Message from @Zilla
Discord ID: 789926830513586206
What did I miss?
" that not every conservative state shares the same values as Texas" Agreed...but under the founding principles of this nation (the United States) states with vastly different values & policies are meant to exist as one nation. This is accomplished through federalism, where a central government handles foreign policy & protects basic rights, whereas the states get to have vastly different policies & values
It works well...the problem is we & the states abdicated too much power to the central government....all regulations are turning into "all or nothing" policies across all states
What Texan values do you think could be threatened by other conservative states?
If Texas & the other states had a federal system (as the US is meant to have), they'd get along great.
Moreover, Texas is turning less red by the day due to all the commie transplants from CA and the like 😬
Well one of the things that some other conservative states have is Warhawks, which is something against what Texas wants. We dont want constant fighting or war, we just want to be left alone
Also, Texas got a bit more red this year, with one border county going hard red and no new seats earned by the democrats anywhere in Texas legislature
So I haven't done a statistical study on this so I could be wrong here but the impression I get is that most of the warhawks are politicians; some evidence for this is Trump campaigned against needless war and is more popular (among Republicans) than most other Republican presidents in recent times.
Frankly what id like to see more than a Union between Texas and republican states is the 2 independant of each other that decide their own fates but have an econimic and military alliance between each other
Balkanization basically
Essentislly yes
I’d say the states would benefit greatly from being far more independent of one another
Not all of them naturally, there are some states that would starve on their own
But most
Yes there is no denying that
Basically a confederation then, I'm good with that
More “independent states in a Union” than one giant homogeneous state
Not saying a confederation, as a confederstion still implies a form of a Union, which is something i dont want nor what the Texit movement wants to see. What im talking about is Texas being an independant nation seperate entirely from the US and the Republican states nation but still shares econimic and military alliances between them
That can be viewed as a loose confederation but that's just semantics so idc what you want to call it, basically I don't have an issue with that idea, I think smaller nation states work better in general
The end result would essentially be no different how the relationship between the US and the UK is, we share a pool of resources and help protect each other while still being 2 seperste nations able to choose their own futures
So basically like an EU but for independent states
No
I said it can be viewed as a loose confederation because an economic/military alliance does imply some minimal central organization, and some dictionaries list "alliance" as a definition for confederation.
NATO is a better comparison
Yeaah
NATO is a far better comparison
As with the EU model, it still puts 1 person and by extention 1 nation/state above the rest, which leads to animosity between any that have a poor history or relation between each other
While with Nato, its essentially a coalition where even if Nato rules one way, other nations in it can still operate the way they want to
Its why France still uses the FAMAS and revolvers, while at the same time other nations use a standardized version of the M416
> I wonder what would happen if someone posted this on Facebook
@🍁🍃ChildOfTheAutumn🍃🍁 They'd get <:BanHammer:767180158100570158>
Lol probably
F*ckerberg has no chill so I've heard
https://imgur.com/C9xlUlo
HMMMMMMMMMMM
Shhhhhhhh
Maybe thats why none have left the shelf
I mean, I get what you're trying to say here, but other nations in NATO have decided to use other guns (Like Germany's G36 and MG3, or England's L85, or Italy's AR70/90). NATO specified bullet calibers and essentially said "have at it" that's why its the 7.62x51 NATO round, or the 5.56x45 NATO. You'll notice that practically every nation is required to use the same round. Despite that, the US is still looking at and using whatever the heck they want, because they can.
So maybe not the best way to introduce what youre trying to create, because what you want to create likely won't be feasible with how the world and most countries' political agendas work.
Plus the US has major pulling power in NATO, so a decision made by the US essentially makes a decision for many, if not most of NATO. It's the main reason countries like Germany were drawn into Iraq and Afghanistan.
What you have proposed is what the US is supposed to be. The states are pretty much left alone to themselves unless there is a specific threat requiring federal intervention (e.g. war with another nation). The federal govt. Was never supposed to have the power it now holds. That's why there's an electoral college, a multi-stage acceptance process to ratify bills and propositions, and seperate levels of government.
The issue is that the political sphere is similar to a living creature: it will do whatever it can to survive and grow stronger, that's why we're in the mess we have today. The feds gained more power, little by little, until they were able to control nearly every facet of our miserable existence. It can and does happen in every political sphere in history.
It's almost as if we can be stronger than the Fed if we work together instead of going our separate ways.
We have to get out of the Team Sports Mentality of our current political system. I'd wager that most Americans have similar enough ideals that we could easily unite if we weren't driven apart by a 2 Party system.
Too many don't know or care what the other side says because they don't play for the same team.