New Hampshire Seccession

[Snoopy]

Earlier this week, there was a vote in New Hampshire for secession from the Union, and it fell short 32 votes.

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.h...istId=playlist

Does anyone have more info on this? I am having trouble finding more info besides the fact that the vote failed by a very small number of votes.

[Captain Jin]

And if it passed then what? Nothing. No state can legally secede from the union.

[VALIS]

it fell short 32 votes.

With only 32 actually voting.

[Surgeon]

First of all, this has been mentioned before on this forum...

Second of all, I don't get why everyone is saying it's a secession. The bill says they can refuse to adhere to a federal law which violates the Constitution, not that they're leaving the union.

[Erik]

The representative in the video explicitly says this isn't about secession but about holding the federal government to the constitution.

But I guess "secession" sounds more sexy and is more attention grabbing.

[Captain Jin]

And in the end that's all they care about is attention.

[Justinian]

I have to say that I just don't see this going anywhere. It would take something much more divisive then anything we're going through now for any states to actually "secede", and just as many people can argue that the federal government is within its rights; in the end it's all really just politicking.

I wish everyone would stop being so sensational and embrace the best thing about democracy with term limits: if you don't like how an administration is running things, you vote for someone else when their time is up. We, the people of the United States, voted in this current administration (at least, we voted in the President and Vice President of said administration) and we have to live with the consequences, both good and bad. Not whine when we don't get what we want. This goes for liberals and conservatives.

[Denny Crane!]

I have to say that I just don't see this going anywhere. It would take something much more divisive then anything we're going through now for any states to actually "secede", and just as many people can argue that the federal government is within its rights; in the end it's all really just politicking.

I wish everyone would stop being so sensational and embrace the best thing about democracy with term limits: if you don't like how an administration is running things, you vote for someone else when their time is up. We, the people of the United States, voted in this current administration (at least, we voted in the President and Vice President of said administration) and we have to live with the consequences, both good and bad. Not whine when we don't get what we want. This goes for liberals and conservatives.

More than ever, libertarian socialist ideas are relevant, and the population is very much open to them. Despite a huge mass of corporate propaganda, outside of educated circles, people still maintain pretty much their traditional attitudes. In the US, for example, more than 80% of the population regard the economic system as inherently unfair and the political system as a fraud, which serves the special interests, not the people.

So called representative systems are not representative. There is usually little choice and god forbid if you have a minority opinion or one that does not conform to the opinions of the masses or of special interests such as cannabis is OK (as it happens that is the view of the majority here but still the government doesn't listen, not one of the choices), in the UK almost everyone wants euthanasia yet no party has it attached as a policy and people still risk getting jailed.

Yeah the system works

[Justinian]

More than ever, libertarian socialist ideas are relevant, and the population is very much open to them. Despite a huge mass of corporate propaganda, outside of educated circles, people still maintain pretty much their traditional attitudes. In the US, for example, more than 80% of the population regard the economic system as inherently unfair and the political system as a fraud, which serves the special interests, not the people.

So called representative systems are not representative. There is usually little choice and god forbid if you have a minority opinion or one that does not conform to the opinions of the masses or of special interests such as cannabis is OK (as it happens that is the view of the majority here but still the government doesn't listen, not one of the choices), in the UK almost everyone wants euthanasia yet no party has it attached as a policy and people still risk getting jailed.

Yeah the system works

Obviously the system does not work perfectly. Plenty of things about the American system in particular are broken; the electoral college, the fact that elections are picking the lesser of two evils because no third party can ever win or have its interests represented.

But "some things don't work" is not a logical reason to split apart a powerful nation and break a system which has, for all its faults (particularly recently with the economy), kept the standard of living in America much higher than in places that are not blessed with such a 'system'. If you think our system is broken, you only need to venture a gaze to that country immediately south of us.

There is strength in unity and throwing around words like 'secession' is nothing more than sensationalism.

[Denny Crane!]

Kiljan: democracy is utopian as I've proved.

Obviously the system does not work perfectly. Plenty of things about the American system in particular are broken; the electoral college, the fact that elections are picking the lesser of two evils because no third party can ever win or have its interests represented.

Its not picking the lesser of two evils, such a statement simplifies the problem beyond rational comprehension.

But "some things don't work" is not a logical reason to split apart a powerful nation and break a system which has, for all its faults (particularly recently with the economy), kept the standard of living in America much higher than in places that are not blessed with such a 'system'.

The fact that something has a marginal success means that if a better way exists you shouldn't strive for it.

Such amazing logic would have meant the british government never evolved from its industrial revolution status, marvelous. Suffrage? Who needs it! We've done fine the way we've always managed!

In arguements from utility your point falls down, in arguements from morality the state falls down. There is now no reason not to look for something better.

If you think our system is broken, you only need to venture a gaze to that country immediately south of us.

See above your logic is less than impecable. One marginal tepid success does not invalidate looking at more viable solutions.

There is strength in unity and throwing around words like 'secession' is nothing more than sensationalism.

I think going off your comments your terrified to look at new philosophies and use sensationalism to describe perfectly valid criticisms and blanket yourself against any other ideas. I hope that works out, god knows it does for many others.

[Justinian]

Its not picking the lesser of two evils, such a statement simplifies the problem beyond rational comprehension.

In the United States, there is a Republican presidential candidate and a Democrat presidential candidate. If you vote for anyone else, you are throwing your vote away because it is impossible for a 3rd party to win in the current American political climate. You may be making a statement, but in effect, it is the same as not voting at all. So the choice of the nation is between a Republican and a Democrat. Are you going to tell me those are not the lesser of two evils?

The fact that something has a marginal success means that if a better way exists you shouldn't strive for it.

Such amazing logic would have meant the british government never evolved from its industrial revolution status, marvelous. Suffrage? Who needs it! We've done fine the way we've always managed!

In arguements from utility your point falls down, in arguements from morality the state falls down. There is now no reason not to look for something better.

You are misconstruing my point. (Also is this some kind of hot button issue for you? Because you're coming on really strong) A minor tiff with the "feds" over whatever it is they're so irate about, is not a viable reason to take such drastic a measure as seceding from the Union. All you did was create a strawman which makes my point to be "status quo, status quo, status quo". You know me, so I'd assume you know I'm not representing the status quo -- in terms of suffrage, civil rights, social change, someone always benefits. No one would benefit from New Hampshire's secession; there is nothing to gain at all, and lots of money and support and infrastructure to lose. It seems to be you're arguing the "principle of the thing", whereas I am arguing the facts.

What might be true for other places and other people is not true for New Hampshire. That is a state that could not survive on its own. The only two states that could be their own individual countries would be Texas, California and possibly New York (though California's economy is down the tubes). Every single person in New Hampshire would lose from a "secession". No one would gain anything except the people advocating this for whatever their own agenda is. We both are proponents of logic so please show me the logic in taking some vague, minor issues and trying to secede over them. If there was a benefit to seceding, it would just be a paper-thin excuse. Since there are no benefits, it's just stupidity.

Would you consider it logical for Scotland to secede from the UK because they didn't like the looks of that Gordon Brown feller? Ignoring the fact that Scotland is much larger than New Hampshire?

The most ironic part is that New Hampshire does not even want to secede, only rein in what many people view as a government that is stepping outside of its Constitutional bounds. It is sensationalism to pretend like it is; creating mountains out of molehills, unless you have a different definition of sensationalism of which I am not aware.

I think going off your comments your terrified to look at new philosophies and use sensationalism to describe perfectly valid criticisms and blanket yourself against any other ideas. I hope that works out, god knows it does for many others.

Wow, wow, Seneca, pump the brakes. I don't know how you managed to go from me making a few posts about NH's fake secession to you passing judgment on my entire personality and worldview (terrified to look at new philosophies? aren't you being a bit melodramatic there?) based off those same flimsy comments. It seems to me that your psychoanalysis of Justinian has no real place in this thread or any thread and quite honestly, I don't see the point of it, or how it relates to the discussion. If you are that concerned about my "terror" at looking at new philosophies and worldviews, drop me a PM and I can make a pretty convincing argument as to the inaccuracy of that assesment (seeing as when I joined this site almost five years ago, I was much younger and happened to be a conservative, and now after growth and the actual challenging of my worldviews, I'm a liberal with, if I do say so myself, a much better idea of where I stand and why).

Seriously, like I said, did I hit a hot topic here or something, because you are coming on really strong and I don't know whether to be bemused or insulted.

[Kiljan Arslan]

notice seneca how the majority didn't want to secede I think it still works. works better than utopianism.

[Mythos]

Speaking of New Hampshire, has anyone else come upon this. I found it by accident the other day and I was quite intrigued.

[Fluttershy]

Speaking of New Hampshire, has anyone else come upon this. I found it by accident the other day and I was quite intrigued.

Crazys need to stay outta my state!!! Seriously theres 49 other states an these lunys pick mine

[Osceola]

Claiming this is about secession is utterly ing ridiculous, and classic Faux news whoredom.

It's about not enforcing laws from the Federal govt. deemed un-constitutional. More power to them on that. I'm a strong believer in states rights, like legalising medicinal mary jane, or regulated prostitution in Nevada.

[IrishHitman]

Claiming this is about secession is utterly ing ridiculous, and classic Faux news whoredom.

Well said.

[Martin N]

As much as i would like this to happen, 1 state goes, the whole dominos falls, they wouldent last on there own, its too late now, the federal government pulls all the strings.

[Scar Face]

Moderator should edit the title, as its a blatant lie. ****ing idiots down their in new hampshire, why the hell would they vote that down?

[Snoopy]

Actually the FSP is basically a plan by a bunch of Libertarian-esque types to "take over" New Hampshire. Thus far, around 100 people have actually gone there, and a couple thousand pledged to go at some point.

I think I provided a really crappy source, since I KNOW Faux was not the primary media source for this, there is a less biased source SOMEWHERE, I know it!

No, this is not unconstitutional. Almost all states in the USA joined on the condition that they could pull out whenever they wanted (this especially being the case in Texas). Lincoln just didn't want his term to say "He let half the USA and most of its agricultural centre just drift away" so he took a tough stance and caused lots of Americans to die for no good reason.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Actually the FSP is basically a plan by a bunch of Libertarian-esque types to "take over" New Hampshire. Thus far, around 100 people have actually gone there, and a couple thousand pledged to go at some point.

I think I provided a really crappy source, since I KNOW Faux was not the primary media source for this, there is a less biased source SOMEWHERE, I know it!

No, this is not unconstitutional. Almost all states in the USA joined on the condition that they could pull out whenever they wanted (this especially being the case in Texas). Lincoln just didn't want his term to say "He let half the USA and most of its agricultural centre just drift away" so he took a tough stance and caused lots of Americans to die for no good reason.

yeah really except kentucky and virginia name the others.

Because having a hissy fit over a lost election is in no way legitimate.