Bodhammer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean Gary Johnson?

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    3. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What conservatives need is to make a decision: fiscally conservative or socially conservative. Pick one, then stop trying to "purify" the party to get rid of the 70% of Americans who aren't both then whining that they're losing because of welfare leeches.

    4. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by rsborg · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      Note: This is some random guy in a state requesting it for his entire state. I'd say the answer should be: ask your duly elected representatives, not me, the President.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    5. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Hatta · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you pay attention to what they have been doing recently they made that choice. They are firmly going with social conservatism and spending like a sailor on shore leave. Sadly they want to do that last part and cut taxes at the same time.

    7. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by mbkennel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Pick someone with a tax plan that adds up, low spending, little war-lust, and who understands what a disaster the "personhood" amendment would be, and then you'll have a race."

      Sorry, but Bill Clinton is not eligible to run.

    8. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    9. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    10. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mitt was a dreadful choice for a conservative presidential candidate.

      Romney was a far right conservative presidential candidate, Obama is not "moderate" at all as he is a right wing conservative.

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

      We're going how the rest of the world define political spectrum, not America.

    11. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by mbkennel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      | Iran has strong religious values, and gas at 50 cents a gallon and the most polluted capital city anywhere.

      That is what they wish for.

    12. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Jill Stein was just a figment of my imagination?

      I really do remember marking that box on the ballot.

    13. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Also we could stand to shed a state so we won't have to buy new flags when Puerto Rico becomes a state.

    14. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    15. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Think of the foreign aid!

    16. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    17. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by lysdexia · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    18. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by blind+biker · · Score: 2

      I sent my $100 to Buddy Roemer

      You sent your 100 bucks to a banker? Splendid plan, whatever could be wrong with that.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    19. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Art+Popp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fair enough. It was an incomplete pivot. In the debates he went right-of-Perry on immigration but wasn't more radical than most of the stage.

      But, again, what can you do. You don't want to appear to be an Etch-a-Sketch, but you have to in a split-brained party if you want all their votes. Pleasing the corporations ruins the budgets valued by decent conservatives, pleasing the decent conservatives, irks the religeous zealots. The guy was asked to swim in air. I've no pity for the amount of deceit he employed in this process, but it looked like a pretty impossible job.

    20. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This election wasn't just about Obama vs Romney, I would argue that wasn't even the most important race taking place, especially given that anyone objective enough to look at actual polling data knew the conclusion before the first ballot was caste on the 6th. If I were a republican, I'd be more worried about the number of senate races they lost. I'd be more worried about the fact that they lost the popular vote if you add up all the house races (only maintaining a 40 seat lead in the house thanks to a metric shit-ton of gerrymandering in 2010). I'd be more worried that 60% of voters think that taxes should go up for the richest people and only 35% thought that taxes shouldn't go up for anyone. And that 65% of voters think there should be a path to legal residency for illegal immigrants.

      And if I were a social conservative, I'd be terrified that 60% of voters in this election think that abortion should be legal for all circumstances. And that more people think same sex marriage should be recognized than not (49% to 46%). Not to mention that Wisconsin (of all places) just elected the first openly gay senator.

      Things are changing the US. It wasn't just that Romney was unlikable, it wasn't just that he had to pander to the base to get elected. Over the past 8 years conservative, republican positions have become more and more untenable to the majority of voters.

    21. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
      I quite like her.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    22. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    23. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Niris · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He was my actual vote >.> He seemed the most reasonable out of all of the candidates. It's a shame the media and government don't care about options.

    24. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Mr.+McGibby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Third party candidates are a fantasy. Either fix the system so they have any chance of winning, or just stop spewing this nonsense.

      --
      Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
    25. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Raenex · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's "secede", not "succeed".

    26. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Grayhand · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    27. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by kd6ttl · · Score: 2

      If they are taking actions that result in the most polluted capital city, then yes, in some sense they wish for the most polluted capital city. It may be a side effect of the government they support, not a main effect, but it's still an effect.

    28. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by metrometro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously. I voted for the guy who said he's end the wars and raise taxes, because there's a deficit, yo. The guy who implemented the Heritage Foundation's plan for healthcare, which was based on the idea of individual responsibility paired with a fair and transparent dealing from the insurers. The guy who overthrew the Libyan government under force of arms with four American fatalities, and didn't do the same in Syria because he thought it was too risky. Oh, and he's on the right side on the inclusion of gays, women(!?), immigrants and host of other basic-human-freedom issues that used to be considered part of the conservative promise.

      We need a conservative party in this country, and I'm not sure the GOP is going to be it. I think the best thing you could do as a conservative in this country is start electing Greens and then plan to be a Democrat for the next 50 years.

    29. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by stillpixel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear Red States:

      We're ticked off at the way you've treated California and we've decided we're leaving.

      We intend to form our own country and we're taking the other Blue States with us.

      In case you aren't aware that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast.

      We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

      To sum up briefly:

      You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.

      We get stem cell research and the best beaches.

      We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.

      We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.

      We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.

      We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss.

      We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.

      We get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You get to make the red states pay their fair share.

      Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

      Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro choice and anti war and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home.

      We wish you success in Iraq and hope that the WMDs turn up but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.

      With the Blue States in hand we will have firm control of 80% of the country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven

      Sister schools plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

      With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush

      Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

      We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

      38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

      We're taking the good pot too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.



      from: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljokedearredstates.htm

    30. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    31. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by kwiqsilver · · Score: 5, Funny

      It works with both, actually: they can't secede if they fail in their attempt.

    32. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by houghi · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    33. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      But...but...but...all the job creators will be living in red states. How will the rest of us ever find work?

    34. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by scumdamn · · Score: 2

      It's not the media's fault. It's the "first past the post" voting system that's in place all the way from the bottom to the top. That's why there are two dominant parties. Until that's changed votes for a third party cannabalize votes that would go to one of the major party candidates and hurt their chances to be elected (see Gore, Al).

    35. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Care to back that up? 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.

      --

      I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

    36. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by mark-t · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only reason that they don't have any chance of winning is because everybody thinks that they don't have any chance of winning, and so a vote for one of them is a wasted vote that could better go to a candidate that has a chance of winning that is the lesser of the two evils.

    37. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    38. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by mdenham · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hence my petition. Get rid of (some of) the net receivers, gain some much-needed capital to help pay down the national debt in exchange, and as a side effect we have a smaller government to boot.

      (For what it's worth, I don't expect to get more than a couple hundred signatures, tops.)

    39. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Funny

      So they can secede without succeeding?

    40. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    41. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      It's because they think they need a nutjob in order to get the Republican "base" out to vote, when what they really need is a moderate to win over the undecided voters (who are the real deciding factor).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    42. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    43. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Informative

      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?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    44. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      And what, we choose smog and poverty?

    45. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let Texas secede, withdraw all the national defense instruments we have in the region, and let them hold off the violent Mexican gangs. They will soon remember the Alamo, and not in a good way.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    46. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by multimediavt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've said this every time the subject comes up. You wanna secede, go ahead. You lose currency, military, and everything else that comes with being part of the United States. Oh, you thought you'd get to use the dollar? Uh, no, that's a United States Federal Reserve Note. Fuck off! And, no way would I give them Texas. You want some states you get Mississippi and Alabama because your policies already fucked those states up so bad we don't want them anyway. We'll just build a nice four meter high fence around them for you and install the appropriate border crossings after we cut off any and all infrastructure running in and out of those states. Idiots think they can have their cake and eat it to. Ha! My ass!!!

    47. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Abreu · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sorry no. On behalf of all Mexicans, Texans can stay in the USA or become independent, but we don't want them back.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    48. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wait wait. I'm from Missouri. We entered the union as a slave state, but we never seceded (except the parts that tried to) and we fought on both sides of the Civil War. Our senators are one each, D and R, and we used to vote for Democratic presidents until just recently. So are we a slave state or a free state? I don't wanna get stuck with the crazies. I LIKE lettuce.

    49. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by DaTrueDave · · Score: 2

      Hmmm... Well, you might have a point with Louisiana by itself, but Texas pays more to the Federal government than it receives, and we're talking about much greater numbers than most states, so I'm not sure I understand your point.

      http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

    50. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by green1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    51. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by dcollins · · Score: 3, Informative

      "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

      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

      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.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    52. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by CaptSlaq · · Score: 2

      I'd be more worried that 60% of voters think that taxes should go up for the richest people and only 35% thought that taxes shouldn't go up for anyone

      Why? We're insolvent, and any fiscal conservative ought to know that when you're deep in debt, the only responsible thing to do is to pay it off, even if it means taking a second job (increasing income) as well as cutting expenses.

      Which holy cows are you willing to turn into hamburger with regard to spending? The problem is that no one wants to donate their cow, just everyone elses.

      Drive it off the cliff. Let every branch take a 10% hit and maybe, MAYBE Congress learn some priorities. At least then everyone donates a side of beef to the grinder.

    53. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by runeghost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wish people would quit using the word "insolvent" in relation to the federal debt. The United States government can print as many dollars as it wants or needs. While there are significant downsides to the U.S. printing it's way out of debt, it can be done. Thus, the U.S. is by definition not insolvent. If the United States defaults on its debt, it's because the government (or the people running the government) choose to do so.

    54. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Gabrill · · Score: 2

      Ask the Confederacy.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    55. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by StarWreck · · Score: 2
      Sir! Sir! I wholly contest your adoption of the word 'insolvent'. You should appreciate we're dealing with a body politic that barely apprehends at an intermediate level. I henceforth substitute 'insolvent' with 'bankrupt' to appease the proletariat.

      case:

      No "Mitt Romney would have allowed General Motors to become insolvent."
      Yes "Mitt Romney would have allowed General Motors to go bankrupt."

      Kindly ignore that General Motors did go bankrupt and was renamed Motors Liquidation Company. Pay no mind that a Motors Liquidation Co. then sold its healthy assets to a newly created entity that then renamed itself General Motors. Finally, flush down the memory hole that the same end game would have been achieved had Motors Liquidation Co., at the time still named General Motors, never received its much vaunted and extolled "bail outs".

      Its for the betterment of the nation. I'm sure you'll agree.

      --
      ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    56. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Caffinated · · Score: 2
      It's not BS, it's actually called Duverger's law:

      Duverger's law is a principle which asserts that a plurality rule election system tends to favor a two-party system.

      The wikipedia article specifically notes Canada and explains why there are more than 2 parties at the national level:

      In the case of Canada, the highly regionalised parties are evident in province-by-province examination: while the multiparty system can be seen in the Canadian House of Commons, many of the provinces' elections are dominated by two-party systems. Quebec, for instance, is driven mainly by the separatist Parti Quebecois and the centre-left Liberal Party, while in Saskatchewan, it is the left-wing New Democratic Party and the centre-right Saskatchewan Party (a coalition of those affiliated with the Conservative and Liberal Parties). Unlike in the United States, where the two major parties are organized and unified at the federal, state and local level, Canada's federal and provincial parties generally operate as separate organizations.

      So, Canada's a bit of an exception due to strong(er) regionalism, but first-past-the-post voting will tend toward two parties as the stable configuration.

    57. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by sacrilicious · · Score: 4, Funny

      If at first you don't secede, try and try again?

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    58. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Informative

      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" :)

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    59. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by artor3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    60. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by pellik · · Score: 2

      I voted for Jill Stein, too.

      However, math, game theory, and Duverger's Law all say it's impossible for her to win, so that's largely irrelevant to how our country is governed.

      The Green party isn't even trying to win the election. If they can just manage to get 5% of the vote they will break into the mainstream and the next election will have three candidates at the big debates. The hope is that having someone at the debates who is willing to speak truthfully, instead of just trying to win over those few nutcases who can't decide on a major party yet still think voting matters, could bring about real change.

    61. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do you assume that every action is done of a genuine belief that its going to work? There is often value to a stunt, even if just to make a point. If anything, I think they are the smart ones in this system.

      Its like I tell to some Obama supporters who can't stand Obama. They feel like voting for a 3rd party was wasting a vote, as if the consequences of an election end with who gets into office. Imagine the message sent to both parties if Stein, or Johnson handed Obama a loss.

      Elections are not about who wins or loses, those are secondary issues. Elections are about what issues politicians feel safe standing on, and what issues they feel they need to fall into line on. These petitions serve a similar purpose...its not about breaking off, its about getting people talking about it, and about making them answer it.

      Its definitely a silly tactic, but, I think there is plenty of room for that.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    62. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by khallow · · Score: 2

      At least, they probably won't be shipping arms to violent Mexican gangs. It's worth noting that the federal government has with the notorious Fast and Furious operation participated in the killing of over a hundred Mexican citizens and some number of US citizens including two law enforcement officers.

    63. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by fizzer06 · · Score: 2

      I thought Austin was part of California.

    64. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by disambiguated · · Score: 5, Informative

      This looks like a good place to post this. I took the data from this economist article and broke it down by red vs. blue state according to this map. 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.

    65. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 2

      I've only seen a couple of the petitions. They don't ask to secede they ask that they be allowed to secede peacefully

    66. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by terjeber · · Score: 2

      That would be a good long-term investment too, since all those Texans would eventually become new oil to harvest.

    67. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by dave420 · · Score: 2

      California is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. It has little to do with Hispanics and Asians, just Californians in general being Californian in their outlook.

    68. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Staggeringly enough, we don't consider non-sentient land to be the basis of a democracy. Instead we count votes from people.

      If you're saying the election is rigged because it counts people in each state, rather than square feet of land, then well, I guess you're right, but you probably need a refresher course in civics.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    69. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by s4m7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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."

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    70. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Havokmon · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    71. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Agronomist+Cowherd · · Score: 2

      Actually, we have 100 Senators. I'm going to use your tiny typo to float a different mathematical idea: increased representation at the federal level. I say there aren't enough senators.

      My thought is that there should be 1 representative (senator or house member) for each 100,000 voters. If we assume an even 310,000,000 in US population (it isn't even, but it's close enough, I think) then that would be 3100 representatives. If 10% go to the senate, divided by state, then each state gets 6 senators. The other 2800 get apportioned by population into the house of representatives; NYC would get (at an assumed 8 million citizens) 72 representatives, and the rest of NY would get 99. My small town would get about a quarter of a representative, which is better than we get now.

      I'd also make it a rule that districts must be cohesive. No more (or at least much less) gerrymandering. The ratio of the area of the smallest oval covering the district over the area of the actual district can't be over 2 (or some other small number). No more twisty outlines. And the representative districts need to fill the senatorial districts.

      I'd also allow voting on neighboring districts, but with less weight: 60% from the district itself, 40% from outside. So a local nutcase can be overridden by people nearby.

      If anyone sees this, let me know just how ludicrous it is.

      --
      -DwS
    72. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by Yunzil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It ought to be acceptable to register dissatisfaction with the election results in this free country of ours.

      There's a difference between registering your dissatisfaction and being a whiny childish douchebag. These secessionists fall into the latter category.

      The way to avoid this is to work with the opposition and hammer out compromises. The Democrats failed to compromise from 2008-2010, feeling they didn't need to, and in 2010 they reaped the results.

      It's laughable that you think it's the Democrats that need to compromise.

      The point is, Obama does not have a strong mandate and would do well to incorporate some of the moderate and conservative fiscal ideas into his policies going forward.

      I guarantee you that if Romney had won by the same electoral margin, we'd be hearing nothing but "mandate" being screamed from the right.

    73. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by hardwarefreak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This looks like a good place to post this. I took the data from this economist article and broke it down by red vs. blue state according to this map. 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.

    74. Re:If there was a Bad at Math Map... by redlemming · · Score: 2

      You have established a correlation between a particular mathematical quantity (the difference between tax income and federal spending) and how states voted.

      Correlation is not causation.

      By itself this data is meaningless, although apparently appealing to those who spend mod points to support their political party affiliation (instead of being nerds and actually examining what is being said).

      Within a state that voted for Romney, it is entirely possible that most of the federal funding goes to districts that voted for Obama, and vice-versa. Without a more careful analysis of the data, you can't say one way or the other.

      There are strong differences between the political views of rural and urban populations in many jurisdictions, and sometimes may be strong differences in which of these locations receive the lion's share of the amount of funds. Even when these numbers is known, the analysis of benefit is not simple as receiving a larger dollar value does not neccesarily translate to receiving more benefit.

      As a first step in understanding federal spending, you will almost certainly have to break the spending into categories, and consider who benefits within each state, and this in itself is a complex task, as the categories may overlap. Further, how do you determine who benefits from a particular spending decision? Is it one group, or are there multiple groups? Are there both direct and indirect benefits, and how do we quantify these? There is no algorithm for doing any of this, so, considerable thought and careful analysis is required.

      Federal spending goes to many different things, and different (sometimes overlapping) groups benefit from each. Some examples of federal spending include military-related spending, maintaining the national transportation network, and education.

      Some states with smaller populations get a disproportionate amount of money due to the need to maintain certain military bases. Bases may exist in a particular location either for strategic purposes, or perhaps because huge amounts of suitable land (e.g. land that supports training year round) is readily available, or even because of historical reasons and inertia.

      Some federal funds are spent to take resources such as water out of one state and send it to another, which may benefit the receiving state more than the sending state.

      Other federal funds are spend to support the transport of goods across the state. Movement of goods across a state may or may not result in significant benefit to the state: the benefit to the state from this spending may vary considerably, especially in comparison to the benefit to the states receiving those goods.

      Consider the importance of having forests to provide lumber to build houses, and having a transportation network to move the wood to the house sites. Not all types of wood are equally suitable for any particular use, and those that are suitable may not grow in every state.

      Educational spending is an enormously complex topic in and of itself.

      Details like these need to be considered before you can draw political conclusions from looking at where federal funds are spent. Without such an analysis you can't hope to determine which political party actually benefits the most from particular federal spending.

      At present, no meaningful conclusions can be drawn from the numbers you present. This is Slashdot. Please put more thought into this matter.

  2. 7000 more needed for a response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Response:

    No.

    1. Re:7000 more needed for a response by HiThere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That *should* be the response, however, judging by past actions, if it gets close to the point where a response is promissed, the petition will quietly disappear.

      That's what's happened in other instances where he didn't want to respond.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:7000 more needed for a response by ChinggisK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Either that or the person chosen to write the response was ridiculous, i.e. director of the TSA responding to the "Abolish the TSA" petition...

    3. Re:7000 more needed for a response by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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=

    4. Re:7000 more needed for a response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's just an answer that will piss people off. Better to reason with them on an issue they find important:

      You do realize that seceding from the union would make your football teams ineligible to win a BCS national championship, right?

      That alone should convince almost the entire south to stay.

  3. Good luck with that. by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm conflicted whether Obama's response should be:

    Yeah yeah, don't let the door hit you.

    or

    Why don't you try and see how that works out for you.

    1. Re:Good luck with that. by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd much prefer "Then quit bitching and pack up your shit. Mexico isn't very far away"

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:Good luck with that. by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Obama says that he models himself after Lincoln, so...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Good luck with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I guess everything IS bigger in Texas. Including the crybabies.

    4. Re:Good luck with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lincoln should have been impeached. Not for trying to save the Union, but for suspending habeas corpus and throwing his opposition into jail.

    5. Re:Good luck with that. by aralin · · Score: 3, Funny

      I vote for: "Please, can you take Kansas with you? Thanks. B.O."

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    6. Re:Good luck with that. by Abreu · · Score: 3, Funny

      As stated before, we Mexicans don't want Texas back, you can keep it.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
  4. White House Response by RelaxedTension · · Score: 3, Funny

    No

    1. Re:White House Response by multicoregeneral · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These "we the people" petitions are a joke. At best they'll get a response that says the whitehouse cannot respond for whatever reason they figure is vague enough not to be offensive to anyone at the time.

      --
      This signature intentionally left blank.
  5. Now's our chance! by ChinggisK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Quick! Someone make a "Let Texas and Louisiana Secede" petition!

    1. Re:Now's our chance! by Bradmont · · Score: 2

      Wish I had mod points...

    2. Re:Now's our chance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Here, I made one. Probably not the most cleverly written but hey.

    3. Re:Now's our chance! by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Now's our chance! by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

      Given how much whining there is over base closures now, imagine when the US suddenly closes every base in the seceding south. And immediately discharges every servicemen who comes from a seceding state (unless they move to a northern state and apply for US citizenship during the transition period.) And cancels all contracts with defence contractors in the seceding states. And...

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  6. The likely response: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Blow it out your ass. We survived Bush, you can survive Obama. Grow the fuck up.

    1. Re:The likely response: by Hatta · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Many people survived neither Bush nor Obama.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:The likely response: by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think Presidents should automatically get added to the list of hurricane names.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:The likely response: by hrvatska · · Score: 2

      Agreed. And not just their first or last name. When it's named after a president it should use the full name. It would be awesome to hear weather reports saying something along the lines of "People are fleeing inland as Barack Obama is on track to deliver a devastating blow to Mississippi."

  7. Let them go. by bmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Being a resident of New England, I'm tired of paying for their highways and such while they accuse us here as being Un-American.

    For fucks sake. Leave already.

    What I found especially amusing was the tea-tard messages claiming people would high-tail it to Canada if Obama got re-elected. Yeah, the country next door with single-payer health insurance, decent social security, more gun regulation, etc.

    Go. Go to Canada.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Let them go. by paiute · · Score: 4, Funny

      "I'm moving to Australia, because their president is a Christian and actually supports what he says."

      "And it's right next door to Switzerland."

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    2. Re:Let them go. by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Funny

      "And it's right next door to Switzerland."

      You mean Sweden, right? People are always mixing those two up.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    3. Re:Let them go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Being a middle class worker, I'm tired of half my extra contract work money going to the federal government and being called a bigot for saying anything about it. You even using terms like "tea-tard".

      You hear the bipartsianship from the GOP? It just went away with comments like yours. No one will ever work with the DNC because their attitude is just like yours.

    4. Re:Let them go. by mk1004 · · Score: 4, Funny

      And she's an Atheist. It was a triple fail.

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
    5. Re:Let them go. by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      Seriously if you are going to confuse australia with austria, then confusing swiss with swedish is next in order. And Sweden and Austraalia are so good neighbous they even co-hosted the olympics once (I am not making that part up).

    6. Re:Let them go. by mk1004 · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's the only thing she didn't confuse. 1) PM, not president. 2) She, not he. 3) Atheist, not Christian. Paiute (550198) was joking about Australia/Austria.

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
  8. The Texas one is now over the threshold by sexybomber · · Score: 4, Insightful

    29,025 and presumably climbing. I say, great. Good riddance.

    1. Re:The Texas one is now over the threshold by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Hell, if Bush had one of these petitions up during his presidency, he'd probably be able to get 29K votes from Texans who wanted to secede (it's up to 32K now, by the way). Texans love to threaten secession at the drop of a hat, since it's a commonly-repeated myth that the Republic of Texas negotiated with the U.S. to retain the right to secede when the territory was annexed in 1846. Of course, a clause of that sort does not exist (though there are a few other ones that are odd, such as the ability to split Texas into more states), but a lot of people haven't gotten the memo yet. Plus, the fact that the state has its own independent power grid, oil, and an economy that would put it in the top 20 countries worldwide if it were a sovereign state means that a lot of people, for better or worse, think it can actually be viable.

      Obama or not, Texas is a state with a large population and a lot of people who are fine with threatening secession (though few of them actually mean it). It comes as no surprise to me that the petition garnered so much support. Plus, the fact that Texans tend to be regarded as arrogant and ignorant probably helped to garner more support from people who would like to see them gone.

      Moving past that though, I'm always a bit annoyed at comments like yours. You've just generalized a little over 8% of the U.S.'s population as being people who you'd be fine cutting off all ties to. More than likely, you've done this based on some stereotypes you believe about the types of people that make up the bulk of the population in the state. As someone who grew up in south Florida and moved to Texas 13 years ago during my high school years, what I've seen is that a lot of Texans feel compelled to constantly fight the type of stereotypes you've likely come to believe and accept as fact (I still remember the host family that helped us get acclimated when we moved here was relieved to find out, and I am not making this up, that we didn't think most people used a horse to get to school, since they had dealt with that misconception more than once). Yes, a lot of folks here have a drawl. And, as with every other state, we have our share of idiots here too (unfortunately, some of ours just happen to be more well-known). Couple those together and it makes for a convenient and comfortable-to-believe stereotype that doesn't accurately reflect the vast majority of the state's population.

      Most people overlook the fact that we also have world-class universities, multiple cities oriented around cultivating technology, the best medical center for cancer treatment in the world, Johnson Space Center and all that NASA and its subcontractors bring, and the largest theater district in the nation other than Broadway. None of those are gathering dust. Texans have a love for the arts, technology, engineering, and sciences...as well as a massive independent streak that oftentimes gets misunderstood for arrogance, ignorance, or other things that it is not.

      Besides which, my family was shocked by just how nice they everyone was when we moved here. Growing up in south Florida, hearing a car honk its horn was typical; it'd happen a dozen times on the way to school each morning. When we moved to Texas, it was several months before we heard someone honk a horn. And I still remember that during the first week my family was here, we went to pick up a pizza at Papa John's, only to have an employee walk it out to our car before we could even hop out, simply because she saw us pull in and figured she'd save us the hassle of coming into the store to get it. I talked to more than a few friends who moved out-of-state after college and were just as shocked at how inhospitable people are elsewhere in the country, and that the sort of hospitality and genuine friendliness they were used to in Texas was not the norm elsewhere.

      So, as one of those people who you've just wished good riddance to, allow me to say that I feel sorry for you and your small, uninformed view that must have led to your statement, and that I'd encourage you to get to know some Texans personally (they're not hard to find) before you continue to callously dismiss them as you did.

  9. Re:Several V flood by gman003 · · Score: 2

    I realise there's probably an xkcd for this, but floods and "several" seem to be two different extremes to me.

    Obligatory XKCD

  10. The return the Confederacy? by inhuman_4 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:The return the Confederacy? by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:The return the Confederacy? by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      I doubt it. People like to bitch but the 50 States together are a superpower. Separately they're just little countries. The problem is that the art of compromise seems to be lost. No one wants to meet in the middle anymore. We need some leadership that knows how to reach across these boundaries but it appears to be at least four years out and maybe more. It's gonna be a rough ride in the meantime.

    3. Re:The return the Confederacy? by LionKimbro · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      Time to update the urban archipelago maps. I bet they still hold.

    4. Re:The return the Confederacy? by metrometro · · Score: 2

      Actually, no. Texas is going to be a swing state in a few cycles, because while some Texans are moving to the right, a lot of other folks are moving to the north, and they tend to vote Democratic. While Texas may be the craziest, it's not nearly as solid red as the current elected officials would suggest.

    5. Re:The return the Confederacy? by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      No one wants to meet in the middle anymore. We need some leadership that knows how to reach across these boundaries but it appears to be at least four years out and maybe more. It's gonna be a rough ride in the meantime.

      Who's this "no one" you're referring to?
      Obama and the Democratic leadership were bending over backwards to try and accomodate Republican demands.
      But, as it turns out, you can't negotiate with fanatics and fundamentalists.

      For example, let's talk about spending and taxes: What do you think a compromise in "the middle" would look like?
      Now here was the Republican Party's idea of compromise: No new taxes, no military spending cuts, all the offsets will be in social spending.
      Romney is gone, so "closing loopholes" has died and the party now is vacillating between "$2 or $3 in spending cuts for $1 in revenue" and "no"

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:The return the Confederacy? by dcollins · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

      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.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  11. Re:Bad at Everything by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Funny

    You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.

  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. succession = racism? by Bodhammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So succession = racism? Does the OP work for MSNBC and Chris "Tingles" Matthews?

    A fundamental disagreement with the government policies does not automatically equal racism but of course you are free to perpetuate that myth...

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  14. Race card by onyxruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Derp is derp, and insinuating that people who don't like Obama must be racist is a mindless of a cliche of derp as derp gets. Divisive language like that used by the story submitter is a perfect example of how /not/ to bring the country back together after a nasty presidential election.

  15. A trade? by SmaryJerry · · Score: 5, Funny

    Remove Texas and bring in Puerta Rico so we don't have to change the flags.

  16. As a Louisiana Resident. by oic0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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"

  17. The country is terminally divided. by hessian · · Score: 2

    Whichever side you agree with, you think the other 50% of the country are wrong.

    They're not going to change their views.

    We have no way to go forward. Bipartisanship is a joke; liberals like methodology, conservatives like results. There is no compatibility.

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

    It's time to either beat down one side, or divide up the country so we all get what we want.

    1861's (and 1776's) solution was states' rights.

    Wonder what we'll pick, and how bad the ensuing war will be.

    1. Re:The country is terminally divided. by LionKimbro · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not about states. It's about cities.

    2. Re:The country is terminally divided. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      Here is a better take from a map perspective: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/

    3. Re:The country is terminally divided. by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

      Or if Hessian prefers to read it from the horses' mouths:

      The declaration of causes of seceding states: http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

      For fun, ctrl-F "slave", then quickly alt-N through the document. "Obsessed much?" But, Hessian, do read through them properly. Note the tone of indignation that anyone would dare object to slavery. Hell, the Mississippian declaration is a check-list of rhetorical arguments still used by conservative politicians and Fox's talking heads:

      "It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice." The lamestream media and liberal schools/teachers' unions are brainwashing the nation against conservative values.

      "It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain." "State's Rights!"... except for the other states. (And those endless appeals to the sacred Founders, who were totally on our side.)

      "It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better." Substitute "welfare" for "freeing slaves".

      "We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers," We're not slave-owners, we're job creators.

      "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst." Or gay rights, or equal pay, or affirmative action.

      "It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause. " It's War! War on Christmas, on Christianity, and on America!

      "It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood." That illegitimate, divisive government; how dare they win elections!

      "It tramples the original equality of the South under foot." No awareness of irony.

      Oh, and there's even made-up "science": "and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun."

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  18. Re:Bad at Everything by HiThere · · Score: 2

    Blazing Saddles!

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  19. Re:first post by JustOK · · Score: 3, Funny

    He seceded from the main thread.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  20. Re:3 Words by bmo · · Score: 2

    >Tennessee's a third world country without federal fucking dollars

    East Tennessee is a third world country *even with* federal fucking dollars.

    --
    BMO

  21. Re:Bad at Everything by lysdexia · · Score: 2

    Mongo like succession.

  22. 803,849 votes by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 2

    803,849 people in Puerto Rico voted to have Puerto Rico become a state compared to 10,000 petitions each in Texas and Louisaiana for secession. I think America will be fine.

  23. That's a pretty feeble stab at the race card by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the idea of secession is an absurdity, and to suggest it immediately marks one whose political input is meaningless.

    Nevertheless, the summary's implication secessionist talk as racist is equally weaksauce.

    To suggest that only racists would react to an overweening Federal government that cheerfully violates any inconvenient statute without hesitation, one which has run roughshod over the clearly-stated limits to Federal power set forth in the US Constitution, and whose constituent elements have both ignored their actual duties (budget? Who bothers with a budget?) and colluded to deliberately circumvent the system of checks and balances set out by the founding fathers (War Powers Act? Who needs such a thing?) is suggesting really that white people are somehow the only one capable of recognizing the disastrous course our country has been on for at least 60 years, and that's fairly patronizing if not outright racist itself.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:That's a pretty feeble stab at the race card by capedgirardeau · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reason it smacks of racism is because we had 8 years of exactly what you are describing under a white President and everyone who is now complaining about it was perfectly happy with it when it was a white guy doing it.

      Funny how all those things are now a problem when they were not a problem at all, in fact you were unAmerican if you said they were a problem, during the Bush II administration.

      --
      Wax on, wax off baby!
    2. Re:That's a pretty feeble stab at the race card by iluvcapra · · Score: 2

      I'm well versed in the works of John C. Calhoun and I'm pretty sure he never used the word "weaksauce."

      And most secessionists aren't racists. Some are racist, and the rest just think racism is an imaginary conspiracy theory invented by liberals in the 1950s in order to shame and embarrass good honest folk, and the real racists in America are the people who talk about diversity.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  24. Oh, Please. This Happens EVERY Election by medv4380 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When Clinton was Elected there was crying about Secession from Conservatives, like all of Texas. When Bush was elected there was crying about Secession from Liberals , like all of California. Just Get Over It, you Lost. Try again next time. Your Princess is In Another Castle.

  25. Good news for the secessionists.... by mseeger · · Score: 3, Funny

    Reasonably capable general is on the market :-)

  26. Re:Is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  27. Re:Something not adding up... by blueturffan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Although personally, I think it'd be about the best thing in the world if the USA were to split apart into North half/South half or something, since OBVIOUSLY this country has some severe agreement issues, and always has ever since the first days of the USA.

    We could call the countries North America and South America. Then we'd have a North America in North America and a South America in North America, but neither a North America nor a South America in South America.

    And I thought the whole Washington/Washington DC thing was unnecessarily confusing.

  28. Re:Wrong Branch by sharkman67 · · Score: 3

    You sir are a complete ass. Ruby Ridge was a tragedy that should never have happened.

  29. Excellent summation of how this would go... by NinjaTekNeeks · · Score: 5, Funny

    (Source : Comments section of - http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/267413-texas-secession-petition-gains-enough-signatures-for-white-house-response) Don't know the origin of this, but I liked it. "Dear Red States We're ticked off at your Neanderthal attitudes and politics and we've decided we're leaving. We in California intend to form our own country and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware that includes New York, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and the rest of the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and especially to the people of the new country of The Enlightened States of America (E.S.A). To sum up briefly: You get Texas , Oklahoma and all the slave states.We get stem cell research and the best beaches.We get Andrew Cuomo and Elizabeth Warren. You get Bobby Jindal and Todd Akin.We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.We get Harvard. You get those ignorant fools at Ole' Miss.We get 85 percent of America 's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama .We get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You get to make the red states pay their fair share. Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunchof single moms.With the Blue States in hand we will have firm control of 80% of the country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92%of the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all livingredwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99%of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, RushLimbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the deathpenalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.We're taking the good weed too. You can have that crap they grow in Mexico.Sincerely,A Citizen of the Enlighten

  30. Why ask the Feds? by kwiqsilver · · Score: 2

    Asking the feds if we can secede is like asking a burglar if we can opt out. This is more of a publicity stunt than a real attempt.
    But if it increases people's awareness of secession and its benefits, then it's a good thing. I'd love to see the US split into 20 or more independent countries. It would be much harder for a single state or federation of states to run around the world killing and destroying the way the US does. It would also be easier for people to flee from an autocratic regime to a more liberal state (by the actual definition of liberal, not the modern political one).

  31. It's more complicated than that by EzInKy · · Score: 2

    Even in "red" states their are "blue" areas. Usually these are located in urban areas where people are more exposed to differing ideas. Maybe this is an evolution challenge? Which human will prove superior, the one that can accomodate the needs of others or the one who can't?

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  32. Re:Wrong Branch by Mullen · · Score: 2

    Because Predator Drones are made in San Diego, California.

    --
    Linux O Muerte!
  33. Let's see them manage that border on their own... by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    Texas has far more of the Mexican border than any other state. If they become an independent nation they will no longer get money from the US government to patrol and defend that border. On top of that, they'll then likely need to keep people from illegally leaving via the northern border...

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  34. Permission to secede? I don't think so by Drunkulus · · Score: 2

    Don't give Texas away. Sell it to Mexico.

  35. sexism at its finest by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-exit-poll

  36. Re:Good Idea by stretch0611 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone with half a brain I know of didn't vote.
    I didn't vote, and none of my friends voted.

    Well if you had more than half a brain, you would have voted. It is your only power to prevent the things you do not like in politics.

    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.

    While I do not see the dictatorship aspect, a two party system is one of our biggest problems... However, you did nothing to stop it, even an AC that replied to you earlier realizes that if a 3rd party gets 5% of the vote, they qualify for federal election funding in the next race. That is the first step to get rid of the two party system.

    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.

    Yet, in spite of this, you still sit home and do not vote. You do absolutely nothing to help yourself and everyone else. You let the corrupt incumbents stay in office instead of attempting to vote them out. All it takes is for our elected officials to actually fear for their job to get them to listen to the people; right now they only listen to the people who finance their campaigns... If they get voted out, or narrowly squeeze by, they will be more likely to listen to the people the next time.

    One thing that the Obama campaign proved this year, is that it is people turning out to vote that will get you elected, not getting more campaign contributions. (Of course, trying to get them to realize that themselves will be difficult at best base on the number of "give me more money" emails they sent out this year.)

    In short, by staying home, you are part of the problem. A smart person realizes that the right to vote is valuable and will exercise that right whenever he/she can.

    --
    Looking for a job?
    Want your resume written professionally?
    DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
  37. Re:Good Idea by codepigeon · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    Then shut the fuck up.

  38. Yes. Secession is racism. by ishpeck · · Score: 2

    It was racism that caused Americans to secede from the British crown. It was racism that caused the Yugoslavians to secede from the Soviet Union (just ask Trotsky!) It was racism that caused Indians to secede from Britain -- that racist jerk Gandhi needs to be put in his place! It is racism that causes Tibetans to want independence from China. It is racism that Indonesia is no longer a Dutch colony. Oh, and I bet you Prince Pedro was being racist when he decided to secede from Portugal, too.

    I'm going to say something that is sure to get me negative kharma from the polemicists but couldn't it be possible that people are dissenting on the policies of the president rather than on the race of the president?

    I got a lot of crap from my family when I told them that I was voting for Obama. Yeah, they were kind of bigots about it. But if you can't actually try to speculate on the rational reasons somebody might want to secede and just chalk it up to "they hate black people" that makes you guilty of bigotry, too.

    --

    "If I were to ask you a hypothetical question, what would you like it to be about?"

  39. Not gonna moderate by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...even though I've got points because this comment is just too out-of-touch to let go without a response.

    The Texas secession will go nowhere, of course. However, you've missed a couple of things.

    First, the kinds of Texans who actually want to secede wouldn't bother with a wall on the border. They'd set up a 1000-yard-wide no-man's land, pepper it with automated machine gun towers and kill anything that moved. That would be a start on the whole "hold off the violent Mexican gangs" thing.

    Second, even more Texans than the sort mentioned in the previous paragraph legally carry concealed weapons and wouldn't hesitate to return fire. The brazen, large-scale Mexican gangs activities seen inside Mexico just wouldn't fly in Texas. There are too many ranchers with too many 7.62s and .50s, and too many LEOs and judges who would simply give them a pat on the back and some reward money for every cartel member they downed.

    Finally, the U.S. would never let Texas secede specifically *because* of national defense issues. Remember, the PANTEX plant is in Texas. Texans are the people who make nukes for the USA. A successfully seceeded Texas would instantly become a nuclear-bomb equipped nation. Now, delivery systems would be a problem but I'm sure they could figure out a way.

    God, these secession petitions are stupid but if you want to insult Texas, work a little harder, OK?