Can we split peacefully?

[Jason Fry]

Does it address:

National Debt
Military
Social Security
Medicare

Yes it does. Summary.... Each of these is one or two chapters, with sources/references.

National debt the international precedent is that the debt belongs to the mother country, not the breakaway. There is also some precedent for a negotiated transfer of portions of the debt.

Military, the US spends roughly 4% of GDP on military, but the international average is about 2%. We'd need a mutual defense treaty, but Texas already has F16's, C130's, and a fleet of reaper drones, for example. China or Russia haven't attacked Canada or Mexico because of proximity to the US. They'd not attack New Hampshire or Texas for the same reasons.

Social security/medicare... One, there's no guarantee you'll get that anyway. They keep saying running out of money, cuts coming etc. Two, there's already precedent for people who live in other countries to draw US benefits if the benefits were earned in the US. Final answer, it'll depend. Does the US take the moral low road and screw over every individual who paid into the system, or do they honor their commitments when citizens choose other governance? Final final answer, do you really think an independent state would let all their grandmas die in the ditch? It'll be up to each new country to figure out what kind of social programs they want or need.

[tps7742]

Zero chance.

Why?
Because the other side knows they can't do anything without us. It's all about the money.

I always had the same thought agrabout splitting the Country right up the middle. Conservatives on one side, liberals on the other. They'd never do that either because they know how screwed they'd be. They'd never admit it though but what other excuse do they really have?

I agree with RR on this above. It will never happen in my meager opinion.
If Texas would have stayed Tejas I wouldn’t be here as a Texan. 😁 Also the Pemex would own all our energy resources.

[rolylane6]

The whole reason to write this book is to prevent a civil war. I have two kids in the military. When the split happens, some places won't be able to resist the temptation to use violence to "maintain unity." That's the same argument that the wife beater uses.... "If you leave, I'll kill you."

Texas is in a better position than many places. We'll still have plenty to work out, as Austin/Houston/DFW are very different from the rest of the state.

The liberal left and their cohorts (the DC swamp) stands against everything the conservative right believes in and will "kill" the right to prevent them leaving, taking their work ethic and money with them, and therefore no means to continue their agenda.

"Wife beater" is a good analogy except the wife here isn't a woman and can fight back, hard. I don't see a split without violence.

[Drycreek3189]

Exactly how are you gonna get the big city libs out of Texas ? We are close to a 50/50 split now, just look at Cruz’s last election. If Cornyn wasn’t a RINO he’d be gone already. I won’t vote for the **** now.

[tvc184]

A peaceful split would seem to require a vote in Texas to separate and then acceptance by the US.

That will never happen.

At the moment the state is fairly closely split between the GOP and Democrats. So to start probably most Democrats (about 95% of them) will vote to stay in the US. Before the Republican, Libertarian, etc., people vote, we are already at about 45% of the population against separation.

It would only take a small percentage of “other than Democrats” to vote to stay in the union. I would venture to guess that maybe half of the “others” would vote to stay.

The final vote will therefore be about 65%-70% to stay in the US or around 2/3 of the vote.

There is no point discussing the likelihood of the US accepting a peaceful separation when Texas won’t vote to secede.

If there is a civil war it will be inside of Texas with Texans fighting Texans for the right to separate. One side will have military support from the US and it won’t be the side who wants to secede.

It makes for an interesting topic but interesting discussions don’t always include reality. Many times they delve into theory of the “what if”.

[Jason Fry]

On the surface, your analysis of "they'll never vote that way" makes sense. Truth is, the actual percentage of voters is very low. Did you know only 110K people voted in the Iowa caucuses? That one tiny slice eliminated some candidates altogether. In Texas, only about 16% of registered voters actually vote. Whoever shows up, that's who "wins." Even if Texas is close and/or competitive, turnout will be the answer to the whole thing.

While the book is long on Texas examples since that's my home state, I make the case that every state has the right. California would also be better of independent, without all us backwoods Texans dragging down their environmental and social agendas.

I know my position is idealistic, as it's based on the premise that the key to me having what I want is to also let "them" have what they want. There's no "war" if nobody fires the first shot. The problem with tribalism isn't tribes, it's elements within each tribe who would use their power or influence to coerce other tribes.

My "answer" is to let Lubbock ban abortions and let Austin offer them for free. Let California go all solar and whatever, so long as we get to generate power with the natural gas that we literally can't give away. Local control and smaller political units, mixed with free trade and fair representation.

[Darton]

Interesting concept, looking forward to the read!

[McPatrickClan]

I have had the same sad thought for a while now... the only difference (unless things change dramatically) is how much of our land us Texans are able to keep. I'm a transplant from up North. Trust me, Texas has a great thing going and at this point, rather than exporting what is good about Texas, we may be better off preserving what is good about Texas.

My lone hope is that the Baby Boomers are the fuel for this division and that as they age out, many of their zero sum ways age out with them. Yes, there are younger people who play that way, but I'd argue they learned much of it from the Boomers.

[McPatrickClan]

Jason, I looked for your book on Amazon and couldn't pre-order it. How can I pre-order a copy now?

[camoclad]

If the goal is a peaceful disruption, why not just convene the states as provided by the constitution to address the grievances?

Will take a look at your book.

[Jason Fry]

Jason, I looked for your book on Amazon and couldn't pre-order it. How can I pre-order a copy now?

It's not on Amazon yet. Should be by the end of next week. For now, you can preorder direct from me. www.national-divorce.com

I'll have copies in hand by the end of September. Kindle should be ready pretty soon, and Amazon print on demand timeline isnt set yet, but it's coming.

I talk about constitutional amendments some. Come to find out, there have only been two constitutional amendments passed since 1972, that's the last 22% of US history. And of those two, one of them was first proposed in 1789 and only ratified in 1992. I think the odds of 2/3 of everybody agreeing on anything are even greater than the odds of a peaceful separation.

We've got to find people WE agree with, set our own terms, and also let others find people THEY agree with and set their own terms.

[Brute Killer]

. We'll still have plenty to work out, as Austin/Houston/DFW are very different from the rest of the state.

Just tell Swalwell that those 3 cities hold all of the rebels and he will nuke them.
Problem solved! 🤣

[tvc184]

On the surface, your analysis of "they'll never vote that way" makes sense. Truth is, the actual percentage of voters is very low. Did you know only 110K people voted in the Iowa caucuses? That one tiny slice eliminated some candidates altogether. In Texas, only about 16% of registered voters actually vote. Whoever shows up, that's who "wins." Even if Texas is close and/or competitive, turnout will be the answer to the whole thing……

Caucuses are stupid. I am surprised that they get that many people to show up. There is no comparison of a presidential election or an election to secede from the union to a party caucus.

In the actual election statista. com shows Iowa with a 73.2% turnout. On Wikipedia it shows a 70-75% Iowa turnout. Ballotpedia has Iowa in the last presidential election at 73.25%.

In Texas Wikipedia shows a 60-65% turnout in Texas. Statista. com has Texas at 60.4% or matching Wikipedia. Ballotoedia shows Texas with a 60.42% turnout.

I am not sure where you are getting your numbers but nothing that I have looked up shows a 16% turnout of registered voters in Texas.

[Jason Fry]

Think my numbers come from the primary, and from memory. I think your numbers for the general are pretty close. And statistically secession referendum have about 80% turnout, worldwide, regardless of previous trends

[retrieverman]

I have a very low opinion of my fellow man, and I don’t believe there’s going to be any “significant” split because in today’s world very few actually have principles they’re willing to stand up for.
As much as I’d love to see President Trump back in the White House, I’m expecting the same lying, cheating, and stealing to install Kamel Toe and Tampon Tim.