Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: Can we just keep Austin?

  1. #1
    Senior Member gimmethesimplelife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    6,706

    Can we just keep Austin?

    What do you make of Governor Abbott's refusal to comply with Federal law at the border? Is it really that far out there to think succession may end out on the table? Such would not break my heart - other than the loss of Austin. Rob

  2. #2
    Senior Member Tradd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    The Suburban Midwest
    Posts
    7,463
    The Feds aren't doing shit. Can't really blame TX for what they're doing when they're essentially being invaded.

    Now I'd be happy to see California gone.

  3. #3
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    9,401
    Quote Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife View Post
    What do you make of Governor Abbott's refusal to comply with Federal law at the border?
    It's a shame that the Federal Government would purposely put any state into that situation.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    5,483
    These guys (both sides) have had years to fix this issue but they don't. I wonder why?? Texas has been threatening succession for years. Bleecchh!!

  5. #5
    Senior Member Rogar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,225
    Texas gets a huge amount of Federal aid. I seriously doubt they would want to get cut off and think the talk is just bluster. The loss of electoral votes could have some positive effects on politics, though. I'm all for state's rights, even when it comes to who's insurrectionist's names appear on ballots, but the disrespect for the Supreme Court of the nation is a little disturbing.
    "what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" Mary Oliver

  6. #6
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    It's a shame that the Federal Government would purposely put any state into that situation.
    Indeed. I can't imagine the "logic" that went into the republicans in congress deciding not to do anything about it now that they have been told by their dear leader that he wants this to remain a problem so that he can campaign on it.

  7. #7
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    9,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Rogar View Post
    Texas gets a huge amount of Federal aid. I seriously doubt they would want to get cut off and think the talk is just bluster.
    That's an interesting bit of speculation. I wonder how whatever Federal aid received stacks up against revenue the Feds receive from Texas and its citizens?

    The loss of electoral votes could have some positive effects on politics, though.
    If those so inclined to think that way would simply ask, I'm sure the current administration and it's bureaucratic handlers might simply expel pesky red states for such nebulous offenses as failure to enforce approved groupthink among its subjects or perhaps the crime of allowing free expression resulting in insufficient subservience.
    Last edited by Alan; 2-4-24 at 11:45pm.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  8. #8
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    9,401
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    Indeed. I can't imagine the "logic" that went into the republicans in congress deciding not to do anything about it now that they have been told by their dear leader that he wants this to remain a problem so that he can campaign on it.
    I think the "logic" includes the fact that there are already laws to deal with the problem if that were a government priority, so it would seem illogical to provide additional funds to make not following the law profitable to everyone but the taxpayer.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  9. #9
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    I think the "logic" includes the fact that there are already laws to deal with the problem if that were a government priority, so it would seem illogical to provide additional funds to make not following the law profitable to everyone but the taxpayer.
    Which laws are not being followed?

  10. #10
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    9,401
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    Which laws are not being followed?
    I think the most significant one is the requirement for asylum seekers to apply for asylum at the nearest country to the country they are seeking to escape (although that may be more of an international principle rather than a US law), as well as the requirement that asylum seekers must enter the country at approved international ports of entry. Neither of those requirements are being enforced.

    There are also restrictions on those seeking asylum for purely economic reasons although current estimates reveal that something over 80% of the millions of illegal immigrants already released into the United States should have been denied on the basis of that requirement alone.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •